<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>I thought we already did This, and that we're saves times two plus holds to address the relative number of saves available. Apparently, we never wroteup the language.</div><div><br></div><div>Mark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Andy Klein <anrklein@gmail.com> </div><div>Date: 2/11/19 3:25 PM (GMT-06:00) </div><div>To: USML Announcements <announce@usml.net> </div><div>Subject: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux </div><div><br></div></div><div dir="ltr">I proposed this last spring and received a distinctly unenthusiastic response. But I am re-proposing that we move to Saves + Holds as a category instead of just Saves. That better reflects the reality of MLB pitching value today. It also would end what is, IMHO, an inordinate focus on playing the "closer carousel" in our league. <div><br></div><div>I would be up for doing this immediately -- and I say that as someone who will otherwise retain a closer. But I suppose the typical way of doing this would be to make it effective next season.</div><div><br></div><div>Last year, we agreed to implement the change if we voted to do so by mid-season. But the proposal died for lack of interest.</div><div><br></div><div>Thoughts?</div><div><br></div><div>-Andy</div></div>
</body></html>