Since I noted the protest in the series wrapup I feel you all deserve an explanation.

In the final game of the series, Forsyth started Justin Verlander. BDM
naturally started our lineup against RHP.

After only 3 batters in the 1st (a K, a BB, and a run scoring double)
Forsyth removed Verlander to bring in LH Madison Bumgarner. I immediately
protested that this sort of starter flipping, to get the other lineup wrong
footed, was cheating.

I had 3 LH SP and 2 RH SP on my roster. I could have done exactly the same
thing 4 times, i.e. start one of my LHP, and then switch to Syndergaard and
Gray. Forsyth has two lefty killers that suck against RHP, I could have
forced Bill to take them out of the game, or play with the platoon
disadvantage. I never dreamed of doing this because it is completely
against good sportsmanship.

Greg ruled that since there was no specific rule against it, the game should
continue. I will let Greg explain the ruling if he feels necessary. I have no issues
with Greg in this matter. He’s an awesome commissioner.

I refused to play against Bill any further, due to what I perceived as
poor sportsmanship, and cheating in violation of the spirit of
the league.

For the remainder of game 7, BDM was managed by Greg. He did an incredible
job and secured a 1-0 victory. Many thanks to Greg for pitching in.

I feel that Bill acted in poor form, and what he did was essentially cheating
(though not against the letter of the rules). This is a fun league with
absolutely nothing at stake. I can understand (but not condone) cut throat
gamesmanship if large sums of money are at stake, but in a zero stakes
league, it baffles me. Given that we still won, I hope you will see that
this is a matter of principle for me, not simply sour grapes.

I would also like to begin a rules discussion on how we can prohibit such
gamesmanship in the future.

Thank you,

Arthur Gandolfi
Being Don Mattingly



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 06:49AM by arthur gandolfi.

Pertinent information regarding the decision.

Outlaws had used 15 pitchers in relief in the prior two games, including a tired Rich Hill in relief in game 5 prior to his starting Game 6.

Due to my choice to start Verlander on 3-days rest twice (after falling behind in the series), he was starting game 7 after a 66-pitch outing in game 4. He was, therefore, unlikely to far exceed 40 pitches in the absence of building a commanding lead.

Due to my miscalculation with regards to Hill's readiness to start game 5 on 3 days rest, he started game 6 instead, and instead of Bumgarner, leaving Bumgarner fully rested for game 7.

Bumgarner was fully rested, having started only 1 game (and PH once) in the series.

Two of my best relievers (two of Blach, Koch, and Strahm, I forget which) were ineligible due to having exceeded PT limits, as was Hill. Jim Johnson was tired for game 7 as well.

In my estimation, my only choice was to start Verlander and yank him quickly in favor of Bumgarner if necessary, or do the opposite with Bumgarner being relieved by Verlander. Given that, I did make the calculated choice to start the RHP, since my estimation was that he'd be more likely to make it 3 or 4 innings before a jam occured than Bumgarner would be, and the net effect of replacing him at that point would be an unwillingness on BDM's part to pull RHP-mashers in the 2-4 IP that Bumgarner would likely throw before a reliever would subsequently make sense.

Questions to address in any potential rules changes:

At what point is a team allowed to remove it's SP?

Should limits be placed on building over-platooned lineups, since they're the flip side of this issue?

Are post-season PT limits currently appropriate for backups, who, IRL, often play more? I would certainly have considered starting and quick-yanking Gonzalez and mix-matching relievers the entire way had more of my relievers been rested for a game 7 (I've done similar before). And, in fact, I tried to keep everyone eligible and rested for game 7, but ultimately had to use some guys more than I wanted in earlier games.

Editing to add:

I didn't realize Casali was ineligible for game 7, having exceeded his PT limit vs LHP, when I made the decision. That was discovered when Greg took over for BDM to finish the game. Not sure it would have made a difference in the decision I made.

With regards to WS quick hooks: In the last 96 WS starts (that's just this decade), the average start is 5.175 IP, there have been 33 starts of fewer than 5 IP, 16 fewer than 4, 7 fewer than 3, and 4 fewer than 2, though admittedly everyone in that sample at least got out of the 1st. I'm not sure how we write a rule that limits SP usage in the WS, especially in a game 7, that allows for matching that reality without either allowing for some level of platoon-exploitation or conversely hamstringing managers of teams who have a poor outing from a SP, or who are bullpen-depth-challenged (I've let Bumgarner go 140+ pitches in a drubbing in a WS game to save bullpen arms, too).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 09:56AM by Bill Liming.

Thanks guys. It's good to finally understand what's been happening. I'm sorry that the game and the league has produced what must have been a very sore experience for both of you.

I don't have an opinion on whether the action was rightful or wrongful, although I do think it was legal. My first-glance opinion is that this is something I might do, and that I think I have had it used against me before, and frankly have almost certainly removed a SP after an inning, especially against a computer and a good pen. It's also a low-down sneaky trick, which is of course also a hallowed baseball tradition.

I see the dimensions of this from both sides: sympathetic with Bill while recognizing there is a line this is somewhere around, respectful of Arthur while wanting to leave the adjudication of such matters to the owners and not arbitrary rules. I don't have strong views on any of that though.

I do have a very strong view though on the fact that we have to try to collectively uphold article 2.3 (the honor system and honesty requirement) and article 2.1 (this league is for enjoyment and fun). It is right to be honest, and say when you think something is wrong, because this is the easiest way to correct it. It is important to listen to the criticism offered and try to find a way to work with other owners. And, most of all, it's important to play the game, and treat differences of opinion with your fellow owners with respect.

God knows I've had harsh words with other owners at times in the past. I'm trying ever harder though to embrace the fun. I hope Arthur and Bill can continue to play together and I hope also that I can, Bill, ensure that Arthur never, ever, ever, ever, ever plays in the World Series again. Because it's always me.

Although I doubt I'll have much luck in stopping him.

One last thought, for Arthur. Gamesmanship is skill, too. I'm sorry you felt hurt, but Bill is not a cheat.

Be well, everyone.

Craig

"Greg ruled that since there was no specific rule against it, the game should
continue. I will let Greg explain the ruling if he feels necessary. I have no issues
with Greg in this matter. He’s an awesome commissioner."

In all of my replies, I did say that if Verlander had faced just three batters and gone unscathed, switching to Bumgarner would have been suspect and bush league. But Verlander was struggling, and at what point, I wondered, can a manager pull a SP without complaint? What if Verlander had allowed a HR instead of a double and it was 2-0 in the 1st in game seven with Verlander on short rest? What if all three batters had reached and it was now 3-0?

As I also mentioned, this becomes, "I'll know it when I see it." and this was very close. During the regular season, I think Verlander isn't pulled there in the first. But given it's Game Seven, and Bumgarner is fresh and ready to go, I can see why Bill did what he did. But I can also see why Arthur took umbrage to such a move.

I suppose having a heavy platoon lineup comes with risks, and this is one of them. I'm glad it worked out for Being Don Mattingly after all, and I look forward to more responses from the league owners. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, or perhaps the league as a whole will decide that some rules regarding "Bait-and-switch" with pitchers should be created.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 11:19AM by Greg Tamer.

My principle issue with allowing "gamesmanship" is that it creates a race to the bottom mentality.

Bill's lineup was as heavily platoon leveraged as mine. I had 3 LH SP and 2 RH SP. I could have done this flip every game. But, I never imagined it was appropriate or allowed.

If cut-throat is the rule, I'm forced to adopt this trickery, and I don't want to be that person.

It's the same reason I don't attempt to make lopsided trades with new or less involved owners. That's not the way I want to live my life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 11:21AM by arthur gandolfi.

I feel reasonably sure that an effective "bait-and-switch" rule that would exclude relieving in this situation (game 7 of the WS, specifically) would be nearly impossible to create without being at least as unfair to the defensive team is Arthur feels my switch was. Some of that is due to the nature of the way the lineups in the sim are chosen, since the offense effectively has the upper hand by going after the SP, exacerbated by all the significant platoons the rules and our perfect knowledge allow/encourage us to create. There's some extent to which this could be exploited in the regular season, though it would mean burning an extra RP every game and dealing with the fact that SP endurance is lower in relief than in a starting role. I, and I assume other active managers, already do what we can to have platoon-vulnerable SP avoid starts vs teams capable of/willing to exploit them. I haven't noticed anyone trying to exploit platoon advantage with a bait-and switch approach, and though I've considered the possibilities before, I'm pretty sure it's not a long-term tenable situation in the regular season rotation juggling, and that's coming from someone who's played Adrian Beltre at 2B for an entire season because he was the best option available, and played Bumgarner at LF/1B in mound-field-mound situations to squeeze every last advantage (though that was as much about keeping his bat in the lineup when he had the ridiculous HR year).

I'd also like to throw out that I offered to replay the game from the beginning, and have in fact in previous series replayed games where something similarly objectionable happened. There was a disconnected lost game in the NLCS this year that was re-simmed back to an agreeable state (which I was losing), and a previous post-season game (WS, I think, but in which I was winning), where the connection glitched out in a way that cost a runner getting thrown out trying to advance in an obviously sub-optimal spot, which we completely replayed from the beginning of the game.

> Bill's lineup was as heavily platoon leveraged as
> mine. I had 3 LH SP and 2 RH SP. I could have
> done this flip every game. But, I never imagined
> it was appropriate or allowed.

It wouldn't really be something sustainable outside of a one-game do-or-die situation, so I don't think the every game comparison is valid, never mind that I didn't attempt that.

I also don't think my lineup is as vulnerable, either, with the worst case being that one of Smith or Guillen would likely have ended up with PAs that I would have preferred to avoid, but I'm pretty used to having to deal with that vs the CM over the course of the season. But if we're considering how vulnerable a lineup is in creating a new rule, shouldn't some of the onus be on the lineup creators? Short starts in the actual WS are a common thing now, as are platoon matchups at almost every stage.

I'm trying not to knock Arthur here, but I likely would have seen Bumgarner being available for G7 and perhaps added a more even-steven batter or two to the lineup against Verlander in case he was replaced in the early going. I wouldn't have anticipated a first-inning replacement, but perhaps in the 2nd/3rd if he struggled.

And I'm still mulling over how it would be possible to police egregious bait-and-switch tactics. And how to identify them. I likely would have been upset as well if I were managing when Bill pulled Verlander after just three batters.

My criteria is this:

a) Does the move have sufficient costs and/or effective counter measures such that it is not the obviously best strategic move. Preserving strategic calculation is essential.

b) Does the move change the overall strategy of the game such that the game no longer resembles actual baseball.

In this case, there is a significant cost to this move. It burns two pitchers quickly and the second pitcher will get fewer pitches before he becomes fatigued.

Regarding b), I don't think this changes the game in a substantial way. Indeed, if more teams platooned in real baseball, I think it would be smart for teams to do this kind of thing themselves. Given the emphasis on third time through the lineup stuff, I wouldn't be too surprised if something like this starts happening in real baseball.

Years and years ago new owner Jay Patrick did this against me in a game 7 of a historical league.

So I don't have a problem with it. However, if it could be demonstrated to me that the costs for such a move weren't high enough then I would change my mind. The key is to preserve the element of strategic calculation.

I expected Bumgarner in the 5th or 6th, like a real manager would do. If Verlander gets knocked around and he comes in earlier, then I've got the runs.

Bill, you have Prado and Gutierrez who kill LHP and stink vs RHP. If I started Happ in game 1, and quick switched to Syndergaard, then they're exposed, or you pull them. If you pull them, I can use my LH RPs against your LHBs late in the game, without the fear of you PH-ing.

If this is allowed, it makes sense to game it to the max.

I'm still not going to do that, because I think it's a ridiculous way to approach a game, with nothing at stake.

If the league is going to require that sort of thing, I suggest we switch the playoffs to simmed by a neutral party..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 11:44AM by arthur gandolfi.

Understood about Bumgarner in 5th/6th and if brought in earlier, you have the runs. Fortunately, you had the one run, and that was sufficient.

An offer of a replay when you're down 1 already, with a man on second base, and I'm exposed to the same trick again isn't a remedy.

The only remedy would be to undo the pitching change, and leave Verlander in until a point when an actual MLB manager might remove him. But I don't think that's technically possible in DMB.

Luckily, karma and Greg's managing resolved the situation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 11:56AM by arthur gandolfi.

" 4.8.2.2 - Games started for a pitcher are limited by the following:

0-5 MLB regular season GS: 0 starts per TRHL playoff series
6-15 GS: 1 start per series
16-25 GS: 2 starts per series
25+ GS: 3 starts per series."

What if I started RHP SP-A in first game and after one batter, switched to LHP SP-B, then in second game, flipped them, with LHP SP-B starting soon relieved by RHP SP-B?

Then I did the same for games three and four with SP-C and SP-D.

Fair?

How much would this hurt me regarding what Gaelan noted regarding pitcher fatigue if a RP vs. being a SP for the game?

"What if I started RHP SP-A in first game and after one batter, switched to LHP SP-B, then in second game, flipped them, with LHP SP-B starting soon relieved by RHP SP-B?

Then I did the same for games three and four with SP-C and SP-D. "

That's exactly what I'm saying Greg. That's the logical end point if this sort of maneuver is considered kosher.

I could have dobne this with Happ/Syndergaard and Gray/Conley and neutralized Prado and Gutierrez, who had at least one game winning PH HR.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 12:04PM by arthur gandolfi.

To Gaelan's point, the problem with this maneuver is that it is costless. Over a series, a team can get exactly as many IP out of their 4 SPs, while obtaining the platoon advantage in every game.

DMB doesn't take into account any injury/effectiveness risk from such unorthodox usage, the way a real manager would need to.

arthur gandolfi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I expected Bumgarner in the 5th or 6th, like a
> real manager would do. If Verlander gets knocked
> around and he comes in earlier, then I've got the
> runs.

Here's where we're just going to have to disagree. Bumgarner has, in fact, been brought into a WS game in a not dis-similar situation in which a RHP SP was pulled in the second inning, replaced by a LHP reliever, who was followed by Bumgarner, for five innings on 2-days rest. Something that almost certainly won't actually work in DMB, of course. Had Verlander gotten in trouble in the same spot Hudson did in 2014, I would absolutely have relieved with Bumgarner in that spot, rather than Flynn (my version of Affeldt).

I remain unconvinced that Earl Weaver, or Joe Maddon, wouldn't attempt this gambit under these circumstances. They, I assume, have the luxury of being able to make last minute changes prior to an announced lineup, which we don't, though. Maybe a rule requiring a proposed starting lineup/pitcher announcement prior to their actual selection would help, if only to create less platoon heavy lineups and remove the incentive to play matchups like this. Anyone want to look up what MLB's rules are on this kind of thing?

>
> Bill, you have Prado and Gutierrez who kill LHP
> and stink vs RHP. If I started Happ in game 1,
> and quick switched to Syndergaard, then they're
> exposed, or you pull them. If you pull them, I
> can use my LH RPs against your LHBs late in the
> game, without the fear of you PH-ing.

Guillen would get replaced with Chisenhall, though maybe not the first time through the new pitcher. Prado would have been replaced with Murphy, or if he was DHing, probably left in the game since he's not noticeably worse than Smoak anyway.

It's not a strategy that I'd be opposed to trying to find some reasonable limit to in the regular season, though I don't I think it's actually an issue, but in a game 7 of the WS, or any human-managed game I don't think it's far enough from reality (or the adjusted reality in which we play) to be off-limits.

I also object to drawing a parallel between this game 7 usage, and trying a swap Verlander/Bumgarner strategy for the entire series (6 games, anyway). No one's doing that, and the costs for doing that are almost certainly prohibitive anyway (in terms of relief pitcher usage), though it might be interesting to sim that vs the CM to see.

"I also object to drawing a parallel between this game 7 usage, and trying a swap Verlander/Bumgarner strategy for the entire series (6 games, anyway). No one's doing that, and the costs for doing that are almost certainly prohibitive anyway (in terms of relief pitcher usage), though it might be interesting to sim that vs the CM to see."

It's a direct parallel. If it's kosher in G7, it's kosher in G5, or G1.

I've often used starters in relief (mostly bad starters to soak up innings in losses) and haven't seen any evidence that they pitch worse, or have less endurance when in relief.

I think we should sim it, because it seems to be the optimal strategy if allowed.

Greg Tamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " 4.8.2.2 - Games started for a pitcher are
> limited by the following:
>
> 0-5 MLB regular season GS: 0 starts
> per TRHL playoff series
> 6-15 GS: 1 start per series
> 16-25 GS: 2 starts per series
> 25+ GS: 3 starts per series."
>
> What if I started RHP SP-A in first game and after
> one batter, switched to LHP SP-B, then in second
> game, flipped them, with LHP SP-B starting soon
> relieved by RHP SP-B?
>
> Then I did the same for games three and four with
> SP-C and SP-D.
>
> Fair?
>
> How much would this hurt me regarding what Gaelan
> noted regarding pitcher fatigue if a RP vs. being
> a SP for the game?

It's not costless, you'll have to dig through the help, but SP used in relief have substantially lower fatigue thresholds than used as SP. Plus, relief pitchers tend to have way better splits than starters, so it's not especially productive to do for just the platoon advantage. I don't have time to cogitate on it right now, but I'm pretty sure you'd be trading some innings of platoon advantage for increased overall relief-usage, and a "platoon" SP who ends up tired after the first or second try. As a gambit to try to win a short series, you can already do this by running the bullpen ragged from the beginning, though that's obviously a huge gamble.

I mean I could envision a Bumgarner/Verlander/Rando starting rotation with 9 RP with substantial IP. Actually, it'd probably be better with a Rando/Rando/Rando rotation, and 9 RP studs, which might actually be cheaper to field some of the time, too. Or 10, if you can manage your own lineup with fewer platoons. Which is actually sort of the way teams seem to be leaning after their #1 in the post-season these days in reality. Maybe the next time I have to blow things up and rebuild, since trading all the RP studs should be doable if getting to the post-season with that staff turns out to be harder than it looks.

Never mind that if you tried to do it every time, the obvious response is to start the guys least affected by it, which mostly neuters the advantages, and in a way that's essentially "realistic" since no real manager platoons at 4 or 5 positions any more (certainly not with a 7 or 8 man pen). I assume everyone else already builds their normal starting lineups to take into account potentially exploitable platoons (3 LHB in a row, that sort of thing).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 01:46PM by Bill Liming.

> It's a direct parallel. If it's kosher in G7,
> it's kosher in G5, or G1.
>

No, because if it's actually a gambit, doing it in G5 or G1 gives up the advantage for later games. And the fact that I didn't do it in those games means one or both of I don't think it would work or that I didn't think it was a ploy in game 7, but a legitimate strategy.

Again, Earl Weaver or Joe Maddon is down 3-1 going into game 5 with a Gonzalez the only rested starting pitcher, and games 5 and 6 go the way they did. Who starts game 7, and how long is the leash against a roster that stacks platoons this way, given that they know the platoons are "real"?

I suppose they probably go with Bumgarner on full rest, but the hook is still super quick if they know that the splits of all the pitchers are just as "real". So, yes, in an actual game, Verlander probably faces Cano and Trumbo, but in an actual game they don't really have that platoon advantage versus him (especially Trumbo). So we're playing a sim of something close to baseball, and I'm using the strategy a real baseball manager would use given that this sim was how things actually worked.

FWIW, I'd rather people got to do whatever they wanted with pitchers within the existing rules and platoons became "artificially" less valuable than to go the opposite way and actually make platoons even more valuable than they already are.

Or, realistically, I'd much rather that all the platoon splits were just generic like in the classic seasons, rather than the mostly small-sample size nonsense that they are. But I'm going to optimize for whatever rules we have, which include the small-sample size shenanigans at the moment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 03:15PM by Bill Liming.

"Or, realistically, I'd much rather that all the platoon splits were just generic like in the classic season, rather than the mostly small-sample size nonsense that they are."

I agree with this.

"But I'm going to optimize for whatever rules we have, which include the small-sample size shenanigans at the moment."

I just do not understand the need to optimize everything in a no stakes leagues. People being cut throat makes this less fun. Maneuvers like you pulled make me not enjoy the league. It's the same when people make lop-sided trades with new or less savvy owners.

Showing some self-restraint and sportsmanship makes things more fun for everyone.

I'm of two minds on this. I can see Arthur's point that it is a bit sneaky, and I probably would have ben livid had someone done it to me. On the other hand, it is also pretty clever, and there's a part of me that says if you build a team that is so platoon dependent, then this is the chance you run. Its probably not "real baseball," but in real baseball no team builds a squad that relies heavily on lefty/righty specialists with small sample sizes (whereas in TRHL we all do that).

I also think to myself, would my favorite real manager (Earl Weaver) have done this if faced with this situation? I'm sure that no one doubts he would have -- after all, Earl routinely started pitcher Steve Stone at DH, to buy more time to play the lefty-righty matchup (indeed, Stone sometimes was not even in the ballpark at the time he was penciled into the lineup).

That said, I have no problem clamping down on this in the interests of general league morale.

One idea to combat this -- in postseason series have a games limit as well as a BF limit -- so that a guy who only pitched in 35 games (e.g., a starter) can only pitch in three games, period. That way , if you start a guy and pull him after an inning, it really does hurt you.

> I just do not understand the need to optimize
> everything in a no stakes leagues. People being
> cut throat makes this less fun. Maneuvers like
> you pulled make me not enjoy the league. It's the
> same when people make lop-sided trades with new or
> less savvy owners.
>
> Showing some self-restraint and sportsmanship
> makes things more fun for everyone.

I don't know what to tell you. Linear regressions and spreadsheets are fun to me.

And I don't concede that the play I chose was a "maneuver" or stunt, or whatever other negative connotation you want to put on it.

We don't have to have the same motivation for participating, and I'm not going to denigrate yours. We just have to agree on a set of written rules that we're all willing to live by. I know many of the little spreadsheety things in this league are what draw me to it, and the more of those that go away the less interesting it would be. Well, that and the pipe dream that I'll eventually get to sign someone I actually know IRL (son's coach is in AA with the Marlins, but hasn't made the 40-man yet).

charles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One idea to combat this -- in postseason series
> have a games limit as well as a BF limit -- so
> that a guy who only pitched in 35 games (e.g., a
> starter) can only pitch in three games, period.
> That way , if you start a guy and pull him after
> an inning, it really does hurt you.

Guys who started 30ish games (someone else can look up the specifics) can already throw in 3 games, which would be basically as much as you could really do to game this sort of situation.

I really don't know how you could prevent gaming this without requiring a minimum number of IP/Runs/whatever from the starter, which would inevitably lead to someone griping about losing a 1 run game because they couldn't yank the guy they wanted early enough.

Plus, I really kind of want to look at trying a 3-man rotation some day. And might have to, the way my SP staff is lining up.

Edited to add: I wasn't thinking about this clearly, a 3 appearance limit would fix the SP-swapping for 6 games problem. It wouldn't stop what I did in this game (Bumgarner was only pitching in his second game, and appearing in his 3rd if his PH appearance counts), nor would it prevent doing something similar with relievers, which would, I'm thinking, be harder to police with an appearances rule.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2018 04:51PM by Bill Liming.

I could be missing it, but I'm not seeing anything in the official MLB rules that requires teams to communicate their lineups/pitchers to the opposition prior to exchanging lineup cards, though it seems obvious that they routinely do.

Which begs the question, if Earl was willing to mess with the DH rule, why wouldn't have used this to pull similar shenanigans with starting random pitchers to get the same effect? Other than that they'd have to pitch to one hitter, it wouldn't seem like to much of an imposition to give a guy one live batter on a throw day to stave off platoons back in the day when teams did it more.

Alternatively, I don't know what we ultimately do about the Rays bullpen days. Maybe it doesn't matter if they all suck, but there's at least some possibility that someone like Pruitt puts up a Mike Marshall-esque relief season in their system, or a SP gets 30 starts and 90 IP.

Anyway, keep in mind that we need to be able to replicate not just the 2014 WS Game 7, but also the 2018 WS Game 7. Lance McCullers pitching on normal rest is pulled with a 2 runners on and no runs scored in the third inning of a game his team was leading 5-0, after throwing 49 pitches, though admittedly he'd also hit 4 guys.

I skimmed the above. I can see both sides but given that (a) this was Game 7 and (b) Bill wasn't playing against the computer manager, I'm fine with it.

I've thought of this during the regular season (my team never makes the playoffs), but I wouldn't do it myself because I'm playing against a computer manager and it's indeed a bit bush.

That having been said: In an NL park I will absolutely pull my starter -- in the first inning if need be -- if he comes to the plate in a bases loaded situation. I simply feel that the leverage from that PA is worth pulling my starter. It wouldn't have anything to do with getting the platoon advantage per se but you can bet I'd try to bring in an opposite hand pitcher.

I've done this early in games, though not the 1st or 2nd inning. More like 4th inning, maybe 3rd.

At the end of the day I guess my overall view on the Arthur-Bill dustup is that anything that's within the written rules should be permitted. Otherwise the line just gets too blurred.

This all very interesting. I don't see any rules broken. I am pretty sure that if a major league manager "felt" pulling his starter in the first inning for whatever reason was a move likely to pay off he would.

It's not even clear to me from the text that Bill intended to pull Verlander that early when he selected him as his starter. I am not saying he didn't have this evil plan, it just can't be assumed.

Now so far as playing this game for entertainment and low stakes, there are plenty of moments in the draft when I have harsh words for other teams strategies, most which I address to one of my voodoo bobble head dolls of the offending team.

What am I saying? One, even in bragging rites, there is a stake. So expect managers to game the game. Should they, maybe not, but expect it.

Two, if the game means that much to you in terms of other managers being able to irritate you, then yes it is higher stakes and I see why that would piss someone off. Ask Mets fans what they think of Chase Utley. They think he crossed the line, but nobody replayed the game.

So in conclusion, Congrats on a great season to Aurthur and Bill and to Greg for his brilliant game seven managerial victory. Give him a ring.

Just the opinion of the writer from a sideline perspective.

So, I'm not forming any conclusions yet, but I wonder how folks feel about the extremes. Like, start a scrub of the opposite handedness, pitch to one batter, than lift him to get your real pitcher in. While I'm pretty certain that starters do fatigue more quickly when used in relief, I'd wager the platoon advantage makes it worth the cost. The only downside I see is that the ploy would likely be obvious, but that isn't really a downside.

Like, imagine Justin Nicolino is the announced starter. Pitches to one hitter, then is lifted for a fully rested Verlander. I don't recall his splits from last year, but say Verlander was especially bad vLHP. I guess if the opposition notices, and stacks their lineups accordingly, it can be effectively countered, in which case the team attempting the ploy now only loses on the fatigue aspect.

Or maybe the hypothetical should be where both pitchers are viable, so the team attempting the ploy is guaranteed the split advantage, yet the opposing team can't properly counter. The team would need two rested starters of opposite handedness to make use of this, and would burn fatigue of the guy who pitches first, so outside of a game 7, probably not so viable. Though maybe there's something I'm missing.

Main point is, first question is if there should be a rule against this in any circumstance. Find the extremes, and decide if they're acceptable. Again, I don't have a conclusion yet. My instinct is to consider the move an exploit, and design a rule, but I'm not yet convinced of that.

Also, worth noting that MLB made a rule banning Weaver's DH ploy.