[USML Announce] Rules issues

Sat Mar 27 18:35:03 EDT 2010

Best

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2010, at 1:14 PM, springkerb at aol.com wrote:

> Must be something Bud Selig decided--which would obviously make it  
> wrong.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Winick <jhwinick at aol.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 12:25 pm
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Rules issues
>
> Actually Mark K, the play in game stats are regarded as regular  
> season by no less an authority than major league baseball. This can  
> be confirmed by checking the Baseball Register. That being said, I  
> don't care how we treat the stats, but they are regular season stats.
>
>  We have contingent bidding, so we ought to check the "yes" box. But  
> I would like to understand how they priortize the bidding to make  
> sure they're truly contingent bids with some identified priority so  
> we don't have any more Teixeira like situations.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 27, 2010, at 10:52 AM, springkerb at aol.com wrote:
>
>> 1.  No.  That's a play-off game, not a regular season game.  Also,  
>> including such a game would reward league teams that just happen to  
>> have players on the MLB teams involved (and penalize those that  
>> don't).  I'm not sure I see a need to "codify" this rule, since our  
>> existing rules (in keeping with the standard rule), base league  
>> results on "cumulative statistics during the regular  
>> season."  (Emphasis added.)  To me at least, it is obvious that  
>> "the regular season" does not include a play-in game or one-game  
>> playoff or whatever you want to call it.  One can easily determine  
>> that by checking the regular-season schedules for 2010.  No such  
>> games are on the schedule.
>>
>> 2.  Yes, although I'm not sure I see a need to "codify" this one  
>> either, as it seem to be implicit in our existing rule governing  
>> contingent bidding.  However, I agree that the existing rule could  
>> be clarified if that is deemed appropriate and do not oppose doing  
>> so.
>>
>> I don't think we completed the vote on handling rotation draft  
>> choices that have left the AL.  Obviously, my proposal wasn't  
>> getting much support, but did we get enough votes to constitute a  
>> majority for either of the proposals on that issue?
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Blocker <mbblocker at aol.com>
>> To: 'USML Announcements' <announce at usml.net>
>> Sent: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 8:01 am
>> Subject: [USML Announce] Rules issues
>>
>> League:
>>
>>   This email concerns minor details of our rules, so if you are  
>> uninterested in this topic, you can stop reading.  If you are, read  
>> on.
>>
>>   Onroto has made a number of enhancements to its system this  
>> year.  Most of these enhancements are extremely helpful in running  
>> our league.  Here are two examples: (1) Onroto now has  
>> functionality for leagues that use a salary cap and floor; in the  
>> past we had to look manually to see if teams were over/under, and  
>> then I sent an email chiding the owner; now you will not be  
>> permitted to make moves that put you out of compliance; and (2)  
>> Onroto now implements the rules regarding minimum ABs and IPs; the  
>> end-of-year standings will automatically be adjusted in accordance  
>> with our rules if a team does not hit the mandated floors.
>>
>>   However, Onroto has now added some functionality that requires  
>> discussion on how to implement.  Here are the issues:
>>
>> 1.        OnRoto asks if we want the stats of any play-in game (an  
>> MLB game to decide who gets into the playoffs) counted as part of  
>> our league stats.  This is not addressed in our rules (see Articles  
>> X and XI) and I cannot recall how we have handled this in the past;  
>> maybe others can.  But plainly the time is now to make sure we are  
>> all on the same page on this one.  I also favor codifying whatever  
>> we decide in the rules, but that is another issue.
>>
>> 2.       OnRoto now also asks if FAAB bids can exceed your total  
>> budget.  Here is the text of the question posed by Onroto in the  
>> league setup pages:  ?In a very small number of leagues, the sum o 
>> f an owner's pending bids can not exceed his remaining balance. Fo 
>> r instance, if you have $50 left, you may not bid $20 on each of 3 
>>  players. You may bid $20 on one player and place contingent bids  
>> of $20 on each of two other players as your 2nd and 3rd choices sh 
>> ould you not get the first player -- you just can't try to pick up 
>>  all 3 players at once. Do you use this rule (most leagues will wa 
>> nt to say "no" to this).?  My view is that we are among the  
>> ?very small number of leagues? that use this rule and should  
>> answer this question YES; i.e., we do NOT allow non-contingent bid 
>> s that exceed available a team?s remaining FAAB budget.  Do you ag 
>> ree?  I also favor codifying this rule in our league rules.
>>
>>   Let me know.
>>
>>   Mark B.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> announce mailing list
>> announce at usml.net
>> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
>> _______________________________________________
>> announce mailing list
>> announce at usml.net
>> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
> =
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
> _______________________________________________
> announce mailing list
> announce at usml.net
> http://lists.usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lyra.siteprotect.com/pipermail/announce/attachments/20100327/77f83cf5/attachment-0001.htm