IBC

The IBC ALCS has already played 4 games, but Corey Seager was left off the MLB Dodgers’ playoff roster for the LCS.

It appears that IBC rule X.3

3. Any players who are injured when the playoffs begin will remain
injured and ineligible to play. No players will become injured during
the playoffs.

is actually out of date and that Seager should not be playing in the IBC.

The most recent ExCo discussion regarding this is viewtopic.php?t=1803 and the announcement to the league is viewtopic.php?t=1806. This should be superseding X.3, which had preceded that ruling.

As for resolution to the problem that he has played 4 games in the IBC LCS, the only thing that makes sense to me is that the games should be replayed without Seager, since we can’t really assess a DL penalty in the playoffs.

Sounds fair to me

It's not April 1, right?

Nope. Looks like it's Oct. 15, so I guess Shawn is serious about this. Apologies in advance, this is going to be lengthy.

My first point is only that I had no indication Seager was hurt. Stephen had no indication Seager was hurt and neither did this Exco when we played our games. I wasn't trying to pull one by anyone and there was no ill intentions here because he wasn't deemed injured until after our games were played. Below are my arguments against this move.

First argument: The rules contradict this argument

"3. Any players who are injured when the playoffs begin will remain
injured and ineligible to play. No players will become injured during
the playoffs."

Our rules clearly state, "no players will become injured during the playoffs." I'm sorry that NINE years ago Exco contradicted the rule, but that's an insufficient argument here. If the rule has been changed, it should have been posted sometime between this decade and last decade. But it hasn't, so it just seems as if Exco in the past has contradicted the rule that is in place.

In fact, two years ago Yadier Molina re-aggravated a thumb injury that already kept him out from Sept. 20 through the end of the regular season, was removed from game 3 of the NLDS, could not play in game 4 and underwent surgery and this Exco voted to allow him to play for the rest of the IBC playoffs, taking a vote on the day he had surgery. The only technical difference was he was not officially removed from the NLDS roster because the Cardinals were eliminated at the time of his reported injury

Second argument: The timing of the injury in relation to games played

Stephen and I played games 1 and 2 on Tuesday night (Oct. 10) . We played games 3 and 4 on Thursday night (Oct. 12). We were planning to play remaining games tonight.

Seager played all three MLB NLDS games against Arizona. Those games were played on Oct. 6, 7 and 9. He played all games and had the third highest average among regulars. He didn't struggle. By the time the series ended in three games, he was healthy as far as anyone knew. Stephen and I started our series after the Dodgers/Dbacks series.

NLCS rosters were announced Saturday, Oct. 14. There was no indication he would be left off the NLCS roster until after our games were played. In fact, I didn't even know he was injured until JP messaged me Saturday.

This from Rotoworld:

Oct. 12:
Corey Seager didn't work out Thursday after tweaking his back in Game 3 of the NLDS.
It doesn't sound like anything that will keep him out of Saturday's Game 1, but it's worth following. Chris Taylor and Enrique Hernandez are the fallbacks at shortstop.

Oct. 13:
ESPN's David Schoenfeld reports Corey Seager will not work out on Friday as he continues to recuperate from a sore back.
He tweaked his back on Monday as the Dodgers completed their sweep of the Diamondbacks in Game 3 of the NLDS. He has been avoiding strenuous activity since then. Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said Seager is questionable for Game 1 of the NLCS against the Cubs on Saturday. He also nursed elbow and ankle injuries late in the regular season and might not be at full strength as the playoffs continue.

Oct. 14:
Corey Seager (back) is not on the Dodgers' roster for the NLCS.
It's obviously a major blow to the Dodgers to be without one of their top bats and an extremely skilled defender at shortstop. He has been sidelined since tweaking his back on Monday against the Diamondbacks. Charlie Culberson is taking his place on the Dodgers' active roster. The Dodgers will try to get by using a combination of Chris Taylor and Kike Hernandez at shortstop for this series, while Seager would be eligible to return for the World Series should the Dodgers advance.

If you want to make the rule that playoff games cannot be simmed or played H2H before rosters are set, that's one thing and that's something that should be discussed after the playoffs. But to replay games after the fact is crazy. And, frankly, I'm surprised you'd make the argument. And Aaron to just say, "yeah, sure. sounds fair." That's an extreme decision for already-completed playoff games.

So, if you're willing to ignore league rules and then take an extreme stance based on games played before any news of an injury surfaced, perhaps you'll consider my third point.

Third argument: The precedent you're attempting to set is dangerous

At least consider what you're setting up future Excos to do.

I haven't polled the IBC founding fathers, but I suspect the reason for the playoff injury rule is for precisely this situation -- players on MLB playoff teams being eligible to be injured, while players on non-MLB playoff teams not being able to be injured for IBC purposes. This gives a distinct advantage to IBC teams with non-MLB playoff team players and skews the playing field.

What you're also saying is if, in three weeks, the Reds announce that Joey Votto slipped at home on Oct. 15 and cracked his ankle and underwent surgery a few weeks later you are willing to completely undo all the games that have been played (including IBC World Series) to re-do this series and proceed from there?

You're saying Exco discovered an injury after IBC playoff games were completed, so we are going to undo those results and re-do them after the fact. Therefore, this would apply to any player in any previously played series.

That's the precedent you're setting up here. I can't imagine there's a time Exco re-simmed playoff games based on something discovered after the fact. And if that did happen, it would contradict the rules.

Close

I hope there will be a sensible discussion about this situation because, as I hope I have been able to convey, I think this is the wrong move. And not because of Seager. He's hitting .125 for me with 1 RBI, 1 error and 1 ejection. I've outscored Stephen 19-2 without him.

I would make these arguments regardless of the players/teams involved. It doesn't make sense, I think it's bad policy and I think it creates a very bad precedent. Most of all, it goes against league rules. But if Exco wants to talk about injuries in the playoffs, it shouldn't be done in the middle of the playoffs. Thanks if anyone read this far.

At this point in time I am inclined to agree with Pat ... I do not like rule X.3 and think it should serve as a further impetus for us (EXCO) to update the IBC rules this offseason. It is ironic that V.3 and X.3 seem to contradict one another.

I believe that the four games in question were played in good faith by two astute GMs based on the facts there known at the time and based on the rules that are in place at the time.

In the updated rules which would become effective next season I have no problem with "If a player is not on their MLB teams postseason roster due to injury, they will be ineligible for that round of the IBC playoffs too." replacing current rule X.3 and I do believe it is more consistent with the language and intent of V.3 ...

I have a compromise. It is obvious Seager hasn't had any real effect on this series and Pat is killing Stephen regardless. I think he sits out the rest of this series and has to sit out Games 1-4 of the World Series (assuming Pat doesn't choke). If the Dodgers advance and he is on the WS roster then Pat can make a roster adjustment before Game 5 and add Seager for the remainder of the series

WhiteSox wrote:In the updated rules which would become effective next season I have no problem with "If a player is not on their MLB teams postseason roster due to injury, they will be ineligible for that round of the IBC playoffs too." replacing current rule X.3 and I do believe it is more consistent with the language and intent of V.3 ...

I would also add that HtH IBC playoff series should not start in the future before the real life playoff series starts (and the real life rosters for that series are set).

Tigers wrote:Nope. Looks like it's Oct. 15, so I guess Shawn is serious about this. Apologies in advance, this is going to be lengthy.

My first point is only that I had no indication Seager was hurt. Stephen had no indication Seager was hurt and neither did this Exco when we played our games. I wasn't trying to pull one by anyone and there was no ill intentions here because he wasn't deemed injured until after our games were played. Below are my arguments against this move.

First argument: The rules contradict this argument

"3. Any players who are injured when the playoffs begin will remain
injured and ineligible to play. No players will become injured during
the playoffs."

Our rules clearly state, "no players will become injured during the playoffs." I'm sorry that NINE years ago Exco contradicted the rule, but that's an insufficient argument here. If the rule has been changed, it should have been posted sometime between this decade and last decade. But it hasn't, so it just seems as if Exco in the past has contradicted the rule that is in place.

In fact, two years ago Yadier Molina re-aggravated a thumb injury that already kept him out from Sept. 20 through the end of the regular season, was removed from game 3 of the NLDS, could not play in game 4 and underwent surgery and this Exco voted to allow him to play for the rest of the IBC playoffs, taking a vote on the day he had surgery. The only technical difference was he was not officially removed from the NLDS roster because the Cardinals were eliminated at the time of his reported injury

To set the record straight here, the rule was posted here: viewtopic.php?t=1806. We've been following this rule and you know it, Pat. To claim otherwise is being entirely disingenuous.

You reference Molina yourself. You are the one who *asked for ExCo* to look at that. It was determined that because Molina wasn't removed from the active roster, that he could play. He underwent surgery when his season concluded. That the Cardinals opted not to replace him on the active roster in a do-or-die game is telling.

That is entirely different from playing 0% of a playoff series due to injury.

Without a doubt, we need to either do one or two things here in the offseason

1: revert the rule back to no player gets hurt in postseason play or;
2: wait until the LDS/LCS/WS starts in MLB to start the corresponding IBC series.

To set the record straight here, the rule was posted here: viewtopic.php?t=1806. We've been following this rule and you know it, Pat. To claim otherwise is being entirely disingenuous.

You reference Molina yourself. You are the one who *asked for ExCo* to look at that. It was determined that because Molina wasn't removed from the active roster, that he could play. He underwent surgery when his season concluded. That the Cardinals opted not to replace him on the active roster in a do-or-die game is telling.

Actually, I didn't know.

When you messaged me Saturday, my first response was "I thought players couldn't get injured in the playoffs. (citing the rule). When I showed you the rule, you agreed. Then, you mentioned that I had asked exco in 2015 to look into Molina, which I did. Clearly, this was a contradiction from the posted rule on the website.

I'm not going to argue anymore about the Molina situation because you're not going to be convinced otherwise on that. But to say that I knew the rule and was being disingenuous implies that I somehow tried to get a leg up here, which is not true. I'm sorry I don't have posts from nine years ago bookmarked. I don't go around checking every IBC post to see which random post is what exco has decided is the current rule.[/quote]

Tigers wrote:

I'm sorry I don't have posts from nine years ago bookmarked. I don't go around checking every IBC post to see which random post is what exco has decided is the current rule.

Again, I think this is a load of shit. Like I said, two years ago, you were pretty pissed Molina continued to play, and, as I said, you tried to have him removed from the playoffs. Funny how you didn't cite that rule then.

That said, I am opposed to replaying games in which Seager had a minimal impact.

After thinking about it for the better part of the weekend, I think the rule should be reverted effective immediately. The rule serves no purpose but to punish players on good MLB teams.

It seems like the right solution. Replaying games has never been done before. If I were in Pat's shoes and I had a 3-1 lead over Nick, a player was injured after i began the series, and I had to replay the series and then lost... I think I would very much consider quitting the league.

Seager should be eligible for the postseason as should all players who are healthy at the conclusion of the regular season.

Thoughts?


edited to add: This helps avoid slippery slope arguments. Example: what if Seager were allowed on the NLCS roster, got hurt in one AB, taken off the roster, but Stephen and Pat had already played the whole series? It's really not dissimilar from this scenario. We need to remove as much judgment as possible when it comes to playoff injuries.

One more thing to add.

We have been consistent in recent years leaving players off playoff rosters out of IBC games. CC Sabathia wasn't even injured in 2015. He checked himself into rehab, and was left off of New York's Wild Card roster. Out for playoffs. Brett Cecil and Addison Russell were left off of Chicago and Toronto's LCS rosters in 2015, and subsequently left off of IBC rosters.

This isn't something we've been making up as we go.

Responding to each of Pat’s arguments:

1. The rules contradict this argument
The rule on the rules page was clearly out of date and had been replaced by the posted rule, which we had abided by with past decisions. We have tried to update that rules page multiple times and failed to do so accurately, but that doesn’t change what the current rule is.

2. The timing of the injury in relation to games played
In my opinion, this argument holds no weight. If the series had been simmed instead of H2H, you would have gotten the Seager news before the first game and this wouldn’t have been a problem. When you played H2H vs when the games were scheduled vs when they were in real life is not relevant.

3. The precedent you’re attempting to set is dangerous
The only precedence we’re setting is “what happens when someone plays an injured player in a playoff game”. If a pitcher was out for the year with TJ but someone (intentionally or not) started them in the WC game and they threw a shutout, what would happen then? I find it a bit galling that you say we’re about to set a dangerous precedent, then in your closing basically try to say “Seager hasn’t done much in the series, so it shouldn’t matter”. As Aaron suggested, maybe the games shouldn’t be replayed because he didn’t contribute significantly. I disagree with that assessment and in fact believe that THAT would be the dangerous precedent, because it both requires us to judge what is significant (what if he was hitting 200? 250?) and also expressly is a no-penalty outcome for playing injured players.


Now for some original thoughts:
1. What would have happened if the series was 2-2 or the team playing the injured player was down 3-1? Would we be less concerned about a re-sim? IMO the decision should go to the harmed team to decide whether to replay.
2. It seems we’re headed for a vote on what this rule should be (and probably should have held the vote when this came up in past years). We should make that decision and then decide on the fallout of that decision afterwards..

Dodgers wrote:I find it a bit galling that you say we’re about to set a dangerous precedent, then in your closing basically try to say “Seager hasn’t done much in the series, so it shouldn’t matter”.

I'm not going to point-counterpoint this to death.
But I am going to apologize that you find fictional arguments galling. I never once argued that Seager's performance matters. Aaron made that insinuation in his post. I wrote, "I think this is the wrong move. And not because of Seager." The point I was making there is the decision to replay already played games shouldn't be made whether we're discussing Corey Seager or Nick Punto.
I wouldn't and didn't argue that a player's performance should dictate whether he play or not play.

So, what's the next step here?

Pirates wrote:So, what's the next step here?

Seems like we should vote on Seager and then affirm what the rule is moving forward. Results could be the same or different.

Welcome back to the States, BP

I don’t think the initial vote should be about Seager, it should be about which rule is current since that’s the most significant issue to reaching a decision (and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus). Then we should be applying that decision to this situation.

Tigers wrote:

Dodgers wrote:I find it a bit galling that you say we’re about to set a dangerous precedent, then in your closing basically try to say “Seager hasn’t done much in the series, so it shouldn’t matter”.

I'm not going to point-counterpoint this to death.
But I am going to apologize that you find fictional arguments galling. I never once argued that Seager's performance matters. Aaron made that insinuation in his post. I wrote, "I think this is the wrong move. And not because of Seager." The point I was making there is the decision to replay already played games shouldn't be made whether we're discussing Corey Seager or Nick Punto.
I wouldn't and didn't argue that a player's performance should dictate whether he play or not play.

I apologize, I misread your argument and applied Aaron’s statement to it. And I agree that it shouldn’t matter the quality of the player being discussed.

I would like a resolution to this, so please make a determination. You can decide whether or not I get a vote.

In more wonderful news [/sarcasm], Nick has been using Uehara in the playoffs despite him not pitching since early Sept and not making either Cubs roster in the playoffs...so this is going to affect that as well.

I had a discussion yesterday with Jim, who is trying to be a reasonable voice in this. While he agrees I didn't use Seager maliciously (since he wasn't injured when we played), he also believes the league shouldn't have a champion who is seen by some as tainted.

I am still very much against replaying games based on retroactive decisions and I believe that this amounts to potential punishment for having done nothing wrong. But, this seems to be heading for a stalemate if nothing else is done.

I spoke with Stephen and we're going to replay the series without Seager.

But I'm only willing to do this on the condition that exco spends time this winter solidifying rules and codifying them on the rules page, which is specifically designed to communicate to teams what the rules are. No more random posts from a decade ago. We need to do better at being clear about rules.

Some suggestions in this and the Koji thread are viable options to provide clarity about how we intend to handle this process. A lack of clarity leads to frustration and disinterest in the league.

Thank you to Jim for taking the time to call me and talk through these issues. It's obvious he cares about the league and wants to see it succeed, so thank you for taking the time.

Tigers wrote:I had a discussion yesterday with Jim, who is trying to be a reasonable voice in this. While he agrees I didn't use Seager maliciously (since he wasn't injured when we played), he also believes the league shouldn't have a champion who is seen by some as tainted.

This was never about malicious use. Even accidental use and lack of awareness of the rule (which clearly we pretty much all were) doesn’t change the fact that using Seager was in violation of the existing rule.

Tigers wrote:I am still very much against replaying games based on retroactive decisions and I believe that this amounts to potential punishment for having done nothing wrong. But, this seems to be heading for a stalemate if nothing else is done.

I spoke with Stephen and we're going to replay the series without Seager.

This is why I think a replay should be done on the basis of a rules decision (which is what I posted in the poll thread), rather than you feeling like you had to acquiesce to avoid a stalemate.

Tigers wrote: But I'm only willing to do this on the condition that exco spends time this winter solidifying rules and codifying them on the rules page, which is specifically designed to communicate to teams what the rules are. No more random posts from a decade ago. We need to do better at being clear about rules.

Some suggestions in this and the Koji thread are viable options to provide clarity about how we intend to handle this process. A lack of clarity leads to frustration and disinterest in the league.

I agree, we put you in an awful situation by failing to have updated the rules page. It is very clear that we need to do a thorough review of the rules and publish them. That version should supersede all previous rules. Obviously we’ll need to do a thorough review of past statements to ensure we integrate them, but we should also determine whether they still make sense.