NFBC Message Boards

No wonder I can't catch this team. WTF?

According to official statistics, Rizzo has 10 games at 2B. It is due to a scoring quirk, but it is nevertheless true.

That's bull****. Based on where he's positioned during the shift? He should have to be in the lineup as 2B.
LH dude qualifying like that at MI is beyond stupid.

SharkChum wrote:That's bull****. Based on where he's positioned during the shift? He should have to be in the lineup as 2B.
LH dude qualifying like that at MI is beyond stupid.

It's not the shift, but that he switches gloves (per MLB rule) in the shift.

The logical rule change for future seasons is having eligibility determined by games started, not games played.

For future seasons, I believe that we should have a 'Rizzo Rule' in that a player cannot gain positionality at a position not played.
Rizzo only changes gloves.
He does not 'play 2nd base'.
The Rizzo rule would cover all-like 1b in the future, without having to change the rule to starting at a position to gain eligibility.

DOUGHBOYS wrote:For future seasons, I believe that we should have a 'Rizzo Rule' in that a player cannot gain positionality at a position not played.
Rizzo only changes gloves.
He does not 'play 2nd base'.
The Rizzo rule would cover all-like 1b in the future, without having to change the rule to starting at a position to gain eligibility.

Personally, I think it should be started and not played regardless of Rizzo.

Having an exception of this manner would require manual handling. Not saying it couldn't be arranged, just saying less chance of mistakes if everything is pulled and programmed from automated stat feeds.

ToddZ wrote:

DOUGHBOYS wrote:For future seasons, I believe that we should have a 'Rizzo Rule' in that a player cannot gain positionality at a position not played.
Rizzo only changes gloves.
He does not 'play 2nd base'.
The Rizzo rule would cover all-like 1b in the future, without having to change the rule to starting at a position to gain eligibility.

Personally, I think it should be started and not played regardless of Rizzo.

Having an exception of this manner would require manual handling. Not saying it couldn't be arranged, just saying less chance of mistakes if everything is pulled and programmed from automated stat feeds.

I understand the technology side of things.
It doesn't seem right to undercut all players who switch positions or get into a game off the bench because of Anthony Rizzo.

I don't see a "Rizzo Rule" coming to the NFBC, but feel free to petition Major League Baseball to be more accurate with the position designations. What they are doing now is just silly. If he got to 20 games played there, then we might have to make an Executive Decision for 2018.

The only player that can where a 1B glove is the first baseman.
Managers tried to annoy Maddon by getting 'rulesy' and making the closest player to 1B where the glove.
1B designation had to fall to the player wearing the glove.
It'd be nice if MLB announced that Rizzo is still the 1B and can where his glove, even if the 2B is closer to the base.

It's a STATS glitch. Defense has never factored into any legit Roto format. He should have to be in the lineup at that position. Good for Rizzo owners down the stretch. Silly...

SharkChum wrote:It's a STATS glitch. Defense has never factored into any legit Roto format. He should have to be in the lineup at that position. Good for Rizzo owners down the stretch. Silly...

This is NOT a STATS glitch.

Greg, where a guy plays on D for a given AB, or 10, or what glove he's wearing should NOT factor in a game with 10 offensive cats.
The dog I have in this fight is a small 1, but how can you not recognize the rub here for teams chasing big $?
I love this format, but Rizzo at MI/2B is just wrong. Should have to be in the lineup for the position eligibility.

in regards to league 4965, LoanSharx has no impact in the league with Anthony Rizzo playing middle infield. He has enough multi position players whereby Rizzo is a 1bman, Matt Olson moves to the OF and Jose Ramirez moves to middle infield.

SharkChum wrote:Greg, where a guy plays on D for a given AB, or 10, or what glove he's wearing should NOT factor in a game with 10 offensive cats.
The dog I have in this fight is a small 1, but how can you not recognize the rub here for teams chasing big $?
I love this format, but Rizzo at MI/2B is just wrong. Should have to be in the lineup for the position eligibility.

Talk to Major League Baseball about that. We take official stats from MLB, like every other game operator in the industry.

Greg Ambrosius wrote:

SharkChum wrote:Greg, where a guy plays on D for a given AB, or 10, or what glove he's wearing should NOT factor in a game with 10 offensive cats.
The dog I have in this fight is a small 1, but how can you not recognize the rub here for teams chasing big $?
I love this format, but Rizzo at MI/2B is just wrong. Should have to be in the lineup for the position eligibility.

Talk to Major League Baseball about that. We take official stats from MLB, like every other game operator in the industry.

I agree. We either live by MLB rules or we do not. It's an anomaly for sure but it just seems like a reason for people to complain so they have a reason to de-legitimize another team's success.

Get over it.

Not trying to de-legitimize anything. Success will be determined in about 11 more days as his huge lead has been closed to .5, and he's on the ropes. Rules are rules, same for everyone, over it. It was just that when I noticed that "anomaly" I almost choked on my coffee.

Deadheadz, 11 days did indeed determine success. Remind me to move Rizzo up a few spots next year, though...