I'm not sure we disagree as much as it may seem. Though perhaps we do...

We've all got ideas on what we feel is legit and what isn't. Personally I feel it is wrong to intentionally submit the same pitcher for all the games to try and get an edge in matchups and would not do that. I'd sure like it if the game wouldn't allow that.


I would and do play a guy at SS (Glaus) who only played a few innings in "real life" but who plays better at SS in PB than my good fielding SS. My guess is you've got players on your team who you are also playing more at a position than they actually played. I would like it if the game had a limitation on playing out of position, say no more than 200% of the actual innings at a position. This would still allow value to multi-use guys. I'd like more serious penalties for playing guys out of position. I don't care if a 2B can "probably" play good 1B. If he didn't play there in real life, you ought to be severely penalized for playing him there in PB. I tried to trade with a team who had no 2B (and didn't try to hold them up), but was told that they didn't feel they needed one because the out of position guy was doing fine. If I had a position for which I had no one who played, I would try VERY hard to trade or draft someone to fill the spot who played the position (even if he only played it a few innings). BTW - isn't it strange that someone who played left field but had no putouts will play attrociously, but someone who never played that position will do ok?


I don't think the game should allow these things, and in the case of Glaus have e-mailed his fielding stats vs my good fielding SS to the COMMISH to let him know there is a problem.


I think it is the COMMISH's job to even out the playing field, not rely on the varying situation ethics of the different managers. This latter only creates unfair competition. I'm not in favor of playing the game with one hand tied behind my back - and I don't want my opponent to do so either. It would be a pretty hollow victory to win against someone who wasn't really trying. Where is the line between trying to win and abusing the rules? The problem is we would all draw that line at different places. That is why the COMMISH needs to step in and draw the line for everyone so we ALL play by the same rules.

I'm not sure that I would agree that the way to correct some of these inequities is to abuse them, but complaints about abuse should go to the COMMISH. It is unrealistic to expect others to interpret what is and isn't ethical the same way that you do. It doesn't necessarily mean they are less ethical, just that they interpret the situation differently. They may have a higher ethical standard in some other aspect of the game (e.g. Fairness in trading).