NFBC Message Boards

As I mentioned yesterday, I would review the NFBC player eligibilities to see if we had any of them wrong. I mainly wanted to look at the UT players because I felt that would be an area that we might have goofed up on. With the help of some friends, I found two players in question.



Ryan Klesko was incorrectly given NFBC eligibility at first base and in the outfield to start the season, even though he pinch-hit six times last year. It's obvious that STATS didn't recognize his six games played from last year and instead gave him eligibility based on his last season in the majors, 2005. But that was incorrect as he did appear in six games last year, just not at any position. He was a Utility player, not an outfielder or first baseman last year.



Now for the obvious question: Is Greg suddenly counting pinch-hitting as games played for Klesko but not for Cust? Well, no, but since he did play in 6 games last year and none were in the field, UT is the only position he could qualify at. Going back to 2005 and giving him additional eligibility definitely is not right.



Three teams had Klesko in their lineups this week -- one main event team, one satellite team and one NL-only auction league team. All were notified yesterday of the error and have been told that Klesko is now just 1B eligible. If they had him at OF, they will have to move him to 1B or CI or UT next week. He now has 25 games played at first and actually had first base eligibility three weeks ago. I don't have the info right now to see if any of these teams benefitted by having him at OF during this time. He is currently hitting .307 with one home run, 11 RBIs and 14 runs.



All we can do is admit this mistake, notify the owners of his new eligibility and go from here.



A second player of note is Greg Dobbs, who just this week earned eligibility at first base. He had UT-eligibility before then. Last year he played 23 games with Seattle and played 3 at DH, 3 at 1B, 3 at OF, 2 at 3B and he pinch-hit 18 times. STATS put him at UT only. As I look at this example, I have no problem with that designation, but it certainly leaves a lot of room for debate based on our official rules. In my view, he had plenty of time in the majors to establish himself at one position and it's obvious he was a Utility player in Seattle. But.....



Dobbs will remain at 1B, CI, UT as previously designated and now with his new eligibility. But it again forces us to close a hole in our rules.



As Tom mentioned, we're going to have to address the September callups in our rules with specific languages of "if x games played, then...." We'll address that before 2008's rules are officially announced.



Position eligibility can be as defined as possible and yet there always seems to be a loophole. I need to close that once and for all in the NFBC with the most specific, rigid guidelines. I'll take any and all input on the language if you so desire. Thanks everyone and I apologize for the Klesko error.



See, this is a day for everyone to cleanse their souls and admit their mistakes!! Who is next in the confessional?

Okay, here's a great start courtesy of Quahogs:



Positions determined for the 2008 season in this order.



1. 20 games in one position in the majors in 2007 makes that player eligible for that position throughout the season

2. If 20 games were not achieved in one position then the MOST games played at one position (DH included - Util) is the determinant. Equal totals in more than one position would mean dual positioning.

3. If a player did NOT play the field or DH in the majors then the minor league games played in 2007 determines the position

4. The MOST games played throughout the 2007 minor league season spanning ALL minor league levels determines his 2008 position.

5. 10 games played in the majors in 2008 at one position will allow that player eligibility throughout the season

6. If a player did NOT play with a major or minor league team in 2007 then steps 1 thru 4 will be used for the last season he played in an affiliated league.

7. Any foreign or college players position will be determined using steps 1 thru 4 in the league they played in in 2007.

Greg,



I think the Quahogs suggestions are good. As a suggestion, you might add a definition as to how specifically pinch hitting will impact position eligibility for players with less than 20 games played at any one position in the prior year. Such as: PH in a game equals a game as DH/UT or PH will not be considered in determining eligability.



Also, I would give the commissioner latitude when determining published eligability prior to the main event draft to make judgemental calls, much as you did in the past on those few notables. If a player is not listed on the preseason published eligability tables, but comes up during the year, the seven rules listed would be used exclusively.



Just some minor points.

Just to be sure I understand #1, if someone has 25 games at 1b, and 20 games at 2b then the player will have 1b and 2b elgibility right?



It just very slightly sounded like they would only get one position (in this example 1b)



Spy

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

Just to be sure I understand #1, if someone has 25 games at 1b, and 20 games at 2b then the player will have 1b and 2b elgibility right?



It just very slightly sounded like they would only get one position (in this example 1b)



Spy Games played in the major leagues? Yes, of course they would have dual eligibility.

great, thanks