I would like to suggest a rule proposal to deal with the "phantom starter" issue in situations like the 2017 WS Game 7 controversy discussed in the thread before this one:

[PROPOSED] 4.8.4 In all playoff games, the manager (if it is not a computer manager) must allow their designated starting pitcher to continue in the game until one of the following occurs:

4.8.4.1 he is injured and unable to continue;
4.8.4.2 he has pitched two full innings; or
4.8.4.3 he has allowed two runs.

This rule can be waived at the opponent's absolute discretion.

I think this fairly balances the issue and adds a bright-line rule that many owners seemed to think was needed. I prefer two innings and two runs to three and three because it gives some balance to those who think the strategy permissible.

I would probably prefer to add in a caveat allowing the SP to be removed for a pinch-hitter because there are genuinely circumstances where you do that in Top 2, but I think the discretionary waiver allows for that.

I do not think that bringing in one bright-line rule is, itself, an excuse to give _carte blanche_ to all other kinds of shenanigans around ambiguous rules. On the other hand, I'm not generally going to be opposed to too many shenanigans, I like shenanigans within reason.

I titled the thread "Rules Proposals" because other proposals can go here if someone has a better idea--which they well might, I just tried to pick a very easy rule of thumb.

If we adopt something like this rule, is it going to be OK to do the 2-inning platoon shuffle 5 or 6 times in a series? Given the existence of rule like this, I'd likely be more inclined to try to exploit a platoon-heavy lineup since we've defined what's acceptable. Of course, a real-life manager would probably do so as well given that the split-stats were actually reliable indicators of performance.

Is this rule going to apply to game 7 (or, really, any potential last game of a series), which is the game most likely to to see unusual tactics in real life?

Is there a way to implement this sort of rule so that some of the onus is on the offense for building a platoon-exploitable lineup? As much as anyone thinks my use of Bumgarner in the WS was unrealistic, real managers don't use lineups with 4 or 5 guys who turn into actual offensive zeroes against their weak side, and lineups that only had one or two exploitable hitters would largely obviate the need for a rule for pitchers.

Note for 4.8.4.1, I'm presuming "tired and unable to continue" due to a rain delay is includes, as would be an ejection. These three are no-brainers because DMB is forcing the pitcher out of the game; we likely don't need a rule for it.

That's a tough call, two full innings. If I have a stud SP who has already pitched G1 and G4 and now back for G7 but likely tired, he could struggle a bit in the first inning and the second inning but fortunately only give up one run. But now the bases are loaded with two outs in the second inning with a big RHP masher coming to the plate. My pitcher has already thrown 60 pitches because of his 1 2/3 innings of struggles. This rule would then require I keep in my tired, struggling pitcher against an excellent hitter in a dire situation just because my SP hasn't allowed two runs or pitched two innings. But I would argue the right call is to get him the fuck out of there for a new pitcher.

If I were in that situation, and I had to keep my pitcher in the game because of some arbitrary inning/runs number, I'd be livid and vowing to squash this rule. And if I were the owner whose team had the bases loaded against a struggling SP with my big bopper up, now way do I waive the rule.

I joined the league in late 2003, early 2004 to replay the 2003 season. In all that time, until now, we have never had an incident, to my knowledge*, like the 2016 World Series G7 "bait-and-switch" with Verlander and Bumgarner. Plus the Outlaws lost the game. *- I'd enjoy going back through all the post-season box scores to see if this ever happened before.

Current limitations to pitchers, like PT usage, number of regular season GS to start X games in the post-season, etc., are known going in to the game and not dependent on in-game situations. If we could somehow conceive of a similar limitation that would minimize the pulling of a SP early in the game, I might vote for that.

Greg Tamer Wrote:

> I joined the league in late 2003, early 2004 to
> replay the 2003 season. In all that time, until
> now, we have never had an incident, to my
> knowledge*, like the 2016 World Series G7
> "bait-and-switch" with Verlander and Bumgarner.
> Plus the Outlaws lost the game. *- I'd enjoy going
> back through all the post-season box scores to see
> if this ever happened before.

FWIW, I really object to calling it a bait-and-switch, as though it was some trick to get my opponent to start a platoon-vulnerable lineup, rather than something he was always going to do regardless of who I started.

I think limiting SP to one game in relief (in addition to whatever number of starts they get based on RL starts) would probably get the job done with regards to a new rule. It would likely limit the usefulness of attempting to exploit a platoon-heavy lineup to a game 7 situation, which I would argue should be pretty much anything goes, anyway. Plus, it would require the offense to be a little more cognizant of the possibilities throughout, which ought to lead to moderately more realistic starting lineups and some balance in the "costs" of the rule to both teams.

I would add that, especially in a game 7 situation, unless we limit SP IP somehow, it's probably always going to be possible to bullpen the game from the 1st inning on if someone wants to. I'd argue that's realistic too, of course, but that would likewise involve all kinds of platoon advantages for the defense, at least until the relievers run out.

I'm completely opposed to this rule proposal. I don't want to have to wait until 2 runs are in with men all over the bases to pull my starter.

I understand, Bill. I'm just using "bait-and-switch" in quotes because that's essentially what the issue is at the moment -- someone deliberately baiting a heavy platoon lineup and then switching pitchers egregiously early to counter the platoon.

If managers don't want a bright-line rule I am happy with that, in fact much happier.


Bill's question:

"If we adopt something like this rule, is it going to be OK to do the 2-inning platoon shuffle 5 or 6 times in a series?" That is what the rule says, yes.

I wouldn't *recommend* that, because of what happens to SPs without relief durability ratings.

I really am curious what happens with a 3-man rotation and 9 rested relievers, though I suppose it would require just the right 3 SP, since you wouldn't really do it with great guys, and you wouldn't want to do it with terrible ones.

I think the net effect of the proposed rule will be to encourage more shenanigans, not fewer, FWIW, since we'd be explicitly setting the limit that was acceptable.

Also, if this is really something that needs addressing, we probably ought to address it in the regular season as well. Since there are no rules preventing starting RP in the regular season, it'd be pretty trivial to exploit any platoon-heavy lineup against a CM that's already pretty stupid about platoons. I'm pretty aggressive in finding SP matchups, especially at home, that avoid giving away platoon advantage or that exploit existing lineup holes (eg, the Halos RHB heavy lineup), but I don't routinely use RP as starters except towards the end of the season to burn excess PT or setup SP rotations for the post-season or for injury avoidance. I haven't tried playing around with the math, but I do wonder if punting a rotation spot or two in favor of bullpen games might be a viable strategy in some cases (I'm actually kind of near the edge of that with my current rotation bottom guys like Butler/Stratton given the much better relief options of which I have plenty). Of course, the Rays are more or less trying this in real life, so there's every chance that 13 or 14 man pitching staffs with 6 swingmen become de riguer in the relatively near future.