NFBC Message Boards

I would like clarification on rule 9.a in regards to Jose Iglesias position eligibility in 2015. Jose Iglesias is listed as only SS eligible in the NFBC eligibility page (http://nfbc.stats.com/baseball/player_eligibility.asp).

9.a) Players who played at least 20 games at any position in 2014 will qualify at that position for the entire 2015 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2015 will be eligible at that position after they have played there for the 10th time during the 2015 MLB regular season. Any player who missed all of the previous season to injury or retirement will qualify at the position he last was eligible for in the majors.

Iglesias played 71 games at SS and 37 games at 3B in 2013 making him 3B,SS eligible in 2014. He was "last eligible" at two positions. Does this not carry forward into the 2015 season?

Thanks.

The rule is the position he was last eligible at. Since he played the most games at SS in 2013 that is the position he qualifies for to begin the season in our contest this year. Hope that helps.

jvetter wrote:I would like clarification on rule 9.a in regards to Jose Iglesias position eligibility in 2015. Jose Iglesias is listed as only SS eligible in the NFBC eligibility page (http://nfbc.stats.com/baseball/player_eligibility.asp).

9.a) Players who played at least 20 games at any position in 2014 will qualify at that position for the entire 2015 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2015 will be eligible at that position after they have played there for the 10th time during the 2015 MLB regular season. Any player who missed all of the previous season to injury or retirement will qualify at the position he last was eligible for in the majors.

Iglesias played 71 games at SS and 37 games at 3B in 2013 making him 3B,SS eligible in 2014. He was "last eligible" at two positions. Does this not carry forward into the 2015 season?

Thanks.

Jvetter makes a good point.

Why does he lose eligibility because he was hurt?
Suppose he played an equal number of games at two or more positions the year before. Then what?

Tom Kessenich wrote:The rule is the position he was last eligible at. Since he played the most games at SS in 2013 that is the position he qualifies for to begin the season in our contest this year. Hope that helps.

This does not seem right based upon how the rule is written as posted. He had two positions that he was last eligible at. It's not the position he was "most eligible at of the two he was last eligible at" which is what I think you are saying.

Baseball Furies wrote:

Tom Kessenich wrote:The rule is the position he was last eligible at. Since he played the most games at SS in 2013 that is the position he qualifies for to begin the season in our contest this year. Hope that helps.

This does not seem right based upon how the rule is written as posted. He had two positions that he was last eligible at. It's not the position he was "most eligible at of the two he was last eligible at" which is what I think you are saying.

Correct, he didn't play any games in the majors last year, so in that case he should be UT only. We are allowing him to have a position of eligibility to start the season because we all know he was hurt by giving him the position he played the year before. We're using most games played to determine that. Had someone had the same number of games at two positions, we would determine which one he is eligible at.

The rule states the position he was last eligible at, not all of them. He didn't play any games the last year, so giving him one position played is a benefit to that player. At least that's how I see it.

Greg Ambrosius wrote:

Baseball Furies wrote:

Tom Kessenich wrote:The rule is the position he was last eligible at. Since he played the most games at SS in 2013 that is the position he qualifies for to begin the season in our contest this year. Hope that helps.

This does not seem right based upon how the rule is written as posted. He had two positions that he was last eligible at. It's not the position he was "most eligible at of the two he was last eligible at" which is what I think you are saying.

Correct, he didn't play any games in the majors last year, so in that case he should be UT only. We are allowing him to have a position of eligibility to start the season because we all know he was hurt by giving him the position he played the year before. We're using most games played to determine that. Had someone had the same number of games at two positions, we would determine which one he is eligible at.

The rule states the position he was last eligible at, not all of them. He didn't play any games the last year, so giving him one position played is a benefit to that player. At least that's how I see it.

So by the same reasoning ARod should be UT?

Why would he only qualify at UTIL?? It clearly says in the rules:

"If a player returns from retirement or rehab after missing the previous year, his position eligibility will be based on his previous year's eligibility."

Last year he was eligible at SS/3B. It seems the rule was written for this exact scenario, but it's not being applied.

In cases like this, The rule says "position", not positions"

He's been listed in the draft room and the nfbc player eligibility list all offseason as a SS. Had he been listed differently, he would have increased value.

Gekko wrote:In cases like this, The rule says "position", not positions"

He's been listed in the draft room and the nfbc player eligibility list all offseason as a SS. Had he been listed differently, he would have increased value.

Agreed. It cannott be changed now.
In the future, the rule should have the added wordage (that's a word, right? ), "No player shall carry dual positions after missing a year".
That would make it clear .

There's always people trying to "game" the system

How is it trying to game the system? Am I gaming the system by playing Chris Davis at 3B even though we know he won't play there this year? The rules were very clearly written, and then modified after the fact because it was too late to correct it. I know it's not going to change at this point, but it'd be nice if they acknowledged that they screwed up.