|
Post by stockley on Apr 5, 2012 10:21:44 GMT 10
Stu, why should the BV structures have any bearing on the Aces? Aside from the fact that these regulations almost seem like their slanted to give imports more of a chance to pitch for the Aces - since their workload won't be as high for the clubs, I don't see why any restrictions introduced would have a bearing on the Aces for it to be worth considering.
As it stands - yes there is nothing stopping a club from getting an import and pitching them for every inning of every game. But this is a self regulating issue. There is no way an import can pitch every inning.
In Div 2, there maybe an issue with that happening - but at what point do you stop imports coming in? If you restrict the imports in Div 2, does it move to make the gap between the top and bottom bigger, since the bottom sides might not have the pitching depth that an import can assist them with?
Any club that is going to use and abuse an import is not really setting themselves up for future development anyway. So why do we need down a nanny state approach and dictate what all clubs can do, to stop the possible percieved issues of one or two clubs abusing the system?
|
|
|
Post by strikezone on Apr 5, 2012 10:25:50 GMT 10
Kc, for what it is worth one of the real areas of issue for a season review would be to remove the 6.15 and 6.30 midweek games at Altona/clubs. This time has a number of inherent issues. First, nearly all involvoed invariaby are rushing to get to the games, and I believe it is not conducive to safe driving by many. But, that is a side issue, my main concern is that there is insuffiecient time available for most pitchers to warm up correctly and this could, and as I know , has caused injury or excessive soreness that has restricted pitchers for a number of games thereafter. Speaking to players, club administrators and umpires I have not found one that likes these early games. I wouild be interested to hear the general opinion about the early games.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Apr 5, 2012 11:43:13 GMT 10
Ha! Stockley, when I wrote the Melbourne Aces as the level above Division One I knew that would be the exact response. Yes, I may be branching out slightly as I doubt it’s the reason why such a rule is being considered, but let me run through it for you…but before I do, I will say that I am indifferent to whether the rule moves to fifteen defensive outs or remains at an unlimited level. I understand the points for both, but personally, I'm not for or against either set-up.
First thing’s first, you’re quite right that it would allow scope for the Aces to ‘pinch’ a club import to throw for the ABL team on a weekend. My personal belief is that the ABL franchises should be limited to a designated number (and I’m putting forward the number three) of club imports allowed to play for an individual ABL club in a given year. I do not believe this league is in existence for Indy ball after Indy ball American to come out, hook up with an ABL club, and when roster spots become open, they simply waltz on into our league. For the record, the Aces used six club imports this season (though whether Solbach was technically an import can be debated). My personal belief, that is three too many.
Secondly, such a rule would mean franchises would be required to introduce more local talent to the league. It would certainly stop Perth from bringing in an import, (lets use Jacob Clem, who was Rockingham’s import this season) having him pitch a complete game one week (1 run CG victory @ The Show…threw very well too) and then send him back to club ball and pick up another import to throw the week after.
But I digress…
As per Auseagle’s list, only two of those under25 players, Andy Mann (42.1) and Daniel McGrath (10.1), threw double digit innings for the Aces this season (though I acknowledge Blake Cunningham would have thrown the requirement if he had not been injured before Christmas).
Across the ABL, this is a very quick list of Australian pitchers 25 or under as of opening day this most recent season who threw ten or more innings:
Adelaide
Lee – 10.2
Brisbane
Baker – 15 Chambers – 33 Durket – 19 Erasmus – 16 Niit – 11 Searle – 32 Warner – 12.2
Canberra
Atherton – 11.1 N.Crawford – 10.1 Kent – 30.1 Laird – 21.2
Melbourne
Cunningham – 16.1 McGrath – 10.1 Mann 42.1
Perth
Anderson – 15.2 Lamb – 28.2 Millson 18.1 Saupold – 70.0 Schmidt – 57.1 Sorensen – 30.1
Sydney
Francis - 54.1 Rae - 15.2 Van Steensel - 16.2 Wilkins – 17.2 Williams 29.1
So, given we trail all bar Adelaide (whose pitching staff fell to pieces over the end of the season as they rushed to fill every hole they had with club imports, who were largely used in relief) on such a list, perhaps we can pose the question as to whether we are giving our young pitchers enough of an opportunity to develop to the level required to play in the ABL.
Does that mean we limit appearances to fifteen outs for imports, so we get at least four innings out of local arms? Personally, I don’t know whether it should or not be implemented, but perhaps we ought to consider the issue before giving it a blanket ‘no’.
|
|
|
Post by rhricho on Apr 5, 2012 12:08:13 GMT 10
Stu, why should the BV structures have any bearing on the Aces? Aside from the fact that these regulations almost seem like their slanted to give imports more of a chance to pitch for the Aces - since their workload won't be as high for the clubs, I don't see why any restrictions introduced would have a bearing on the Aces for it to be worth considering. Stockley - although BV and the Aces are seperate entities I think it's very important for BV to recognise that this is the highlest level of baseball and perhaps make appropriate moves to support it. Everyone's on here talking about how we can grow baseball in our state and for mine - the Aces is almost a one way ticket in doing so. Don't hear your everyday guys from Malvern, Geelong, Blacky, Dony etc etc on SEN talking about our state league? Dan McGrath wasn't on TV with his local team Jersey on?? It has been nominated on here in this discussion that it comes down to how smart the agreement is between the club and the import to where they stand about allowing them to play at this level. IMO Malvern handled Kev Reese extremely well - to give an example here - and I think he did an excellent job for both his club and the Aces. To me its about well thought out management. If an import is brought out here to pitch every game or inns, then be prepared to make new phone calls to perhaps a different part of the US next season as word may travel around that some clubs will be picking an import up just because they have nobody else in the Pen and you may even get an injury due to poor management or negotiated deals
|
|
Camov
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by Camov on Apr 5, 2012 18:20:39 GMT 10
lads,
this rule would also have a bearing on div2, and clubs seeking promotion.
In div 2 where an import can throw 18+ of 26 games for the season, rack up a significant amount of the innings and have a decisive impact on a clubs standings.
there are a few examples this year of imports throwing 70% of the teams innings for the season.
i dont know if this is healthy or not for the league though, i guess you have to compare the benefit of facing better pitching now vs the development of pitchers for the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2012 21:04:27 GMT 10
Yes, but as Mulgrave found out, you need more than just an import pitcher to win Division 2. Throwing every Sunday during the season only gets you so far!
|
|
|
Post by MF on Apr 6, 2012 7:04:01 GMT 10
Yeah, but it does keep you in Division 1, right Lando?
8^)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 10:05:51 GMT 10
Multi-layered discussion this, clearly better pitching develops better hitting across the comp etc etc but Id have thought that clubs that predominantly use NN-Pitchers to only gets W's are kidding themselves, particularly as many of the guys/girls are here one season and gone the next BUT if they have the guy grooming the young kids coming thru and feel that that development needs time (say a season or two) then it is a great investment and a wise move to keep the club playing the higher standard of ball in the interim.
|
|
|
Post by skinny on Apr 6, 2012 10:26:21 GMT 10
Ok.....Personally, i can only talk from past experience many years ago, and had the likes of John Rhode, Dana and Erik Ericson at Morrabbin.. I think this helped in my development as a pitchers as 1: they could only throw every 2nd game, 2: it helped me by not throwing every game and such allowed my "Carreer" to be extended by a few years..Oh, and you also need to have guys at clubs who have heart and throw when asked to with no questions asked. Not throw when they think they will pick up a W. It worked in the early ABL days and the imports never threw club ball. Clubs had to develop and work with younger arms to get them through those games when ABL players ( pitchers ) where unavailable...dont know if this makes sense but its my take
|
|
|
Post by skinny on Apr 6, 2012 10:28:59 GMT 10
And use more local guys... I know it is more skewed towards Semi Pro ball nowadays, but these younger guys will only stay at the level they are at if not given the chance to challenge themselves in the ABL
|
|
bb26
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by bb26 on Apr 6, 2012 14:05:35 GMT 10
That might be solved if the ABL go down the road of the old ABL and limit the number of imports allowed on their rosters.
|
|
legend
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by legend on Apr 6, 2012 15:43:58 GMT 10
Good posts Skinny.
|
|
|
Post by frita on Apr 8, 2012 10:47:19 GMT 10
It would be great if all this passion, stats, ideas, gut feel could be used for some definative answers but alas it will count for nothing except the forum being the place with those answers!
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Apr 9, 2012 16:38:36 GMT 10
Stu, why should the BV structures have any bearing on the Aces? Aside from the fact that these regulations almost seem like their slanted to give imports more of a chance to pitch for the Aces - since their workload won't be as high for the clubs, I don't see why any restrictions introduced would have a bearing on the Aces for it to be worth considering. Stockley - although BV and the Aces are seperate entities I think it's very important for BV to recognise that this is the highlest level of baseball and perhaps make appropriate moves to support it. Everyone's on here talking about how we can grow baseball in our state and for mine - the Aces is almost a one way ticket in doing so. Don't hear your everyday guys from Malvern, Geelong, Blacky, Dony etc etc on SEN talking about our state league? Dan McGrath wasn't on TV with his local team Jersey on?? It has been nominated on here in this discussion that it comes down to how smart the agreement is between the club and the import to where they stand about allowing them to play at this level. IMO Malvern handled Kev Reese extremely well - to give an example here - and I think he did an excellent job for both his club and the Aces. To me its about well thought out management. If an import is brought out here to pitch every game or inns, then be prepared to make new phone calls to perhaps a different part of the US next season as word may travel around that some clubs will be picking an import up just because they have nobody else in the Pen and you may even get an injury due to poor management or negotiated deals Richo I don't have a problem with the BV working to support the Aces. And I fully agree that the Aces is the only way that baseball is going to gain ground in this state. What I don't agree with is simple. I don't agree that the clubs should be shelling out their hard earned to get imports in to help their club - either from a fill a gap standpoint, or to help develop the playing group, or whatever that club has in mind, only to be told that there are ridiculous restrictions on doing so. And for what? What is the reason for this? I was reacting to Stu's comment of looking after the Aces. Why should clubs pay for guys to come out, and then have them limited so they may be available for the Aces. If the Aces want to bring out guys to pitch in their club, then so be it. I have no problem with that. If clubs want to release their imports to pitch/play for the Aces, then good on them. I also have no problem with that, and to a certain extent, I think it should be encouraged. However, placing regulations on clubs to try to enforce that is ridiculous - if that is what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by rhricho on Apr 9, 2012 16:42:10 GMT 10
Stockley, I agree with all of that 100%
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Apr 11, 2012 11:18:59 GMT 10
Ok.....Personally, i can only talk from past experience many years ago, and had the likes of John Rhode, Dana and Erik Ericson at Morrabbin.. I think this helped in my development as a pitchers as 1: they could only throw every 2nd game, 2: it helped me by not throwing every game and such allowed my "Carreer" to be extended by a few years..Oh, and you also need to have guys at clubs who have heart and throw when asked to with no questions asked. Not throw when they think they will pick up a W. It worked in the early ABL days and the imports never threw club ball. Clubs had to develop and work with younger arms to get them through those games when ABL players ( pitchers ) where unavailable...dont know if this makes sense but its my take And use more local guys... I know it is more skewed towards Semi Pro ball nowadays, but these younger guys will only stay at the level they are at if not given the chance to challenge themselves in the ABL Skinny, the situation you describe is currently happening, is it not? In general, imports are pitching every other game and young players are being developed without being overly demanded of... at least that's what the stats are showing. From my experience in Division One, it's wrong to suggest any of the players in that competition don't have heart, particularly the pitchers... The two games between Geelong and Blackburn in the playoffs just last month were two of the hardest fought games I've seen at this level... and it was the pitchers that displayed the most courage (Knuth v Hussey for nine innings, Forbes v Bright for seven innings in relief).
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Apr 11, 2012 12:29:56 GMT 10
stu, I didn't consider the ABL when I began this topic. They're a professional team who should have access to more players than any amatuer club could hope for... as it stands, they already have access to our best pitchers, creating a vacuum at club level and making the non-national more important in the physical/mental/emotional protection of local pitchers at club level. How they manage their pitchers should be determined by what their goals are... I think pretty clearly stated in the following statement released in 2009 by Ben Foster, operations manager of the ABL... www.geelongassociation.baseball.com.au/site/baseball/geelongassociation/downloads/ABL_Basic_Player_Information.pdfI found the underlined statement on page two particularly interesting... especially considering a young Australian professional was originally left off the Aces roster for the championship series for a club non-national pitcher (only one example, I'm sure). I stand by my belief this issue has been raised by BV clubs with a belief (although no evidence yet to support such belief) it is in the best interest of BV... I'd be horrified if it's being pushed as means of undermining club's and providing the Aces with greater access to club's non-national players.
|
|
|
Post by perfeckt on Apr 11, 2012 14:32:51 GMT 10
This is just an 'ad hoc' idea that popped in to my head after starting to read this thread that may or may not be worth discussing.....so let's find out. Let's say that most summer clubs would benefit from an import (non national) pitcher from the U.S. and those players are increasingly keen to play here in their off season because of the value to their chances of signing with a major league club stateside via game time with the ABL. Now considering the costs involved to a club of scouting, contracting, insuring, billeting and the time spent with governmental and immigration departments, it seems to me unfair that the ABL stand to benefit (at no cost) by calling on those players for ABL rostering to the detriment of the sponsoring club. If the ABL took on the responsibility of sponsoring and organizing the import in conjunction with a hosting club it might make things a little more equitable. Whether by way of the clubs scouting and the imports prospects of playing in the ABL are considered or the ABL themselves create a pool of talent that clubs could then select from and if they miss out then so be it. I'm sure that there would be hurdles in creating a system (or variant of it) such as this, one of which, for example, would be club autonomy but I thought I'd throw it out there and see if anyone thinks it worthy of workshopping. It seems one way for MLB to put back in to grass roots Oz baseball. Any thoughts on import umpires? They need a career path too and across the league here we could sure use some.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Apr 12, 2012 8:21:16 GMT 10
If that were to be the case perfekt, I can't wait to see Centrebet's odds on "First team to cry they have an important relegation game coming up but their import pitcher has been called up to the Aces while the other teams import hasn't." Guaranteed, it will happen.
There seems to be some "Red under the Bed" type hysteria about extra access for the Aces in regards club imports. Given only two pitchers from memory (Jamnik and DaSilva) were Division Two players in 2011-12, instead of bleating about how unfair things are (or could be), why don't the Division One managers get together with the Aces GM and coaching staff, sit down and have an afternoon's discussion about plans for the coming 2012-13 ABL season, and attempt to get both parties on the same page. During that discussion, club managers would be able to bring up the concerns of their club imports playing at the ABL level and both Aces and clubs could work together to come up with a common ground.
Unfortunately, right now, all I'm reading is how rule changes and proposals would negatively impacting clubs. I'm not reading much in the way of how we can find a positive outcome for the sport at present, and with a game that has such potential, I think that's a concern.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Apr 12, 2012 12:29:52 GMT 10
If that were to be the case perfekt, I can't wait to see Centrebet's odds on "First team to cry they have an important relegation game coming up but their import pitcher has been called up to the Aces while the other teams import hasn't." Guaranteed, it will happen. Should it not happen? Shouldn't the club who has paid for the resource with it's members contributions, for the pupose of enhancing both the members experience and the club's chances of success, have full and uncompromised use of the the non-national? There seems to be some "Red under the Bed" type hysteria about extra access for the Aces in regards club imports. Given only two pitchers from memory (Jamnik and DaSilva) were Division Two players in 2011-12, instead of bleating about how unfair things are (or could be), why don't the Division One managers get together with the Aces GM and coaching staff, sit down and have an afternoon's discussion about plans for the coming 2012-13 ABL season, and attempt to get both parties on the same page. During that discussion, club managers would be able to bring up the concerns of their club imports playing at the ABL level and both Aces and clubs could work together to come up with a common ground. Stuartcapel, your use of a cynical slogan to compare volunteer administrators to irrational McCarthyists is absurd and insulting... I'm not familiar with the extent of your contribution to baseball, and normally I wouldn't care, but when you become so demeaning of the concerns of the hard working people running our clubs, I do start to wonder just how much you have and are contributing to amateur, volunteer levels of baseball? At the risk of creating trouble for myself... regarding managers negotiating with the Aces, I went to Aces management at the beginning of last season and offered the services of our non-national... we eventually agreed to terms, which were later ignored by Aces mangagement. An example is I was assured no member of the Aces would ever contact our non-national directly, without first contacting me. I prefer not to open this issue to much to the public out of respect for all parties, but our non-national was contacted directly without any attempt to contact me on numerous occassions... this was one of several concerns I have raised with the Aces management. If you think we should be negotiating these matters with the Aces, should we not expect good faith as part of the process? As it stands, I will not be offering any non-national player our club recruits to participate with the Aces in the future. Unfortunately, right now, all I'm reading is how rule changes and proposals would negatively impacting clubs. I'm not reading much in the way of how we can find a positive outcome for the sport at present, and with a game that has such potential, I think that's a concern. Here's a positive outcome... stop expecting amateur clubs with limited resources to cover the expenses of resourcing Melbourne's professional baseball team... start questioning why the ABL, with the backing of MLB International, aren't providing better access to import players, as was outlined in the ABL's original brief for the operation of the league... start expecting the ABL to create equality in the assignment of imports to all clubs, not just a few (Aces administration has told me Canberra have up to 17 imports, while Melbourne had three???) Again, not sure what your contribution to running an amateur club is, but your willingness to commit the resources of amateur clubs and their members to supporting sectors of baseball outside what I would consider the normal scope of an amateur club is perhaps indicative?
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on Apr 12, 2012 13:49:02 GMT 10
As previously stated, I believe the club import limit should be set at three players per ABL club, per season. (I also believe that a transfer date for imports should be implemented as well, and extended rosters for under age players for home teams, but they are for another thread I'm sure). If that means Canberra isn't as competitive then so be it, if that means the Aces would not be as competitive then so be it. I personally found Perth's late season inclusion of Virgil Vasquez (and the subsequent justification for including him) against the spirit of what the league was set-up to do, especially as his inclusion came at the detriment of a local thrower (Daniel Schmidt, Perth's opening day starter for the entire season did not throw a pitch over the three game Grand Final series).
On the positive, if you're going to hold the ABF to the contents of that document, we're going to have a sixty game season. Works for me!
Now all we need are some young arms to keep us competitive over sixty games...
|
|
|
Post by skinny on Apr 12, 2012 19:58:10 GMT 10
Holmesy, That comment was not a dig at the players you mentioned, let alone any players in Div 1. More a sideline view from what I have seen this year..mainly div 2. I agree if a club invests money to bring an import out, then I believe the club should have the discretion to allow or not allow that player to pitch for the Aces. It was more to say that the old ABL days, clubs were affiliated with someone and that club sent out players for what ever reason. Maybe clubs ( abl ) should affiliate with a MLB club, then increase the imports or make it 4/6 players and the rest is locally based players..These players then get game time which leads to better players overall..
|
|
|
Post by perfeckt on Apr 12, 2012 21:08:37 GMT 10
Let's face it, Major League Baseball International are THE major stakeholders (qwners) of the ABL and there's nothing wrong with that. Like any multi national behemoth they have their own best interests at heart and will use their leverage and influence and brand to their benefit. Once again, nothing wrong with that, after all it is a business and we in the western capitalist world seek a level playing field, well maybe not Carrums' level playing field. The benefits of having an import player playing at club level are more about the prestige and mystique that player brings to the individual club culture. Their prowess only adds to a clubs depth and learning capacity because (once again) let's face it, juniour players will be entranced with the exotic nature of someone in their club from the mecca of baseball, youthful players will watch to see what they can learn and more seasoned players may just step up a rung to prove to their club that they are just as good if not better than the import. This scenario also fits the bill for domestic players, changing clubs for $'s and fresh challenges, small potatoes I know but it still has similarities. Kids look up to homegrown talent who have made rep' sides or have been signed. The youth will look to emulate and be inspired by these players and the more experienced who want to progress will use them as benchmarks and personal teachers if they want to make the effort. Can we say to the non national import, "No you cannot play for the Aces" whilst allowing, even encouraging club members to aspire to do just that. The playing field is shifting and very fast indeed. auseagle is on the right track (even though you were burned). Direct dialogue with all party's concerned is the only way to go with clearly set out expectations and responsibilities with signed paperwork. This will only happen with a proactive, club coalition involvement with (in the first instance) Baseball Victoria and the A.B.F. Other than that we can depend on our own homegrown club talent to win an amateur flag or contend a finals series. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's a new dawn.
|
|