Suggested Rules Changes for Tout

by Perry Van Hook, mastersball.com

TOUT Wars has a unique but very well thought out set of rules for its esteemed combatants. But as any of you who have played fantasy sports or almost any other game for a while know that while no one wants to change the rules, there are things that eventually need updating. The provisions for players on the MLB DL is one that needs that update so the intent of the rules is upheld but loopholes or the opportunity for players to “game”  the rules are eliminated.

First let’s look at the rules as they currently stand:

DISABLED LIST

A player placed on the major league disabled list is eligible to be placed on his Tout Wars team’s disabled list. The DL will be considered an extension of reserve list; however, there is no limit to the number of players that may be on a team’s disabled list.

When a player on the DL is activated to his team’s major league roster, that player must be activated to his Tout Wars team active or reserve roster by the second transaction deadline following his activation. If an activated major league player is not activated to his Tout Wars team roster by this time, he will automatically be released to the free agent pool.

All DL activations are bound by the roster requirements for the active or reserve lists. Players must be released, traded, etc. to make room for the DL-activated player.

Then a section of the rules that deals with TRANSACTIONS and DEADLINES

DAILY: Active to reserve moves may be made daily, but only for players who are placed on the disabled list, demoted to the minors, suspended, or deceased. Daily activations from reserve to the active roster can only be made for players returning from the DL or minor leagues or a suspension. If a player on the active roster is actually on the DL or in the minors, he may be replaced and moved to the DL or reserve list (though the latter might require the release of a reserve player). If an active player is to be replaced by a returning player, he must be released. Streaming players daily is strictly prohibited. Creating openings artificially by promoting inactive players in advance of the move, or any similar action, are also prohibited.

The section on the DL is pretty clear and doesn’t need any changes. It is the section that deals with the midweek moves for DL players that needs our attention. The intent of midweek moves is to allow teams to not have x number of days with an injured player still in their lineup when they have a player on their (reserve) bench who could fill in for their injured or demoted player.

BUT the rule is not specific enough as it stands now and “allows” a player to “game” his lineup. Let’s say a team has Scott Baker on the DL and he is activated “today”. He is not going to start for the rest of this week, so no hurry to get him back into our lineup. But I note that next week he will have two starts – Monday @ the Texas Rangers, and Saturday, home vs the Kansas City Royals. So as a smart owner and well within the rules, I let Baker stay on the DL when I set my lineup on Monday, but then during the week make the midweek move to bring him off the DL and waive the middle reliever I had in that lineup spot, thus avoiding having Baker active for a tough start in Arlington against that Ranger lineup but still getting his home start versus the Royals.

Legal? Yes. What the rule intended? NO

In fact the rule specifically states that “Streaming players daily is strictly prohibited. Creating openings artificially by promoting inactive players in advance of the move, or any similar action, are also prohibited.” And yet the rules allow just that.

The rule needs an amendment that says that ……”a player on a TW DL list who is off the major league DL prior to the start of the lineup period cannot be activated from the DL during that same week, and a player who is on the ML DL list may not be left active in Tout Wars for the start of the week and then placed on the TW DL later that week.” In other words if you could have made the transaction on Monday, you can’t game the rules by waiting and then making the move when it benefits your team but violates the intent and spirit of the rules.

The rule on midweek activation also says that when a player is activated from the DL the player he is replacing must be released. There is no reason for a team to have to lose a player they had as a substitute. The rule should allow that player to be either released or reserved (which may require a currently reserved player to be released instead).

 

6 thoughts on “Suggested Rules Changes for Tout”

  1. Points all well taken. What seems more of a problem would be with a hitter rather than a pitcher. What if the player coming off the dl only qualifies at one position, say Pujols at 1B. And the player you have at that spot, say Helton is not the guy you want to drop from your team, and you CI spot and U spot can’t be changed. The guy I want to release to activate Pujols is on my bench (say morgan). Seems as if I should be able to release Morgan, move Helton to reserve and activate Albert.
    I also think there should be a limit to the number of players a team can have on the dl. It would keep the player population of free agents a little stronger. I realize some owner could have bad luck with multiple guys on the dl at the same time, but with our 4 reserve spots he still has options. So if we put a limit at 3, a team owner could control no more than 7 reserve players.

  2. I see Perry’s points and Brian’s also, but I think Peter’s point is more than fair in this regard: It rarely comes up, and it doesn’t always work out that the schedule is so advantageous (like Peter noted, the order of the upcoming two starts, for instance). The purpose is to eliminate streaming and limit the burden on the SWATs. I figure that the suggestions would require constant roster hawking by the SWATs to double-check all DL transactions, when there’d so rarely be an infraction and the situation so rarely comes up anyway, that it’s a lot of work for virtually no impact – and that doesn’t include the impact of the results themselves, no? (In LABR, I purposely avoided activating Scott Baker in a matchup versus Texas, and he dominated them, and pitched well against them in two starts total.) The result doesn’t matter, just saying, even when we presume that we can manipulate such a tiny loophole, it doesn’t always work out that way.

  3. My point was that a soft self-policing rule that allows teams some flexibility is easier to administer and doesn’t distort the intention of the game because the situation doesn’t come up all that often.

    When I have a pitcher come off the DL I always look at the upcoming games before deciding to activate him or to wait. Most of the time a pitcher doesn’t have two starts in the upcoming week, and half the time he does the tougher team comes later, which undermines the gaming aspect of the moves. I guess I don’t see the harm in letting an owner time the move if he also has to cut a player. It is a far different thing than allowing daily free moves.

    I would be more troubled if he got a free move to reserve, which would seem to double the consequences.

  5. To be clear about the need to release a player when activating someone from the DL, the requirement was an attempt to put a cost on the transaction that would discourage the types of gaming that Perry discusses without the need to police every transaction. Midweek transactions require a release (unless you have a player on the DL). If you want to make free moves up and down you can do that on Monday.

    I personally don’t have a problem with people timing their DL activations. With hitters it isn’t much of an issue, and with most pitcher activations, unless you activate them on Monday, ahead of their first start back, you miss the first start anyway (since a player can’t be made active until the day after he’s activated by his ML team). Does this come up often enough for any team to be called gaming?

  6. Perry, I think I agree with both your points, while sheepishly admitting I did not catch the former gaming opportunity and didn’t realize the latter rule was in place (it makes no sense to me).

    However, I do see one case where tuning of your wording could be required. Let’s say I have a player who came off the DL, but I did not activate him the first week, as I had no roater openings. (The rules give us two weeks to bring a player off the DL.)

    For example, during that first week, another player on my active roster suffers an injury and hits the DL. I should be able to activate the previously-DLed player that week and not wait until the next deadline.

    That is a perfectly-legitimate option and should not be eliminated in the attempt to cut off the gaming example presented.

    My addition to your wording in CAPS:

    ”a player on a TW DL list who is off the major league DL prior to the start of the lineup period cannot be activated from the DL during that same week EXCEPT TO REPLACE A NEWLY-DLed PLAYER, and a player who is on the ML DL list may not be left active in Tout Wars for the start of the week and then placed on the TW DL later that week.”

Comments are closed.