Fielder at 1B and CI

Dirt Dogs · Post by **Dirt Dogs** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:33 pm

Greg,

You have stated your decision and I agree with your decision. It's a STATS error and it happened, please close this link because we are not getting anywhere. Everyone knows the verdict so it's decided. Time to move on!

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:40 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Why should Frank Thomas or David Ortiz or Travis Hafner be allowed to be slotted into 1B or CI if they do not play there?

They have a reason why players who play one or two games as fill in catchers do not qualify as catchers.

~Lance [/QUOTE]Because it is America Lance a land where exceptions are made when the masses want everyone to have a position.

A land where people can debate ideas and argue against any perceived improvement to the game even though they are not even participating in the actual main event.

That is why.. [/QUOTE]I like you Chest...and Gekko too, you most likely know that already.

I enjoy stirring the pot...but this time it's just common sense.

You don't just hand out positions to players in a game like this. It would go against the rational behind the rules for qualifying for a position.

Playing in the main has zero bearing on this argument...and sounds childlike.

"The masses"..??? Like 5 people agree on this board and you want a rule change?

Come on.

...and I get a kick out of Redsox...always hitting the hammer down and declaring the argument over and ordering us all to move on...funny stuff!

~Lance

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:12 am

I have to agree that positions shouldn't just be handed out. Again, there is a reason some players have positions which makes them more valuable. Starting to hand out free positional elgibility starts us down a bad road IMHO

Spy

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:11 am

For my two cents (and we all know what two cents are worth), leave the rules the way they are. To change them (i.e. designate every player with a position other that UT/DH) would not add clarity or clear up confusion. I like and understand the way it is done now and personally I agree with it.

And by the way, we already get official lists of who qualifies where, so the proposed rule changes in this regard would not resolve the clarity issues. You would still have the same number of "Does Cookie Rojas qualify at catcher?" questions.

I have no comment on the Prince issue. There was an error. It was caught early in the season in an excellent example of cohesive effort between the committed "players" and "management". A solution was directed and the issue was resolved.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:16 am

Sorry, no free positions for guys who only hit. They need to play the required games at a position in 2006 to qualify at a position in the NFBC for 2007. It adds to the strategy involved and it's a key part of Rotisserie Baseball. Now my interpretation of the Fielder example could change, but we'll see by season's end.

I don't mind the debate and it's become healthy again. The bad thing about me responding each time is that I have to admit that we made the mistake with Fielder's eligibility last week.

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:25 am

Since I started this thread I will say this. It makes no difference to me who was at fault, all I care about is that it is fixed and that everyone is playing on a level playing field. I am satisfied with the actions taken. Thanks Greg.

[ April 12, 2006, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Plymouth ]

Mr. LBN - Jeff Price · Post by **Mr. LBN - Jeff Price** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:06 am

Do you really think having a handful of DHs adds a great deal of strategy? I don't. It certainly adds less strategy than it does confusion. That is why I proposed throwing the handful of DHs in with the first baseman and calling it a day.

I think most of the strategy around utility-only players is removed by handing out positional eligibility to rookies. You've got guys, who have played 0 major league games, qualifying for a position. Meanwhile, guys who have played 100s of ML games over their careers at positions are relgated to DH.

Now, if you want to go back to players actually having to do something in the majors, in the previous year, to qualify at a position, that does add strategy and is a totally different story.

[ April 12, 2006, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Mr. LBN - Jeff Price ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:10 am

That could be a logical way to handle rookies.

They can ALL be only eligible as UTIL hitters until qualifying via 10 MLB games played like all the rest.

Simple enough to impose.

~Lance

[ April 12, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:00 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

That could be a logical way to handle rookies.

They can ALL be only eligible as UTIL hitters until qualifying via 10 MLB games played like all the rest.

Simple enough to impose.

~Lance you'd have to determine what constitutes being a "rookie". You can have a player considered a rookie according to MLB if he was under 150 ab. He could have played 20+games in 05 and still be a rookie for 06. So maybe rookie eligibles that didnt play 20 at 1 spot in majors.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:44 pm

I'd say 10 games played in MLB at any given position the year prior.

It really wouldn't matter if you were a rookie, I guess...just if you played in the Majors the year prior, and what position you played 10 games or more at.

Players returning from a year or two off due to injury would go back to the last year they played in MLB.

I'm not pushing for this...but thought it made sense.

~Lance

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:11 am

OK, so now that he's played 11 games at 1B can we get him eligible to move to 1B? STATS still has him listed as UTIL only.

Parnelli · Post by **Parnelli** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:07 am

A Gonzolez has 10 games at 1b,but he is still listed at UTL? Can I play him at 1b next week?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:42 am

Originally posted by Parnelli:

A Gonzolez has 10 games at 1b,but he is still listed at UTL? Can I play him at 1b next week? Absolutely. That eligibility should show up today at 1B. Good luck...and good pickup.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:43 am

Originally posted by The Sensei:

OK, so now that he's played 11 games at 1B can we get him eligible to move to 1B? STATS still has him listed as UTIL only. That will show up today and allow you to move him to 1B/CI tonight if you didn't use him there during Week 1.

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:04 am

Thanks Greg, just FYI he's still showing only UTIL. Will check back later tonight.

Red Sox Nation · Post by **Red Sox Nation** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:48 am

Fielder was at 1B for you week 1 so he should be locked at UTIL again next week.

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:59 pm

LOL, that's where STATS slotted him, I didn't put him there. I didn't even realize he was illegal until I got the e-mail from STATS before this week's lineups were due. Anyway, didn't get any advantage out of it, they retroactively switched it and counted my stats as if he was a UTIL.

Greg, FYI...Fielder still showing as UTIL eligible only on my Ultimate team, but strangely, he is 1B and CI elig on my main event team.

Red Sox Nation · Post by **Red Sox Nation** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:20 pm

[ April 16, 2006, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Red Sox Nation ]

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:26 pm

Originally posted by The Sensei:

LOL, that's where STATS slotted him, I didn't put him there. I didn't even realize he was illegal until I got the e-mail from STATS before this week's lineups were due. Anyway, didn't get any advantage out of it, they retroactively switched it and counted my stats as if he was a UTIL.

Greg, FYI...Fielder still showing as UTIL eligible only on my Ultimate team, but strangely, he is 1B and CI elig on my main event team. Sensei, He was used illegally on your roster in week 1, thus must remain at UTIL for 5 more games.

I highly doubt they revised your 1st week stats as if he was at UTIL.

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:44 pm

Well, they did. They are showing stats for Tony Clark at 1B for week 1, with Fielder at Util.

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:48 pm

Originally posted by nydownunder:

quote:Originally posted by The Sensei:

LOL, that's where STATS slotted him, I didn't put him there. I didn't even realize he was illegal until I got the e-mail from STATS before this week's lineups were due. Anyway, didn't get any advantage out of it, they retroactively switched it and counted my stats as if he was a UTIL.

Greg, FYI...Fielder still showing as UTIL eligible only on my Ultimate team, but strangely, he is 1B and CI elig on my main event team. Sensei, He was used illegally on your roster in week 1, thus must remain at UTIL for 5 more games.

I highly doubt they revised your 1st week stats as if he was at UTIL. [/QUOTE]And why would I be penalized for 5 games when

A. I didn't put him at 1B, STATS did

B. I had no idea he was illegally at 1B during that time. I wasn't notified until after I had set my week 2 lineup.

Greg, is this rule true? There's no way I should be penalized for STATS' error.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:50 pm

Originally posted by The Sensei:

Well, they did. They are showing stats for Tony Clark at 1B for week 1, with Fielder at Util. Chris, shoot me a private e-mail with your phone number tomorrow. I'm positive Clark was not in your lineup in Week 1 as I remember going over this with STATS, but we'll figure it out together. I'll call you in the morning, so shoot me a PM with a phone number. I believe they are showing you as having to use Fielder this week at UT for the Ultimate League.

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:04 pm

Greg,

Message sent, let me know if you don't get it. Not sure how this private message thing works.

Thanks,

CG

Parnelli · Post by **Parnelli** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:10 pm

A Gonzolez is not fixed yet....I would like to set my line up today i have to work early Mon....

The Sensei · Post by **The Sensei** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:10 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by The Sensei:

Well, they did. They are showing stats for Tony Clark at 1B for week 1, with Fielder at Util. Chris, shoot me a private e-mail with your phone number tomorrow. I'm positive Clark was not in your lineup in Week 1 as I remember going over this with STATS, but we'll figure it out together. I'll call you in the morning, so shoot me a PM with a phone number. I believe they are showing you as having to use Fielder this week at UT for the Ultimate League. [/QUOTE]PM sent, but just so everyone else knows, you're right, Clark wasn't in my lineup, it was Fielder at 1b and Inge at UTIL. It's not a huge difference stats-wise since neither Inge or Clark did much, but every little thing counts when you're playing for what we're playing for.