[Alsfastball] The Crouch Pitching List, aka, Operation Dumbo Drop

[Al Doran]

From: "Mike Groves" <falcon at fedlock.com>
To: "'Al Doran'" <fastball at pmihrm.com>
Subject: The Crouch Pitching List, aka, Operation Dumbo Drop
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:25:01 -0400



Tom:

You ask us (the ISC Player Reps) to each come up with a list of 50 pitchers
to rank them for your pitching list restrictions.  Since this pitching list
was ramrodded by you through the EC under false pretenses, my motion is "you
do the work."

I am a Player Rep.  Yet, I was not included in the concept of a pitching
list.  However, you told the Executive Committee that your proposal was a
Player's Rep proposal that had UNANIMOUS BACKING from the Player Reps.  This
statement by you is totally false.

Your pitching list proposal is deeply flawed.  The main problem with it is
that it does absolutely nothing to address the stacked
lineup-purchase-a-WT-ring team problem.  It does nothing to address the fact
that 3 teams out of 40 teams at the ISC WT totally dominate the 37 teams
simply because those 3 teams can afford to do so.  The other main problem
with the pitching list is that it is unenforceable and it comes down to one
person (would that be you, Tom?) who will be judge, jury, and executioner
determining who will be ranked where.  The other main problem is that the
pitching list will have ZERO impact on the teams that will continue to
purchase their ISC championships.  Nothing has changed.

Tom, you do realize that 18 months ago I, along with several others, delved
into this concept of a restrictive pitching list.  And after much
discussion, and after exploring possible pro & con scenarios, we abandoned
the concept as unwieldy, near-impossible to enforce, exclusionary to certain
ballplayers, and not a solution to the game's woes.

Yet, miracles can happen, evidently, as shown by your resurrection of our
discarded pitching list process.

The ISC minutes of your presentation are clear:  you told the EC that you
had unanimous backing for "your" proposal.  You got Ferd to second the
motion.  And boom!  The ISC has policy.

The ISC eagerly accepted your proposal, Tom, because the ISC EC got
snookered.  They were sold a bill of goods.  They got fluff, but they
believed they had their hands on substance.  Why were they so gullible?
Because the ISC EC believed you, Tom, when you told them that you had
unanimous approval from the Player Reps.  The ISC EC thought, "Great!  The
Player Reps are getting us an item that has broad support from the players &
teams!"

In fact:
1.  The Player Reps did NOT unanimously support this issue.
2.  The Player Reps did almost NO research, canvassing, polling to support
the Crouch claim that this is "good policy." (As opposed to the OOA
restriction concept, for example:  Kyle Beane meticulously canvassed EVERY
WT team's managers / sponsors for their input on the OOA restriction
concept.  Result?  Overwhelming approval for some sort of OOA restrictions
by the vast majority of the ISC teams, and disapproval by "the big three"
team sponsors/managers.) 3.  This pitching list policy does NOT have broad
support from the ISC membership.  Tom claims that it does, based on (?)
several emails he has received (?).  Hardly the type of consensus one would
want to validate a major impact policy such as this one.  And, given Tom's
free & easy, and totally variable, use of "the truth" and "the facts" I do
not believe Tom on much of anything anymore.

Bad policy is worse than no policy.

I'm out.

Regards,

Michael Groves
Mailto:falcon at fedlock.com



  Als Fastball List
*Email: fastball at pmihrm.com
http://www.alsfastball.com/
http://www.ISCfastball.com/
NEWS: http://www.escribe.com/sports/alsfastball/
TEMP: http://www.fastpitchwest.com/alsfastball.htm