Just in case anyone has a problem with me airing this here . . . I will tell you that I have already had this conversation with the 35+ commish. We have rules governing how many games it takes to qualify for the playoffs for a very good reason. Why is it that the commissioner can waive those rules entirely at his own discretion?! David Ames and Scott Bonnano were allowed to play for the Dodgers even though they both played in only 5 of the teams 17 regular season games. In a league that plays 20 games, that number should be 7 games to qualify. Even if you only use the 17 games that they actually played, they would have needed 6 games. Now I understand that there is a provision for players who missed games due to injury and become healthy by playoff time, but this ruling had nothing to do with that. David Ames played in 14 of his team's 19 games in the 25+ division, and Scott Bonnano has pplayed in 11 of his team's 14 games in the 45's, so it wasn't that. The explanation I got was that the Dodgers didn't play all of their games so the commissioner was going to give the players credit for the games that the team didn't play. Here is my problem with that: If a guy was unable to make 1/3 of the games during the year, why would we give him credit for all of the games that his team didn't make up. If you gave them credit for 1/3 of the games that the team didn't play, then they still would not have qualified (1 game of final 3 added = 6 games of 20). I know it is going to sound like sour grapes and I weighed that before typing this, but That is not my motivation at all. I congratulate the Dodgers on their wins on the field and I don't blame them for petitioning for Ames and Bonnano to be qualified for the playoffs. I don't blame Dave and Scott for taking advantage of this ruling by our commissioner. I don't even blame Tommie Smith, even though I think that his ruling was a grievous error. I just want to make sure that the light is shined on this, so that it doesn't happen again, in this division or others. My belief is that if you can't show up to just 1/3 of your teams games (especially while you are playing elsewhere), you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the playoffs! Black and White! Plain and Simple! There should be no room for interpretation.
Just one man's opinion. The topic is now open for discussion, and that is what this forum is supposed to be for.
-- Edited by mgirard11 on Friday 24th of August 2012 08:34:56 AM
I might take this a step further re: injury waivers: If you are injured, said player(s) should still be required to show up and sit on the bench. There are other things an injured player can do, such as coach a base or keep the book. Mark Dabney missed playing our last game because of a severly pulled hammie. He still came to support his teammates.
I have always said there are two reasons for missing a game: Family and work. I'm sure there are others many of you will argue for, but what's more important than family and work? Injury? Unless you're bed-ridden, can't drive or the doctor tells you flat out not to leave the house, I see no reason to not show up for the minimum number of games to qualify for the playoffs. Obviously, I'm not talking heart attack; arm or leg in a cast ... you get the picture.
When I was the 48 Commish, Tom Maney had back surgery and missed most of a full season. He rehabbed and was healthy enough for the playoffs. His manager's waiver-request was honored. Can't expect a guy who had back surgery to drive. But, indeed he showed up for some games once the doctor cleared him to drive. He didn't play, but was healthy enough to drive and support his teammates. Plus, Tommy almost NEVER misses games.
Over the years, I have seen waivers handed out like entitlements. Many years ago, a team's top pitcher left the team for another. The manager of the team who lost that player asked for a waiver for a pitcher a year too young for that division. The manager told the Commissioner that it wasn't fair if he couldn't replace his ace with another top-flight pitcher. The waiver was honored and none of the other managers were informed. Because of that decision, it cost an unsuspecting team a shot in the finals because the waivered-pitcher won some key games down the stretch and in the playoffs. Talk about unfair or disrespecting the rules.
And that is a major part of the issue. A team whose players show up and qualify should not be penalized by a team whose players can't show up.
Part of the rule I'd like to see changed also pertaines to players who show up but aren't credited when the game is rained out prior to being a legal game. When a player takes the time or adjusts his work/family schedule to make a game, then he plays two innings when the rains come, should be credited.
There are many other rules that are worthless in my view. Rules get broken all the time. I've said it a million times: Why have rules if we can't, or don't, want to adhere to them?
Jim Konstantakis BoD Giants Whiz Kids
-- Edited by sfgiants on Friday 24th of August 2012 10:34:05 AM
One of the games that the Dodgers "didn't get to play" was a MAY rain out vs the Hummnbirds. The game was rained out in May and was never rescheduled. How can that be seen as a reason to offer a waiver? C'mon. It can be done correctly . . . just look to Scott Bonnano, who is the 45+ Commissioner. All teams will play all of their games without extending the season and that division only has use of two fields, and one of those was taken away for a few weeks. I was just trying to say that using a waiver because a team didn't play all of its games is bogus. Correct me if I am wrong, but the waiver was put in place solely for instances of injury. The rule is lenient enough with the requirement being just a third of the total games played.
-- Edited by mgirard11 on Friday 24th of August 2012 10:57:02 AM
Actually, my first post addressed my input on the granting of waivers. Simple math. A percentage of games missed should be added to the actual number of games played. That's my opinion but not the decision made by the Commissioner.
FWIW, Tommy gets a load of flack for his job. Everyone's a critic; but I'd like to see those critics put in the same spot and see them make absolutely everyone happy.
As far as schedule incompletions? I can't say why. The Dodgers did their part and offered Ravena High School as a potential field for makeups - she ain't pretty but she has four bases and an open space to play a game. I think we ended up playing three games there (or so).
It's a collaborative effort and all the managers need to be on board with the Commissioner who should have the backing of the board. That's how good governance works.
And now, back to my duties as a Superhero.
-- Edited by The_Hurricane on Friday 24th of August 2012 12:31:23 PM
Nope, it never got to a vote. Some managers even changed their original stance (and to the Cubs' credit, their manager was one who changed his mind and agreed the season should be extended to accommodate as many games as possible). But we had too many dissenting opinions and the teams with the least number of games played didn't give their input in time.
If rules were meant to be enforced in a "Black and White" fashion, then why bother to have a Commissioner at all? If rules are rules then just enforce them in a self-policing fashion and forget paying someone to be a Commissioner. Saves money, time and effort.
However, I envision a league with a lot of forfeits and angst with stringent and unbending rules.
While I am venting, a whole lot of problems could be solved with an improved method of keeping valid statistics. The current system allows for far too much ambiguous information. Improved bookkeeping would also go a long way.
-- Edited by The_Hurricane on Friday 24th of August 2012 12:55:57 PM
I agree that waivers are not a black and white issue.
We discussed this a little bit at our board meeting the other night ..... along with similar issues like code of conduct violations that are not black and white.
My personal opinion as a player and manager is that the only reason waivers should be issued is for injuries ...... and for injuries only. If someone can't make the minimum number of required games then they are not really a part of that team and have no business being there for the playoffs.
As a manager i don't think it is fair for other teams to do it and like to think i would not ask for a waiver unless it was an injury (we will see how serious i am if darrell doesn't show sunday and only has 7 games!)
As a player i think the idea of riding the pine during the playoffs while someone who didn't make the minimum number of games takes my spot is insulting.
I think the way you need to address this Mike is to have your manager bring it up with the other managers at the meeting and go from there. I know in the 45's we have a much stricter policy (50% of games versus 35%) and very limited waivers.
The Commissioner's job is to either enforce the rules or allow for dispensation. The rules are in place, but often times mitigating circumstances arise and the Commissioner exists to make a ruling based upon mitigating circumstances.
An overwhelming majority of the teams in the 35+ Division did not play their full games. It was Tommy's call on how to rule on the excpetions for the minimum games played rule.
We had more than 25% of our games end in ties due to time limitations, we lost games due to rain outs, we had players complaining about fields. Yet, I don't recall very many posts from players or managers offering to secure more fields so we could mitigate the problem. And those fields that were offered as emergency fields were dumps and players then complained about field conditions.
There was another difficult decision that was glossed over: how about what happened to the Humm'n'Birds? They played the fewest games of any team and wound up one single point behind the Dodgers for the #2 seed. Had they been allowed to play those extra games, chances are they wind up ahead of the Dodgers and get two games in Kingston instead of one.
Tommy was also gracious in offering to extend the season in order for all the teams to get all the games in they can and the managers declined.
Everyone was offered every opportunity to make things "better."
The best thing to do is make the necessary changes for next year and move on. Yes. I know. Easy for me to say since my team won the Championship, but I was critical of my own team's decisions and comments earlier this year when all this stuff was happening.
And for those looking for the "black and white" scenario, that's never going to happen. It's the way adolescents solve problems - not adults.
J I know it is going to sound like sour grapes and I weighed that before typing this, but That is not my motivation at all. I congratulate the Dodgers on their wins on the field and I don't blame them for petitioning for Ames and Bonnano to be qualified for the playoffs. I don't blame Dave and Scott for taking advantage of this ruling by our commissioner. I don't even blame Tommie Smith, even though I think that his ruling was a grievous error. I just want to make sure that the light is shined on this, so that it doesn't happen again, in this division or others. My belief is that if you can't show up to just 1/3 of your teams games (especially while you are playing elsewhere), you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the playoffs! Black and White! Plain and Simple! There should be no room for interpretation.
Just one man's opinion. The topic is now open for discussion, and that is what this forum is supposed to be for.
-- Edited by mgirard11 on Friday 24th of August 2012 08:34:56 AM
Sounds to me like he is addressing it for the future by shining light on it ...
this is an interesting topic and one that warrants discussion (and is already being discussed)
i agree with you mike ..... each division should set a minimum number of games in order to be eligible for them and then stick with it ..... if a player is healthy and doesn't make 50% of his games then he really is not a part of that team
The process was called "bogus" and he is singling out one team. I offered a different scenario which showed how a different team was screwed because we as a league decided not to extend the season which also contributed to the problem.
And in the event a schedule is not completed, John? Are you penalizing the player or the team?
My comments about waivers have all been addressed to the concept in general Rob. I was not and am not involved in the specific game being mentioned and i will let you and Mike address whether his concern is sour grapes or looking to improve the process going forward.
Why wasn't the schedule completed?? ...... as i mentioned the entire month of July was bone dry and if it was important to get games made up then there was ample time.... if they don't get made up in a timely manner and it gets to the end of the season and games don't get played because too many rainouts backed up that is an issue between the manager and his players.
The whole idea here was to get some input on waivers ...... any chance you have some input on that?
Rob, I believe the 35 managers voted to extend the season when it came back up when teams didnt have enough games in. Original voting at the beginning of the year was to have a cutoff date etc. Teams should be responsible to reschedule games in the 48 hr time window or the commish should resched for them. No other way to fix it but to follow the rule. I had rain outs and i had to get the field, call the umps etc to get the games in. Not ideal as Tommy was busyetc. but it got done. No one is at fault it just needs to be stressed that the games need to get done. Waivers IMO are so hard to gauge because who says a manager wont say a guy was injured etc. to bolster his roster come playoff time. Commissioners and Board Members are not around individual teams to monitor what is legit and not legit. Play or show up to seven games...simple rule and easy to enforce. Players who are injured should come to games I agree with Jim. Why not try to take the Gray areas out of the Black and White rules we use??? just my opinion....thanks
If I remember correctly after the vote later in the season Tommy referred it to John Reel who said keep it as is...it has been a bit but I believe thats how it went.
That is NOT exactly how it went Rob... To Jim's credit, he was the one who did NOT change his mind and ALWAYS wanted an extended season, right from the beginning! No way you could know that as you weren't at the pre-season managers meeting and hence understandable, but I'm just saying - your "facts" are inaccurate... I voted with him at the beginning of the season as I knew there would be such issues, yet he and I were rather poo-pooed and NO other manager or the commish said anything as they were all perfectly ok with an early hard date, only to change their tunes later as the season evolved ~ as did I... And we each had our own equally legitimate reasons as things changed... Thing is, It was indeed also up for a vote, but it was split almost down the middle and Tommy has the right to over-rule a vote anyways, plus asked John's advice, it was a tough call and he made it as he saw fit...
Regardless, I'd speak to Mike's original point in saying that his point(s) are extremely valid and NOT sour grapes at all... Err$, maybe only a ill ~ but only because he is genuinely competitive guy and which I (and at least a FEW others) admire about him ~ and that still doesn't negate the validity of the various points being brought forward for discussion...
Furthermore to those points, and from a VERY interested bystander, it answered for me how the Dodgers could come back from the 24~ 3 shellacking the Birds put on them in that Shookie was back as no offense to Scott or Dave, but quite frankly we only have 2 players in the entire CDMSBL who are truly "game changers" ~ and we ALL know who they are and what they mean to whatever team they are on... I was under the impression that Shookie didn't have the required # either and no offense, plus I obviously have ZERO authority to speak for Ron and his Hummingbirds, but no way in hell the Dodgers were a better "team" then either them or the Cubs this year and could have both Scott and Dave w/out ANY difference, but Shookie changes EVERYTHING... Hell man, he won the Championship, not the Dodgers ~ AGAIN...
In fact, I came under "fire" for saying this blatantly obvious FACT last year after the Dodgers won... Thing is that ANY team ~ yep, even the Highlanders ~ would win the Championship with Shookie and JJ pitching... Only difference is that you did it with ONLY one the 2 game~changers we are blessed to have in our league this year... But it sure as hell wasn't as easy as it was with BOTH of them, was it???
And well, Mike knows it just like I do that the Cubs would have had a MUCH better chance of winning had the rules been followed... I' d be VERY interested to hear Ron Coon's input on this as if I was him I'd be pissed..
I also want to give Mike kudos for sticking his neck out there as I am well aware this is not a popuLar issue to put out there, but he had the kahunas to do it anyways... And I know he'll love this, but facts are that has just as many Championships in the last 2 years as do I and the Highlanders... And/or the Yankees (my 45 team which swept his and made the finals last year) and Marlins (his 45 team) for that matter...
Which is to John's point about what he would like to think he'd do, but then as a manager of a team fighting for a Championship (which he is this year in the 45's btw), may not be the same thing he'd actually do when it came down to it...
And the same applies to all the criticism of Tommy, as well as Mike... Each are upstanding men and one had to make a tough decision which I disagree with but respect, and one is just a great athlete who hates to lose...
Funny because it's not really a black and white issue as to who's right and who's wrong, as both guys are respectable and fine members of the league on every level... This is just the way it went this time and damn I know Mike is going to be playing his heart out in the 45's together with Tom as a teammate and it's a LONG winter when losing eats at your soul...
And I sure hope I get a chance to break Mike and the Marlins (most of them are Cubbies too!) hearts further, because I will! Just like last year!
Thanks for the kind words Marcus. I just wish you and the Yankees could have given the Golden Marlins more of a game last night. I had one more pitcher that I wanted to get some work for.
Yeah, you guys destroyed us ~ and wow, my arm was rested and fresh, so no excuses for my lousy pitching except that wow you guys can just flat out hit ~ ALL of you... But make no mistake, I am a shortstop, not a pitcher ~ and when we have Darrin and/or John on the mound in the playoffs is when we are at our best ~ so yep, I'm still holding out STRONG belief that we can break your heart when it REALLY counts in the playoffs...
Of course, we have some very serious work to do now just to get to see you again as I think the way it's looking now, we may have to play the defending Champ Giants in the next round (uh, assuming we get by the Cyclones in the play-in, which I am confident in ~ even though they beat us in the regular season too)...
Point is, you guys won the regular season season championship and earned the first round bye and absolutely deserve it... But believe me, I do NOT want to go all winter with this stench of losing on me any more then you do ~ prolly even less...
And I really admire the group of guys that you and the Cubs/Marlins have all put together as you are quite the "franchise" in the CDMSBL for sure, but also a bunch of fine guys to battle against... Makes the whole thing much more fun and adds another element to the dynamic...
