Forums

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

A fair question. I'll try to be brief. HBD is the closest thing to MLB that I "manage". After I clinch, I rest my starters unless the games I'm playing could potential affect a playoff race.

I think there's a slight difference in MLB because, even though a Trout/Harper are infinitely better than the replacement, they are real people who could benefit from a day or two off before the playoffs start. In this particular case, I don't think those 12 y/o girls were exhausted after two games. And their replacements were no-hit. The coaches tried to manipulate the system.

8/23/2015 7:05 AM

Posts: 3653 (0)

Hall of Famer

304

Hall of Famer

The Iowa team should not have put themselves in a position where the tie-breaker mattered. Bottom line, any team that gets hosed by the workings of a tie-breaker system only has themselves to blame. Win all your games and the tie-breaker is not a factor (at least when head-to-head play has occurred in the pool play). And I say that as a coach that has gotten hosed by the tie-breaker system in the past. Things can get real crazy when point-differential is one of the criteria used...i.e need to win by 7+ or lose by 12+ in order to advance....seriously...those scenarios exist. If I'm a coach and my kids have worked hard, played hard, played fair...why would I not want to give them the opportunity to continue to advance? I didn't create the rules (in fact have lobbied hard to change them to avoid this very scenario).

8/23/2015 10:06 PM

Posts: 3653 (0)

Hall of Famer

304

Hall of Famer

MikeT....last game of the regular season...you have clinched your division. It Kershaw's turn to pitch game 162 against a team that is tied for the 2nd WC spot. Are you going to start him, or rest him?

8/23/2015 10:08 PM

Posts: 3375 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 59 54

Pro

It wasn't just that they rested some of their starters (and it was only 4 due to roster size, and assuming softball has the same mandatory play rules as Little League baseball, the players that played would have to play at least some anyhow. They were apparently all just bunting and not making any effort to hit the ball. They threw the game in a way that apparently was completely obvious from their first at bat. Now, obviously I wasn't there to see it but evidently something happened to make it clear to the Little League powers that be that the players on the field were giving something less than full effort.

Obviously the Iowa team could/should have won their first game against them and it wouldn't have mattered. But they didn't, and I don't think that gives the Washington team license to THROW the game. Really, if they made it that obvious, it was just stupid on the part of the Washington team.

8/24/2015 7:18 AM

Posts: 3375 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 59 54

Pro

And part of the problem for Washington was that it wasn't just that they had to lose to keep Iowa out - they couldn't even score 3 runs.

8/24/2015 7:22 AM

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2015 10:08:00 PM (view original):
MikeT....last game of the regular season...you have clinched your division. It Kershaw's turn to pitch game 162 against a team that is tied for the 2nd WC spot. Are you going to start him, or rest him?

This isn't worthy of a response. Do better.

8/24/2015 8:11 AM

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2015 10:06:00 PM (view original):
The Iowa team should not have put themselves in a position where the tie-breaker mattered. Bottom line, any team that gets hosed by the workings of a tie-breaker system only has themselves to blame. Win all your games and the tie-breaker is not a factor (at least when head-to-head play has occurred in the pool play). And I say that as a coach that has gotten hosed by the tie-breaker system in the past. Things can get real crazy when point-differential is one of the criteria used...i.e need to win by 7+ or lose by 12+ in order to advance....seriously...those scenarios exist. If I'm a coach and my kids have worked hard, played hard, played fair...why would I not want to give them the opportunity to continue to advance? I didn't create the rules (in fact have lobbied hard to change them to avoid this very scenario).

Of course Iowa SHOULD have won all their games. I'm sure they tried very hard to do so. The problem was they didn't. However, unlike the team throwing games, they gave 100% effort. As a responsible adult, it's sort of your job to teach that giving 100% is what you should do. The other team's coaches failed to teach that lesson. Truth is, those coaches shouldn't be allowed to coach again. **** poor role models. Their teachings are "Give 100% unless giving less effort helps you advance."

8/24/2015 8:15 AM

Posts: 3653 (0)

Hall of Famer

304

Hall of Famer

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/24/2015 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2015 10:08:00 PM (view original):
MikeT....last game of the regular season...you have clinched your division. It Kershaw's turn to pitch game 162 against a team that is tied for the 2nd WC spot. Are you going to start him, or rest him?
This isn't worthy of a response. Do better.

Mike..you said this --> "A fair question. I'll try to be brief. HBD is the closest thing to MLB that I "manage". After I clinch, I rest my starters unless the games I'm playing could potential affect a playoff race."

So why isn't my question worthy of a response? Is it because your answer is "Of course I rest Kershaw for the next game" which would contradict " After I clinch, I rest my starters unless the games I'm playing could potential affect a playoff race."?

Should checking to make sure I understand what you're saying.

8/24/2015 8:38 AM

Posts: 3653 (0)

Hall of Famer

304

Hall of Famer

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/24/2015 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2015 10:06:00 PM (view original):
The Iowa team should not have put themselves in a position where the tie-breaker mattered. Bottom line, any team that gets hosed by the workings of a tie-breaker system only has themselves to blame. Win all your games and the tie-breaker is not a factor (at least when head-to-head play has occurred in the pool play). And I say that as a coach that has gotten hosed by the tie-breaker system in the past. Things can get real crazy when point-differential is one of the criteria used...i.e need to win by 7+ or lose by 12+ in order to advance....seriously...those scenarios exist. If I'm a coach and my kids have worked hard, played hard, played fair...why would I not want to give them the opportunity to continue to advance? I didn't create the rules (in fact have lobbied hard to change them to avoid this very scenario).
Of course Iowa SHOULD have won all their games. I'm sure they tried very hard to do so. The problem was they didn't. However, unlike the team throwing games, they gave 100% effort. As a responsible adult, it's sort of your job to teach that giving 100% is what you should do. The other team's coaches failed to teach that lesson. Truth is, those coaches shouldn't be allowed to coach again. **** poor role models. Their teachings are "Give 100% unless giving less effort helps you advance."

another scenario...runner in a track meet in the prelims...do you give 100% or do you give enough to qualify to have something left for the next race? If you say give 100% every time you would make a lousy track or swimming coach. Hell, when you go out drinking do you give 100% or do you pace yourself? It's not so cut and dried as some of you want to make it.

Again, the fault is the stupid-assed tie-breaker rules. You want to guarantee to advance?...don't lose. Is it okay for a coach to align pitchers strategically? Is it okay to rest players in non-must win games?

And how do you know Iowa gave 100% effort? Maybe with the "writing on the wall" the Iowa coach subbed in some of his less capable players. That's not giving 100%

8/24/2015 8:45 AM

Posts: 3375 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 59 54

Pro

Just so we're clear, you're cool with throwing games? Because that's what was ruled to have happened here. It wasn't just that they rested starters, it wasn't just that they weren't into the game 100% because it didn't ultimately matter for them. The players that did play were instructed to do things that were intentionally designed to produce a loss and less than 3 runs scored for the purpose of eliminating an opponent. And again, none of us were there so maybe that isn't what happened - but that's what the Little League officials decided.

Teams win games all the time when they are resting players and don't have any stake in the outcome - because they aren't actively trying to lose.

Perhaps the best part of this is that the team that they threw the game to ended up winning the tournament.

8/24/2015 8:52 AM

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/24/2015 8:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/24/2015 8:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2015 10:08:00 PM (view original):
MikeT....last game of the regular season...you have clinched your division. It Kershaw's turn to pitch game 162 against a team that is tied for the 2nd WC spot. Are you going to start him, or rest him?
This isn't worthy of a response. Do better.
Mike..you said this --> "A fair question. I'll try to be brief. HBD is the closest thing to MLB that I "manage". After I clinch, I rest my starters unless the games I'm playing could potential affect a playoff race."

So why isn't my question worthy of a response? Is it because your answer is "Of course I rest Kershaw for the next game" which would contradict " After I clinch, I rest my starters unless the games I'm playing could potential affect a playoff race."?

Should checking to make sure I understand what you're saying.

In the response you partially quoted, I used two examples: Trout and Harper. Do you understand the difference between those two guys and Kershaw? If so, then you understand why it's a stupid question.

8/24/2015 8:55 AM

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/24/2015 8:45:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 8/24/2015 8:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2015 10:06:00 PM (view original):
The Iowa team should not have put themselves in a position where the tie-breaker mattered. Bottom line, any team that gets hosed by the workings of a tie-breaker system only has themselves to blame. Win all your games and the tie-breaker is not a factor (at least when head-to-head play has occurred in the pool play). And I say that as a coach that has gotten hosed by the tie-breaker system in the past. Things can get real crazy when point-differential is one of the criteria used...i.e need to win by 7+ or lose by 12+ in order to advance....seriously...those scenarios exist. If I'm a coach and my kids have worked hard, played hard, played fair...why would I not want to give them the opportunity to continue to advance? I didn't create the rules (in fact have lobbied hard to change them to avoid this very scenario).
Of course Iowa SHOULD have won all their games. I'm sure they tried very hard to do so. The problem was they didn't. However, unlike the team throwing games, they gave 100% effort. As a responsible adult, it's sort of your job to teach that giving 100% is what you should do. The other team's coaches failed to teach that lesson. Truth is, those coaches shouldn't be allowed to coach again. **** poor role models. Their teachings are "Give 100% unless giving less effort helps you advance."
another scenario...runner in a track meet in the prelims...do you give 100% or do you give enough to qualify to have something left for the next race? If you say give 100% every time you would make a lousy track or swimming coach. Hell, when you go out drinking do you give 100% or do you pace yourself? It's not so cut and dried as some of you want to make it.

Again, the fault is the stupid-assed tie-breaker rules. You want to guarantee to advance?...don't lose. Is it okay for a coach to align pitchers strategically? Is it okay to rest players in non-must win games?

And how do you know Iowa gave 100% effort? Maybe with the "writing on the wall" the Iowa coach subbed in some of his less capable players. That's not giving 100%

Does everyone you know become completely exhausted with no chance of recovery after giving 100%?

I'd run my 100m at 100%, rest 15 minutes before the next heat and still be able to give 100%. ****.

As for your "It's OK to lose because of the rules" philosophy, you're a terrible role model. I hope you're childless.

8/24/2015 8:58 AM

Posts: 3375 (0)

Hall of Famer

12 59 54

Pro

Well, you might be able to give 100% effort again 15 minutes later, but you're not going to be able to get as much out of your body in the 2nd run. You're not fully recovering that quickly.

But it's not a comparable situation any way so it just doesn't matter. We're not talking about a team that simply "wasn't giving 100%" - they were trying to lose.

8/24/2015 9:44 AM