|
Post by Dave Stieb on Nov 18, 2004 11:12:29 GMT -5
As an AL owner, I say "yes" to injuries. Not only does it add realism to the season, it adds strategy and makes meaning out of the bench and of the minors. However, I don't think we should limit the "fix" to the AL only even if the problem is primarily with the Junior Circuit. I like what the Cubs and the Cards had to say in addition to their "yes." Put an injury cap set at 3-5 (or whatever number) for the year, rather than per half, and if there is an injuriy past the cap, the first one injured is the first one off the injured list.... regardless of time spent or suppose to be spent. This way there are still injuries and we are able to work around the known-bug in the AL and the NL isn't alienated with this either. Make it available to all.
|
|
|
Post by duquette on Dec 14, 2004 16:56:01 GMT -5
so....injuries or no? i have no problem with injuries and i understand the instaheal. i am in a league w/ injuries and i have instaheal. the nl gets nowhere as many injuries as the al. its not randomized. the nl WONT get the 4-6 (at least) devastating injuries that the al will. and if they do, the al will get like 400-600. i dont see why any nl person wouldnt vote for yes soley on the instaheal.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hendry on Dec 15, 2004 8:30:46 GMT -5
I believe strongly that my idea would work best so I restate:
Cap injuries per team at 3. When a 4th player goes down, the 1st player of the 3 that was hurt or the least severe of the 3 comes off the DL.
This way, if Seattle loses 63 men to injury in a season, it is still always operating at one time without only 3 players. And if San Diego only experiences 5 injuries a season, it still will at no point operate with more than 3 guys out at one time.
Its balanced no matter how many or few players on any given team get hurt. Every team is affected in the same fashion and the number of injuries in a season for any team compared to any other is arbitrary since only 3 players can be placed on the DL at one time.
I have yet to hear a valid argument why this wouldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Dec 16, 2004 11:26:03 GMT -5
The only thing I see wrong with it is that at all times the AL will have 3 players on DL, if what I hear about the bug is found to be true, but I do agree your way is a better way to go then instaheal, because from the understanding I have is that AL is the only ones to get it, which I don't think is fair to the fact that what if AL is bombarded with a lot of injuries, but they all end up being minor injuries, and alot of them at that, but the NL ends up with five or six teams with season ending injuries to their stars, we end up losing out WAY more then AL does, if you want it to stay EVEN with the NL, which is the only reason I can understand the instaheal coming into factor, then Cubs way is the best, but if you want it to stay fair League to League, as in NL teams all are even and AL teams are all even, then injuries with no instaheal or both leagues get the instaheal is the best way to go, if you want it to be completely even then no injuries is the best way to go, but if you are going to give the instaheal to AL then you would have to give it to NL, thats like saying that we are going to give the AL 5 Million dollars more to spend on FA, because they have a DH spot to fill and the NL doesn't. That would not pass, no chance in hell, and it is exactly what you are trying to do with the instaheal. Something has to be figured out here, and giving one league the instaheal, and not the other league is not the solution, this would be my stance whether I was AL or NL, it just happens I am an NL GM.
|
|