Martin

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:30 pm

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we may have to do something about Martin possibly tanking or being too inactive.

Beltran was activated in MLB September 7th, Dicek September 15th, Encarnacion September 4th. None have been activated in the IBC yet. We've all missed activations and what not, but those are 3 potentially solid performers who missed significant time in what is a heated 3-4 team race (I took 2 from JP, so more likely 3 team) for the 6th pick in the draft.

JP tells me the last time he sent a lineup was July 28th, which to me seems more like severe inactivity, but the fact of the matter is he's sitting major contributors inadvertently or not.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:02 pm

Move him down in the draft a few spots?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:22 am

Yeah I don't think we need to do anything excessive here, a draft spot or two down in the order would probably be OK by me. I wish we'd noticed it sooner - I know I insert the lineups and such, but I don't really pay too much attention as to who doesn't send in lineups and I seldom even check other peoples box scores unless a score is wacky or if the game is of consequence to me. I'll try to be more vigilant on that next year, but only so much I can do.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:58 am

I am not quite sure I see the difference here between what Martin has done and the big talent dump the Braves did ... for example. There was at least one other team that I had noticed funky playing patterns with. I'll touch on it this weekend after I go back and look at some boxes ....

The inactivity is a legit issue - but it seems we are talking here about dropping him a few draft slots for inactivity. We recently booted Nate for inactivity ...

I am not following this well ...

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:48 am

Jim, the difference is Atlanta made trades to make his roster younger. Martin has not activated Daisuke Matsuzaka and Carlos Beltran off the disabled list, effectively benching two of his best players for the last month+ of the season.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:49 am

Additionally, Martin (typically) responds to PM's in an extremely timely manner whereas Nate was nowhere to be found and did not update his MP's at all to even disable his players. Martin did disable his- he just never took them off the DL.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:21 pm

Okay - I understand your point about Martin ... though it does surprise me.

What do you of a team that does the following:

1. Set the player tendencies of your best starters in some combination to pitch out, around, and IBB more. This inflates their pitch counts.
2. Set pinch hit for pitchers and use relievers and closers to 'Most Frequent'. This gets the starters out of the game as quickly as possible.
3. Use two guys with no relief ratings as your only mop up and long relievers while giving them 20% of your #1 & #2 starters' starts.
Thus ensuring they will always be tired and your other relievers will also be overworked.

Over the course of a season, let's say it raises your team ERA from 4.00 to 4.50. That's .5 runs per game over 162 games or 81 runs. Using the quick and dirty 10 runs scored or prevented equals 1 win method, that's roughly 8 wins you've dropped.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:26 pm

I don't really have an issue with that. Maybe he wants to face lesser hitters and thus pitches around. I had one of the highest IBB totals this year and last year. I don't think I'm trying to inflate pitch counts to get my SP out of the game.

I don't really have an issue with #2 or #3 here either. It seems to me that it's strategy and maybe extreme. Maybe whoever is doing that is testing various strategies to see how it would play out for 2010, but either way, that definitely does not equate into tanking whatsoever.

Setting your MP to have strange tendencies and not activating your two best players are completely different.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:39 pm

Pure and simple - and somewhat quick to the point, I hope.

Tanking used to really piss me off. I try to do the best I can at everything I do ... that said I could probably tank really well if I decided I wanted to ... I could probably do it relatively undercover if I put my mind to it.

I recognize it as a viable LONG TERM strategy ... not one I would employ or endorse. That being said, where do you draw the line? You trade away most of your good to decent players and set yourself up to lose 90 to 100 games and that is okay ... You set your MP after the All Star break so you likely lose an additional 5 or so games - but your so-called best players are playing - just not under the most suitable conditions and that's okay ... You do a Martin (I accept this as a new lexicon) - proposed penalty: slip in the draft.

Guys I don't know Martin that well and I don't owe him anything. It is the prosped penalty versus the alledged crime that bugs me ... I don't like "tanking" and haven't done it.

I will support whatever you decide but this [the proposed penalty] just doesn't feel consistent - in it's application - to me.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:53 pm

Can we briefly review what precedent we've set on our tanking rules?

I'm personally not inclined to penalize Martin for failing to activate Beltran or Matsuzaka in a timely manner. Part of my reasoning is what was mentioned above, that we really should have been more on top of it. Sort of like our injury system is set up, I'd be more inclined to penalize someone for this once it's been brought up that he should get a guy active, then he repeats the mistake or doesn't fix it. Another is that it seems like a peculiar case on which to start penalizing, when I don't see any evidence that he was intentionally tanking, unlike guys like Zalaski in the past (which is why I want to make sure that I'm not forgetting precedent, may not be remembering a case).

For me, this is a question of participation as opposed to tanking. I'm not ready to boot Martin or anything, but I think that a dialogue with him on whether he's just been really busy or if he's lost interest in the league is more appropriate than tanking penalties. Martin didn't take care of his team like he should have this season, but he's been a very good member of the league for four years.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:27 pm

Okay, I'm less inclined to push for a penalty now that I see some of the arguments than when I initially made it (and given that Kelly/Martin both finished 2 games clear of DT). However, if Kelly were to bring this up, given that they tied, how would you propose answering him? I'm not going to point it out or anything, just curious what your responses would be.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:35 pm

Dodgers wrote:Okay, I'm less inclined to push for a penalty now that I see some of the arguments than when I initially made it (and given that Kelly/Martin both finished 2 games clear of DT). However, if Kelly were to bring this up, given that they tied, how would you propose answering him? I'm not going to point it out or anything, just curious what your responses would be.

My initial reaction is that he probably should have done what we should have done, notice it earlier. If he'd seen an issue and alerted someone from the exco, it would not have continued or Martin would have been penalized.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:21 pm

What is the tie breaker in the IBC for teams with equal records, re: draft position. In one league I am in it is the team with the best record in the last 10 games that gets the better draft slot ...

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:23 pm

WhiteSox wrote:What is the tie breaker in the IBC for teams with equal records, re: draft position. In one league I am in it is the team with the best record in the last 10 games that gets the better draft slot ...

That's a pretty good idea. I believe our tiebreaker has been pythag record?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:28 pm

Pythag.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:30 pm

Pirates wrote:Pythag.

So who gets the better slot between Kelly and Martin?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:33 pm

I didn't add it up, but from RS & RA it looks like Martin would pick first.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:35 pm

Pirates wrote:Pythag.

Hope someone knows this well ... lots of ties:

Washington/KC
Boston/Colorado
SF/St L
Ariz/Tex
Cincy/Oakland
Pale Hose/Mets

and SD/Clev

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:38 pm

WhiteSox wrote:
Pirates wrote:Pythag.
Hope someone knows this well ... lots of ties:

Washington/KC
Boston/Colorado
SF/St L
Ariz/Tex
Cincy/Oakland
Pale Hose/Mets

and SD/Clev

It's just RS^2 / ( RS^2 + RA^2 )

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:47 pm

Washington will be picking from anywhere between 23-30 thanks to him making the playoffs and KC not making them. Same goes for Stl/SF (SF has another win anyway), and Texas Arizona, Texas will be picking in the 23-30 slot.

Anyway between the teams that are tied, Colorado will pick before Boston (.548 Py% for Col, .582 Py% for Bos), Oakland will pick before Cinci (.549 vs .568) and the Mets will go before Chicago (.470 vs .471). If you go to reports - Standard/Customized/Memorized then go to league standings, then select OOPSS Waiver standings there will be an option to sort by Pythag.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:51 pm

Tigers wrote:It's just RS^2 / ( RS^2 + RA^2 )

Ok ... just never had a reason to learn/use it ...

Thanks!