Non-National Pitching Restrictions

[aueagle30]

I'm told the issue of non-national pitching restrictions was raised again at last night's P&S meeting, with BV requesting clubs to respond to their most recent proposal (as follows):

2/ Non National Pitching Restrictions

A Non National pitcher must be removed from the mound after their team makes 15 defensive outs for a 9 inning weekend game and 12 defensive outs for a midweek timed game.
Women Non National pitchers must be removed from the mound after their team makes 12 defensive outs.

Non National pitching restrictions to apply to finals series

Is there seriously a problem that requires any restrictions being put in place? Based on the D1 statistics from this season (taken from BV web site):

• There were seven import pitchers this season in D1... There were 50 pitchers with 20+ IP... 24 pitchers with 40+ IP... only 11 pitched more than 60 innings (in other words, thanks to the additional games there seems to be plenty of pitchers pitching)
  
  
• 28 pitchers in the top 50 IP are Australian-born kids under 25 years old (I could be off by one or two as I'm not 100% on ages, but know a lot of the guys DOB's through my involvement at state and VIS programs)... seems like young guys are getting opportunities.
  
  
• Doncaster (with an import) had the most 20+ IP pitchers with seven, followed by Melbourne (import) and Waverley (no import) on five each (having an import doesn't seem to limit teams on using multiple pitchers).
  
  
• Cheltenham (no import) had the least number of 20+ IP pitchers with two, followed by Preston (import) on three... all other teams in D1 had four 20+ IP pitchers (not having an import doesn't guarantee more pitching opportunities).
  
  
• Of the top six teams this year, only Geelong and Melbourne had an import pitcher... neither of the grand finalists had an import pitcher (Blackburn did briefly, but only contributed 15 IP)... of the four teams to play in a grand final in the past two years, only Geelong has had an import pitcher (import pitchers aren't being used to 'steal' championships).
  
  
• All seven imports ranked in the top 20 IP for this season... five of the seven pitched on teams placed in the bottom half of the standings (suggesting imports are being used to improve teams chances of competing, and are valuable resources just based on number of IP).

Based on these numbers, it would appear the arguments that imports are being used to an unfair advantage, or are taking opportunities from young locals just don't seem to stack up.

In fact, it would appear if the league does reinstate pitching restrictions on imports, it would actually make the lower-placed teams less competitive and create a greater divide between the top and bottom of D1.

As for the argument I've heard that we're burning out import pitchers... three of the imports pitched additionally with the Aces... I'm guessing the other four would have loved the chance... most imports complain we don't play enough... and until we discuss putting restrictions on ALL pitchers (which I'm not encouraging), this argument means it's okay to burn out Aussie arms but not import arms.

I think we should just leave it be...

[oj]

Best thing would be to leave it be as is. Can only see if were to bring this in then would not get as many imports wanting to pitch in the State League, and some of the best performances of the season have been from imports on the mound.

Is just a proposal anyhow and cant really see it happening.

[aueagle30]

Apr 3, 2012 16:22:49 GMT 10 oj said:

Best thing would be to leave it be as is. Can only see if were to bring this in then would not get as many imports wanting to pitch in the State League, and some of the best performances of the season have been from imports on the mound.

Is just a proposal anyhow and cant really see it happening.

oj, it has been put to a vote of the clubs, after the issue was raised by clubs... a two-thirds majority is needed to pass it, but based on the strange system we have, only 2/3 of the respondants need to agree... if only five clubs respond and four vote yes, it will pass.

I agree with you about what we would miss if the rules were changed...

Buzachero's multiple herculean efforts for Preston...

Knuth v Hussey trading blows for nine-innings in a play-off game, only to both leave the game tied...

Dustin Northcott's complete game victory for Werribee over Geelong...

Just for a few.

[wako]

Nate, if that proposal is quoted verbatim in your original post, then the major problem I see with it is that the pitcher is removed when their team has made the stipulated number of outs, not when that many outs have been made while that pitcher was the pitcher of record. For example, if an import came in to pitch at the start of their team's fielding half of the 5th inning of a 9 inning weekend game, they would have to be removed from the mound at the end of that inning, because the team would have made 15 outs!

I agree with all of the points you have raised, as well - there are no problems that exist that this change would or could solve.

[aueagle30]

Apr 3, 2012 17:21:35 GMT 10 wako said:

Nate, if that proposal is quoted verbatim in your original post, then the major problem I see with it is that the pitcher is removed when their team has made the stipulated number of outs, not when that many outs have been made while that pitcher was the pitcher of record. For example, if an import came in to pitch at the start of their team's fielding half of the 5th inning of a 9 inning weekend game, they would have to be removed from the mound at the end of that inning, because the team would have made 15 outs!

I agree with all of the points you have raised, as well - there are no problems that exist that this change would or could solve.

wako, I agree the wording is a problem, but I'm working under the assumption the spirit of the rule would be to limit the non-national pitcher to recording 15 defensive outs (12 mid-week), not at the point the team records that number of outs.

My argument is the restrictions currently in place (only one non-national per club) are enough and no further restrictions on the non-nationals ability to pitch should be implemented, no matter how it's twisted.

[aueagle30]

I thought I should also mention, since Geelong have had an import pitcher and have had reached the playoffs in past couple of years with said non-national pitcher, I'm certain there is a perceived bias in my argument.

For the record, Geelong's non-national pitcher (Knuth) ranked 10th in IP (77) this season, behind pitchers from nine other teams.

Geelong was the first team to have multiple pitchers ranked in the top 20 IP (Gibbons ranked 11th).

Geelong was one of only three clubs to have more than two pitchers pass 40 IP (Upwey and Waverley were the others)... both pitchers other than the Knuth were under 20 years old.

At this stage, Geelong has not committed to a non-national pitcher for next season.

To be clear, I think these stats show Geelong wasn't soley reliant on our non-national pitcher, was committed to providing opportunity to young pitchers, and at this point in time, has no non-national to consider for next season, hopefully discounting any perceived bias we may have for the current rule... I honestly believe it's the right thing for our league.

[p26]

I'd say the same for Melbourne. Our club only decided to get an imprt when our #1 starter was called up on Aces duty and our #2 starter injured his arm and was confined to relief appearance when healthy again after the break. In addition, we lost our middle relief guy for most games after the break with pnuemonia.

While we have a fairly healthy bullpen, the restrictions outlined above would have left us in a position where we may have had to deny a young pitcher a chance to pitch as much as he did in the ABL which would have been a devastating decision for club management and the player to have to make.

Totally agree with Natha's point, but would be curious to know the motive behind the proposed rule. What exactly is the intent and objective of the proposed rule change? At face value it doesn't seem to be in place to solve any existing problem and I'm not sure it has been prompted by any club? Without this info I would have to say it shouldn't be passed.

[behindthedish]

Going against the trend here and agree that there should be restrictions as stated above for non-national pitchers.
Have never been a fan of non-national pitchers as this does not portray the pitching depth/quality at clubs who wish to compete at any given level.
Would rather see clubs develop young arms and retain through opportunity, not through necessity.
And at some clubs, non-nationals deprive young pitchers of game time and the opportunity to pitch at the highest level, which may eventually turn them away from the sport, leaving a void at their club to fill each year - with a non national.

[aueagle30]

Apr 3, 2012 19:24:12 GMT 10 p26 said:

... but would be curious to know the motive behind the proposed rule. What exactly is the intent and objective of the proposed rule change? At face value it doesn't seem to be in place to solve any existing problem and I'm not sure it has been prompted by any club?

p26, this issue was listed as an agenda item at a President's meeting in Feb last year. It was discussed by attendees and several club delegates expressed opinions the current rules stopped development of young pitchers and created an unfair advantage for clubs with imports.

This has most definitely been raised by certain clubs as an issue BV need to address, however I'm yet to see any stats or evidence to support it.

[aueagle30]

Apr 3, 2012 21:38:20 GMT 10 behindthedish said:

Going against the trend here and agree that there should be restrictions as stated above for non-national pitchers.
Have never been a fan of non-national pitchers as this does not portray the pitching depth/quality at clubs who wish to compete at any given level.

BTD, are you saying you'd rather the competition reflect the homegrown pitching depth of clubs?

Based on this season stats, four of the bottom six clubs relied on an import pitcher for the majority of IP... only two of the top six clubs relied on import pitchers for the majority of IP, and they were the only clubs with two pitchers each in the top 12 IP.

Does this mean you're in favour of increasing the gap between the top and bottom clubs?

Apr 3, 2012 21:38:20 GMT 10 behindthedish said:

And at some clubs, non-nationals deprive young pitchers of game time and the opportunity to pitch at the highest level, which may eventually turn them away from the sport, leaving a void at their club to fill each year - with a non national.

Which clubs?

Stats show 28 pitchers under 25 years old with 20+ IP this season... those players represent 11 of the 12 D1 clubs... the one club not represented didn't have an import (Cheltenham).

Stats show 11 pitchers (from seven different clubs) under 25 with 40+ IP, and six pitchers (from six different clubs) with 50+ IP.

Please BTD, show us your evidence of clubs depriving young players opportunity to pitch???

[wearnie52]

But no matter the stats, if a club has an import, they use them. And at the moment, the rules allow them to be used in every game.

I agree with BTD, there needs to be some restrictions so that clubs can't use imports all the time and dominate clubs who don't have imports or who have local pitchers who are still developing.

aueagle30, kids will miss out at some point if we continue to give imports the opportunity to throw every inning.

[aueagle30]

Apr 4, 2012 12:19:17 GMT 10 wearnie52 said:

But no matter the stats, if a club has an import, they use them. And at the moment, the rules allow them to be used in every game.

I agree with BTD, there needs to be some restrictions so that clubs can't use imports all the time and dominate clubs who don't have imports or who have local pitchers who are still developing.

aueagle30, kids will miss out at some point if we continue to give imports the opportunity to throw every inning.

wearnie52, if not stats, what are you basing your opinion on?

Yes the rules allow for non-national pitchers to be used every game... can you name one D1 club that used a non-national pitcher every game?

There is restrictions on non-nationals pitching every game... the 33-game schedule restricts it... evidenced by 13 of the top 20 pitchers for IP this season being local players.

And what evidence is there of clubs with non-nationals dominating clubs without? In fact, it's almost the opposite... let me repeat these FACTS:

Apr 3, 2012 15:25:07 GMT 10 aueagle30 said:

• Of the top six teams this year, only Geelong and Melbourne had an import pitcher... neither of the grand finalists had an import pitcher (Blackburn did briefly, but only contributed 15 IP)... of the four teams to play in a grand final in the past two years, only Geelong has had an import pitcher (import pitchers aren't being used to 'steal' championships).
  
  
• All seven imports ranked in the top 20 IP for this season... five of the seven pitched on teams placed in the bottom half of the standings (suggesting imports are being used to improve teams chances of competing, and are valuable resources just based on number of IP).

In fact, it would appear if the league does reinstate pitching restrictions on imports, it would actually make the lower-placed teams less competitive and create a greater divide between the top and bottom of D1.

Can you name one kid that was deprived opportunities this year because of a non-national? The only team not to have a pitcher under 25 years old throw 20+ innings didn't have an import... I could argue with more evidence that not having an import is more likely to deprive young pitchers of opportunities.

You say 'no matter the stats', but aren't the stats what show the truth? The stats show your argument to have no basis, but surely that's not enough to just ignore them?

wearnie52, I know it's annoying when you're asked to back your opinions with more than just the feeling in your gut, but for the sake of honest debate, at least try.

[wearnie52]

aueagle30, as the famous baseball quote states, stats never show everything

I don't have time to sit around and compile stats, and i don't want to, or need to.

The forum is here for baseball people like myself to state their opinion. Whether it's the same as yours, or whether other people agree with it or not, it's still my opinion, and i'm allowed to have it.

"No matter the stats", i believe allowing imports to throw every inning of the season is not the right option. Just what i feel in my gut.

[aueagle30]

Apr 4, 2012 13:29:58 GMT 10 wearnie52 said:

aueagle30, as the famous baseball quote states, stats never show everything

Perhaps not, but these are cold, hard numbers... not percentages... I've simply ranked the pitchers in order of IP and considered the club they played for and their age (to the best of my knowledge)... not sure what is hidden there?

Apr 4, 2012 13:29:58 GMT 10 wearnie52 said:

I don't have time to sit around and compile stats, and i don't want to, or need to.

Even if they help justify your argument? Honestly, it took me less than 20 mins to compile the data... okay, I'll post my numbers for you and I'll happily provide you any other stats you think might help justify your argument... you see, I actually think it's important to base the decisions made about our sport on facts and evidence, not gut feel.

Apr 4, 2012 13:29:58 GMT 10 wearnie52 said:

The forum is here for baseball people like myself to state their opinion. Whether it's the same as yours, or whether other people agree with it or not, it's still my opinion, and i'm allowed to have it.

Agreed, however, considering the esteem with which you're regarded in baseball, you hold a valuable and somewhat rare position in our sport; one of influence.

I'd hoped you'd be prepared to consider the evidence, or at least counter it, before weighing into a debate and contradicting facts based on your gut feel... I only hope people will consider your basis for judgement, not just your opinion, before they agree with you.

Apologies for wanting to use this great opportunity to express our opinions to also be factual in the process.

[wearnie52]

Apology accepted

I don't have an argument aueagle30, and i don't want to debate this issue, simply throwing my opinion out there

[aueagle30]

Surname First Name Team IP
Buzachero Bubbie Preston 124.2 (NN)
Northcott Dustin Werribee 121.6 (NN)
Gourlay Stephen Cheltenham 103.2
McIntyre Dean Essendon 102
Reese Kevin Malvern 95.7 (NN)
Meldrum Sean Upwey 94.2 (<25)
Hussey John Blackburn 86.2
Rowe Adam Melbourne 84.2 (NN)
Lethborg Jamie Fitzroy 83.1 (<25)
Knuth Ben Geelong 77 (NN)
Gibbons Sam Geelong 63.1 (<25)
Mann Andy Melbourne 59.7 (<25)
Kennedy Jon Waverley 59.2 (<25)
Kemp Matthew Fitzroy 57.2 (NN)
Bravo Johnny Doncaster 56.1 (NN)
Endo Masa Preston 54.2
Rice Adrian Upwey 52.2
Irving Grant Blackburn 50.2 (<25)
Wiltshire Greg Essendon 49
Rogers Kyle Malvern 49 (<25)
Turner Jarrod Waverley 48.1 (<25)
Yung Josh Upwey 46.7 (<25)
Kerr-ChapmanThomas Geelong 43.7 (<25)
Papanicolaou Luke Waverley 43.1 (<25)
Pendelbury Heath Preston 39.1 (<25)
Webb Chris Werribee 39.1 (<25)
Papanicolaou Jamie Waverley 38.2 (<25)
Pole Simon Malvern 37.2
Whinnen Errol Fitzroy 36 (<25)
King Danny Fitzroy 35.1 (<25)
Blackmore Matthew Melbourne 34.3
Mack Daniel Cheltenham 34.1
Bedford Kyle Essendon 33 (<25)
Horan Josh Blackburn 32.1 (<25)
McDonald Brendan Doncaster 31 (<25)
Thorpe Lewis Doncaster 30.2 (<25)
Hunter Stephen Malvern 29.2 (<25)
Brazier Luke Doncaster 29.1 (<25)
Hopper Rhys Doncaster 29 (<25)
Hondo Alex Melbourne 27 (<25)
Forbes Cameron Geelong 26.1
Wiggins Campbell Melbourne 25.2 (<25)
Daykin Michael Doncaster 24.2
Lowe Jonathon Werribee 23.2
Hipke Ross Essendon 22.1
Balzer Wade Werribee 22.1 (<25)
Rice Nick Upwey 22
McGrath Daniel Doncaster 21.1 (<25)
Gerraty Matt Blackburn 20.2 (<25)
Blackley Adam Waverley 20

Please note, the ages are only to the best of my knowledge based on my experience with most of these players through the VIS and State programs... I'm certain I might have made an error on the age of one or two of the players on this list... please correct me if I'm wrong.

[lonewolf75]

I see it tow ways. Under the current wording it currently is possible for a club to get an import and have them pitch every innings of every game. If this was to happen, Yes, I think this would be bad for the sport. However, as Nate has shown through the numbers of the current season. This is not happening, ATM, do we therefore need to plan and put rules in place to stop the worst case scenario? Do we really need this sort of rules to tell club coaches how to manage their squad and club? Personally I dont think so. If a kid is missing out due to an import I think in this current climate they would just leave the club. loyalty isnt what it used to be. If a club was to use an import for every innings to the detriment of every other pitcher at the club, I think they would be in alot of trouble if he was to break down or they werent able to secure the same import the folloe year or a guy of the same quality. Not to memntion that if a club coach was to do this I cant imagine many committees sticking with him as a coach. I also beleive any such rule is infact an insult to the club coaches kicking around, these guys arent stupid, they know what there club needs to develop. They may make the discission to use an import for 70 innings this year while they develop another pitcher or seek to recruit one and if so that is their choice. I dont think any club would succeed long term if their only plan was to use a import week in week, season after season. It's just not practicle.
In the end if it aint broke do fix it and I cant see where the current rule is being abused.

[fuzzy]

My gut tells me there is not a problem and the statistics would appear to confirm that feeling.

[wearnie52]

What about clubs who can't afford an import?

[aueagle30]

Apr 4, 2012 16:09:07 GMT 10 wearnie52 said:

What about clubs who can't afford an import?

wearnie52, I think this is different to the pitching restrictions.

If the argument is non-nationals create an unfair advantage based on the comparative wealth of clubs, shouldn't the argument be no non-nationals, not reduce their impact?

If, as you suggest, there are clubs unable to afford non-nationals, pitching restrictions diminish the disadvantage, but by allowing imports you still permit the disadvantage to occur. And why no consideration of the impact of non-national hitters?

I'm sure there are clubs not able to afford imports, however, I'm not sure I agree it is a reason to restrict non-national players... what if a club can't afford baseballs for practice? Should we restrict how many baseballs other clubs can use for practice? Or do we hope, in the pursuit of improving their club, they find ways to raise additional money and purchase the resources they need?

[signs]

aueagle30 just to help your argument a little John Hussey & Ross Hipke are 25 or just turned, Nick Rice is less than 25.
But not every club can have imports that come out for nothing like Springvale, Hey Wearnie52.

[rhricho]

A club without a quality Ace or deep bullpen - I would've thought the question should read
Can these club NOT afford to have an import??

[Game On]

In regards to the restrictions on Non Nationals, I think this should be pretty obvious. There is no need to change what is already in place. Thanks aueagle for providing the stats. A majority of the clubs that have imports do not appear to over use them. I can only really speak from the experience that I have from my own club, but we had an import this year, as well as 2 young kids who did the bulk of the work. From our stats, we had 7 pitchers used this season, and 6 of the kids were under the age of 21. The import and one of the kids shared the work, rotating most weeks, or sometimes every couple of weeks. It really comes down to management of your own players. I feel that if a club relies on an import pitcher than they will struggle long term. Its up to a club to promote and develop their youth. A club without a good junior program that relies on an import are the ones that this will affect the most. I understand that the location of some clubs, its hard to develop youth, and they would be disadvantaged by this. So to keep the standard of the game at its current level and maybe even increase it, dont change what isn't broken. IMO

[eckersley43]

This a simple question, not an opinion. What were the arguments for restricting non nationals? Presumably there were some concerns for it to be listed for club discussion. It seems odd that indidual/s/clubs or whoever initiated the subject have not provided us with any information or arguments to support the case for the 15 outs.

[Deleted]

I could stand corrected here, but wasn't 2011/12 the last of the three seasons of the 33-game Division One structure that was then to be reviewed?

Has the structure been reviewed? Are we sticking with the expanded season?

A reduction in the number of Division One and Two games might justify a pitching restriction on non-nationals.

Other than that, I find it hard to see where this proposal is coming from, since it is evident that the import situation has overwhelmingly not been exploited and that our kids are still getting opportunities to pitch - in many cases mentored and assisted by some of the quality overseas players who have graced our competition in recent years.

[stuartcapel]

This argument has been very Division One focussed so far.

What about the levels either side of Division One?

[aueagle30]

eck, KC, I assure you this push has been made by clubs... I won't name clubs I believe have pushed this because opinions are fluid and what might have been the case 12 months ago, may not be so now, however I sat in a meeting of club presidents at the end of last season and listened to club leaders discuss the same points BTD and wearnie52 have raised... removing the restrictions has taken opportunities away from young Australian players and teams with imports are using them every game to establish dominance over teams that don't have imports.

But, just as happened here, there was no evidence presented at the meeting to support the push, just rhetoric. My opinion, the push is coming from those with a nationalistic fear of damaging the sport... not a bad thing, but if not based on fact, might actually pull our league backwards.

[aueagle30]

Apr 5, 2012 9:15:51 GMT 10 stuartcapel said:

This argument has been very Division One focussed so far.

What about the levels either side of Division One?

I agree with KC, my current opinion is based on the current number of games... If the games were reduced, restrictions on non-nationals might have more validity.

Stu, I've only run the stats on Div 1, so I can only comment on D1... I'd suggest as the number of games reduced, you might see a shift in the prominence of non-national pitchers. I will try and run the D2 stats over the weekend... not sure what the other side of D1 is?

That said, if it's a problem in D2, should that require restrictions in both D1 and D2?

[Deleted]

So under the proposed restriction (whether it is at Division One or Division Two level), a dominant outing in a midweeker could see a non-national throwing just four or five innings, in a weekend game five or six innings.

After what would be (for a professional) a pretty modest workload, the same person could front up a few days later pitching a complete game in the ABL.

That might be good for the Aces, but I don't know that the club investing the dollars would be terribly happy.

[stuartcapel]

The high side of Division One? Personally, I was thinking of the Melbourne Aces.