No... I'm not saying restrict EVERYONE to their actual at-bats, what I am saying is that players who have UNDER a certain amount of at-bats (say 50) be restricted versus that side.

Here's a REAL example from THIS league...

A friend of mine recently went into the home stretch fighting for the wild card play-off spot. In the closing dates, he met up against one of the teams fighting him for that wild card spot. The person he faced DROPPED an regular everyday player from his line-up, and brought up from the farm some guy I never heard of who killed the ball in his minimal plate appearances and made him a regular starter!

My friend had to watch the entire series as this no name crushed the ball, while the guy who had played the whole year rode the pine. (my friend DID win the wild card BTW).

I understand that as managers we should have the ability to do what we want, but at what point does doing what we want start detracting from the actual experience that the game has to offer?

Can you imagine if after 150 some odd games you were in a fight for the wild card, and suddenly your opponent played 2 or 3 schmuks against you simply because they hit .400 or .500 versus right handers over 20 or 30 major league at-bats? How would you feel?

I know that many of you are saying you wouldn't do that, and I agree... I find it incredibly disreputable... but there are those who see nothing wrong with taking a statistical advantage over their opponent, even if it means playing outside the intended spirit of the game. To some people, it's "win at all costs" even if it means giving up realism, and spoiling other people's enjoyment.

I'm not trying to be extreme here (to which lengths you've seen to take my comments), I'm merely talking about restricting a hand-full of players who have not met a minimum required amount of at-bats versus any one side.

R