Tracer Bullet

6. You guys are idiots.

Lol

I've read this post several times and I can't figure out the joke you're trying to make. I'm not making a joke. His mother is related to the Kyles for whom the field is named.

Damn. I'm going Sunday. May have to get tix to Sat too.

So if Trevor Rosenthal gets a spot save for Ed Mujica I won't get the save points because he's not the "closer"? What has this league come too?!? :wink: No and your comment in the poll isn't relevant. The question isn't whether a non-closer can score points, or even in some cases be better than a closer. The question is whether being a closer and losing that title is akin to being benched. Seems clear to me that it is b/c the RP will now only be used in certain non-save situations, just like a position player that lost his starting job. (And comparing a closer that lost his job to an elite non-closer RP makes no sense; if the closer were elite, he wouldn't have lost his job.) Moreover, the rules clearly state several exceptions to the rule against mid-week changes. Then it explicitly excludes starting pitchers from the midweek change rule. Logic says the exceptions to the midweek change rule applies to the other 2 groups (RPs and hitters). Logic also says that since 95% of RPs used in this league are closers and the only way a closer gets "benched" is by losing the closer role, you wouldn't include RPs in the midweek change exception unless you intended it to apply to closers. If there are 3 types of players (hitters, SPs, RPs) and you want a rule (exceptions for mid-week changes) to only apply to 1 group, then you would say "this only applies to hitters." You wouldn't state that 1 of the 3 groups was excluded if you actually meant to exclude 2 of them. Finally, I fully admit that I don't like the benching exception. I think it's full of ambiguity (does a regular who becomes a platoon player count as being benched; the closer losing his job issue; two days off for a non-injury b/c you're slumping, etc). There are other rules that I don't like but abide by. But it is explicitly included in the rules, so I don't know why it wouldn't be applied, other than there seem to be a number of unwritten rules, some of which apparently trump the written ones.

You play football on a field named for your family you spoiled brat

closer isn't a position. this is pretty clear in the rules. Instead of constant complaining, why don't you make a list of clarifications needed in the rules. You obviously have more time than many of us. Closer isn't a position? Is it the 60s again? If you didn't intend for RP to be included within the benching exception, why didn't you just say position players? I'm asking for clarification. Why don't you try to respond as a mature adult instead of getting defensive anytime someone asks about the rules. What was defensive? You are one of the most belligerent people around. That is a sincere request - make a list - it can be fixed. That's beautiful. I often wondered why I don't see you post outside this forum and I realize now it's bc you can't help but call people names.

Teix out with a wrist. Lind to first, Kinsler to util

closer isn't a position. this is pretty clear in the rules. Instead of constant complaining, why don't you make a list of clarifications needed in the rules. You obviously have more time than many of us. Closer isn't a position? Is it the 60s again? If you didn't intend for RP to be included within the benching exception, why didn't you just say position players? I'm asking for clarification. Why don't you try to respond as a mature adult instead of getting defensive anytime someone asks about the rules.

Saves score points that aren't available to other RPs. He was benched. It's frankly dumb to have that as an exception but it's right there in the rules.

as you said a few posts ago, this league is confusing as [expletive]. i feel like we gave some leeway or warned people if they were breaking a rule, but i understand why we are trying to go away from that. i quite easily could have gotten 7 starts and won last week if i had just released shawn marcum or leonys martin, but the rule is that i lose the starts from the players i was shuffling into the minors, and apparently the guy i added for a spot start to replace the starter who was rained out. but i am probably missing some rules because i've had adam on my foe list for probably 2-3 years and am not really interested in changing that. it was easy to ignore his abuse after making a trade or regular complaints about other people in the league, but now he's the commissioner, so it's not so easy to ignore him. there's enough to deal with in life; what's the point of volunteering to be abused by somebody in your free time? anyway, none of this should really be a surprise. when you choose a commissioner who's a dick, some people aren't going to want to stay around. such is life. Ok. If you think Adam is mean, fine whatever. I don't get the issue with your penalty however. You've been in this league 3 years now and that one is actually written and it came up last year. I can see not realizing that your guys had hit 10 starts but at some point people need to accept responsibility for following the rules and take the penalty when they don't. If that's asking too much, then I guess thanks for giving us plenty of time to find a replacement.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. Lol. Is this the part where I whine about how mean you are? The words are pretty clear. It makes perfect sense that this league wouldn't abide by them. Guess I shouldn't have asked but just done whatever was in my best interest so I could just claim ignorance. "Hey I'm gonna need to add a player not in the database of thousands bc I've had my eye on a guy that's been hot for 5 weeks. Oh, sorry I didn't realize I was playing a recent top prospect at a position he's never played and only figured it out when I traded for literally the only player who's been outperforming him. I don't have time to keep up with such trivial details as I keep very close eye on which team has the most total points."

My closers been benched. Glad the rules provide for lineup changes in this situation.

I'd love to hear how the league has changed b/c it's as [expletive] insane as when I joined last year

B. Eligibility Player eligibility will be determined by the following qualifications: 1. Players with more than 200 or more major league at-bats in a season are not eligible. 2. Players with 10 or more major league pitching starts in a season are not eligible. 3. Players with 25 or more total major league pitching appearances in one season are not eligible. 4. Players are eligible until they exceed the limits set forth in 1, 2, and 3 regardless of participation in minor leagues. #4 either isn't true or is not worded precisely based on the prior discussion that players that have exceeded the limits can be kept in the minors so long as they're currently in the minors.

This is one of the rules that's actually in the rules thread. SP are no longer prospect eligible once they've made 10 MLB starts (don't remember the cap on appearances). Hitters are capped at 200 ABs.

You had 2 starters in the minors, on a rotating basis, both of whom had 10 starts before the week began. You then put both of them in the minors to use Mendoza, whose points you're losing. The rule would be that you'd lose your highest points each day and instead you're only losing about 80. I realize the net effect is still a loss. It doesn't look like anyone else shouldn't have had someone in the minors. Rutledge was in the minors until today (Montero and Pomeranz are both still in the minors). So Mooch needs to make a move tomorrow, if he hasn't already. I've got nothing on the Machado issue. That was a pretty insane advantage for 2 months.

Just bc it's true doesn't mean you need to hit recruits over the head with it. I doubt he would have minded if you exercised a little editorial discretion in leaving this particular Q&A out of print. ["He" is incoming freshman Cole Luke from AZ.] Q: As he goes into Notre Dame, have you given him a heads-up as to what he might expect? Obviously, the school is different than when you were there, but what kind of advice have you given him about Notre Dame? Steve Belles: Don’t expect to see the same type of girls you’ve seen walking on ASU’s campus. I don’t know if that’s advice; it’s just a fact.

In SP's defense, I had the exact same question last year. This league is confusing as [expletive]. There are at least 5 teams that have been added in the last 3 years (and they aren't even the only ones that don't know the rules). At some point, we're going to have to accept that not all teams know what the actual rules are and try to fix that so there's less confusion and less of an advantage for the ones that actually know all the rules.

200 ABs for hitters. Yes, Terehan hit 10 starts on 5/31.

I think he got 89 from Miller, Teheran and Mendoza (guy who used when both Teheran and Miller were in the minors). So take that away and he loses.

I think the only fair resolution is to expand DL slots to 6...

As I just told sp, I think Montero is ok b/c he's actually in the minors (as abuck told me last year). Don't know about the rest. Then again, that's not what the Rules thread says, so who knows.

for [expletive]'s sake people. commissionering you dumbasses is EXHAUSTING. now you feel bad for mocking bbb don't you...Adam

He's still a relief pitcher, isn't he? We don't have specific spots for closers. So he's not really losing his role. lol. And a player that's been moved to the bench is still eligible at his position. He's just not the starter. Your analogy is flawed. There's a difference between being an RP that is still getting RP appearances and a hitter who is benched and no longer getting AB. If you're saying that Wilhelmson has been completely benched and won't be getting appearances, then I'll agree that you should be able to make a change. What hitter that has been benched isn't still being used as a pinch hitter? They'll get ABs just not as many and won't be as likely to score as many points. Same with a closer losing their job. This league is a complete [expletive].