Suggestions For 2010 Player Eligibility Rules

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:47 am

We've all worked together the last couple of years to shore up our NFBC eligibility rules, but we still had some loopholes in them last year for guys who played over 20 games total but less than 20 at any position. One of those was Kendry Morales. Anyway, below is our current eligibility rules for 2010, same as 2009. If you have any suggestions to tighten these even further and to better quantify a position for those September callups and late season additions, I'm all for it. Thanks.

6. Position Eligibility: The NFBC will use the following position eligibility rules in 2010:

a) Players who played at least 20 games at any position in 2009 will qualify at that position for the entire 2010 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2009 will be eligible at that position after they have played for the 10th time there this year.

b) Players who played less than 20 games total in the majors last year will be eligible at the position they played the most games at, not including DH or pinch-hitting.

c) Those players who only pinch-hit in the majors in 2009 will be position eligible according to their minor-league games played status in 2009. They would qualify at the position they played the most games in the minors.

d) Players who played all of 2009 in the minor leagues will be awarded position eligibility for 2010’s NFBC season based on the most games played at all levels in the minors. Fanball will determine that one eligible position before Draft Day and that will determine that players’ status for 2010 once he is called up to the majors. Those players who only pinch-hit or DH in the minors will only be UT-eligible.

e) Players who played 20 or more games in the majors last year and didn’t play 20 or more games at one position will be deemed UT-only eligible in 2010 unless otherwise designated by the NFBC Commissioner. The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

f) Additional position eligibility will be awarded during the season when a player has played a new position 10 times which he was not previously eligible.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:37 am

For me, line e) is the one that could be tweaked. It's possible for a September callup to play more than 20 games total and not 20 at any position and be left with UT eligibility. Maybe we change this rule to 30 games total and if he doesn't play 20 games at any position he qualifies at the position he played the most at while in the majors.

Kendry Morales was the player I'm trying to use as an example. He played 27 games in 2008, 12 in the outfield, 6 at first base and 3 at DH. According to our rules, he's a UT-eligible player for 2009 and that was his designation on Draft Day even though he was scheduled to start at 1B. It also made him more riskier than having him as OF-eligible or 1B-eligible. Should we have something in the rules that covers someone like Morales from 2008?

Pablo Sandoval was another example of a player who fell between our eligibility rules. He played 41 games in 2008, 17 at first base, 12 at third base and 11 at catcher. He was being elevated to starting first baseman before spring training and thus we gave him 1B-eligibility for Draft Day. I made the decision on that eligibility rather than have him as UT-only to start the year. But should there be a stipulation in our eligibility rules to cover examples like Sandoval?

All thoughts are welcome on this subject.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:40 am

Greg,

you need to eliminate E. For example according to your rules:

K.Morales plays 21 games only. 2 as DH and 19 as an 1B. So he's listed as a UTIL only ?

However, J.Rivera plays 19 games. He plays 18 at dh and 1 at 1b. Now he's a 1b ?

I'm ok with J.Rivera being listed as a 1B. But Kendry listed as a UTIL only is just wrong.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 am

And B should read " IF a player does not play 20games at 1 particular position then he qualifies at the position he played the most in (at the major league level). That would take care of the Sandoval ruling

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:01 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

And B should read " IF a player does not play 20games at 1 particular position then he qualifies at the position he played the most in (at the major league level). That would take care of the Sandoval ruling It's worth discussing, but I'm not sure I totally agree. If we had done this last year, all of these players would have been eligible at positions outside of UT:

Kendry Morales OF (12 at OF, 27 played)

Gary Sheffield OF (106 at DH, 6 at OF)

Rocco Baldelli OF (22 at DH, 7 at OF)

Matt Stairs OF (82 at DH, 19 at OF)

So you're giving three full-time DHs position eligibility they didn't earn. I understand the reasoning, I'm just not sure I agree with it.

Next year then David Ortiz would be 1B eligible if we change B. Ortiz: 150 games played, 139 at DH, 6 at 1B. Do you really believe he deserves 1B designation in our contest??

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:10 am

With teams announcing their intentions, for the most part, coming out of spring training, guys like Sandoval and Morales will have to be Commissioner calls.

These type of decisions need common sense more than the difference of a couple of numbers of games played at different positions from the previous year.

Just my opinion.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:15 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

And B should read " IF a player does not play 20games at 1 particular position then he qualifies at the position he played the most in (at the major league level). That would take care of the Sandoval ruling It's worth discussing, but I'm not sure I totally agree. If we had done this last year, all of these players would have been eligible at positions outside of UT:

Kendry Morales OF (12 at OF, 27 played)

Gary Sheffield OF (106 at DH, 6 at OF)

Rocco Baldelli OF (22 at DH, 7 at OF)

Matt Stairs OF (82 at DH, 19 at OF)

So you're giving three full-time DHs position eligibility they didn't earn. I understand the reasoning, I'm just not sure I agree with it.

Next year then David Ortiz would be 1B eligible if we change B. Ortiz: 150 games played, 139 at DH, 6 at 1B. Do you really believe he deserves 1B designation in our contest?? [/QUOTE]I agree with you here. DH needs to be viewed as a players position in this case. If that was so it would honor all of our scenarios.

B needs to state INCLUDING DHing. AND still get rid of E.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:24 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

[qb] [QUOTE]I agree with you here. DH needs to be viewed as a players position in this case. If that was so it would honor all of our scenarios.

B needs to state INCLUDING DHing. AND still get rid of E. [/QUOTE]I'm still not sure I agree with you. Is there any fantasy league that doesn't have the 20 games minimum rule in it?? So you want to give eligibility to anyone who played in Major League Baseball last year, right? And if they DH'd 20 or more games, they are UT-eligible, right?

I'm not sure abandoning the 20 games played at a position rule is the way to go.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:27 am

I would get rid of the first sentence in E.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:35 am

This is the Tout Wars rule, and it is based from the original rule book definition. I am pretty sure LABR uses the same definition. This is actually pretty standard.

POSTION ELIGIBILITY

On Draft Day: A player may be assigned to any position at which he appeared at least 20 times in the major leagues in the preceding season. If a player did not appear in 20 games at any position, or did not appear the prior season in the majors at all, he qualifies at the one position he played most frequently the prior season in any league(s) he played in. If a player sat out the previous year for any reason, his eligibility will be determined by the last season in which he played professional baseball in the United States.

Designated Hitter is considered a position for these purposes. A player who only qualifies as a DH may only be assigned to the DH position.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:39 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

[qb] [QUOTE]I agree with you here. DH needs to be viewed as a players position in this case. If that was so it would honor all of our scenarios.

B needs to state INCLUDING DHing. AND still get rid of E. [/QUOTE]I'm still not sure I agree with you. Is there any fantasy league that doesn't have the 20 games minimum rule in it?? So you want to give eligibility to anyone who played in Major League Baseball last year, right? And if they DH'd 20 or more games, they are UT-eligible, right?

I'm not sure abandoning the 20 games played at a position rule is the way to go. [/QUOTE]All I'm saying is A and B (with B reworded to include DH as a position - in our case UTIL only) addresses our scenarios. What good does E do other than create inconsistencies ?

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:42 am

HEY DOUGH ! E is Effed.

couldn't resist the play on lettering..

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:42 am

And from the LABR Constitution...

C. ELIGIBILITY

A player may be assigned to any position at which he appeared in 20 or more major league games in the preceding season. If a player did not appear in 20 or more games at a single position he may be drafted only at the position at which he appeared most frequently. DH is a position for these purposes. A player who only qualifies as a DH may only be assigned to the DH position. Games played will be determined from the Sporting News Official Guide. If a player did not appear the prior season in the majors he qualifies at the position he played most frequently the prior season in any league(s) he played in. If a player sat out the last year for any reason these rules apply to the last season in which he played professional baseball. The 20 games/most games is only used to determine the positions at which a player may be drafted. Once the season is under way (but after draft day) a player becomes eligible for assignment to any position at which he appears (in the major leagues) at least 5 times as well as any positions that he was eligible for on auction day.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:45 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

HEY DOUGH ! E is Effed.

couldn't resist the play on lettering..

I'm surprised you didn't come up with a picture for E. ....Drum roll, please....

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:50 am

This is my dog. I named him E.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:59 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

This is the Tout Wars rule, and it is based from the original rule book definition. I am pretty sure LABR uses the same definition. This is actually pretty standard.

POSTION ELIGIBILITY

On Draft Day: A player may be assigned to any position at which he appeared at least 20 times in the major leagues in the preceding season. If a player did not appear in 20 games at any position, or did not appear the prior season in the majors at all, he qualifies at the one position he played most frequently the prior season in any league(s) he played in. If a player sat out the previous year for any reason, his eligibility will be determined by the last season in which he played professional baseball in the United States.

Designated Hitter is considered a position for these purposes. A player who only qualifies as a DH may only be assigned to the DH position. Okay, if this clarifies things better and is standard then I'm all for it. I think I created some confusion with my interpretation of the 20 games played rule from the start. I'm digging this now unless someone offers a better interpretation.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

This is my dog. I named him E. Beautiful.

This is how I picture Dodger arms after a season under Joe Torre.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:07 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

This is the Tout Wars rule, and it is based from the original rule book definition. I am pretty sure LABR uses the same definition. This is actually pretty standard.

POSTION ELIGIBILITY

On Draft Day: A player may be assigned to any position at which he appeared at least 20 times in the major leagues in the preceding season. If a player did not appear in 20 games at any position, or did not appear the prior season in the majors at all, he qualifies at the one position he played most frequently the prior season in any league(s) he played in. If a player sat out the previous year for any reason, his eligibility will be determined by the last season in which he played professional baseball in the United States.

Designated Hitter is considered a position for these purposes. A player who only qualifies as a DH may only be assigned to the DH position. Okay, if this clarifies things better and is standard then I'm all for it. I think I created some confusion with my interpretation of the 20 games played rule from the start. I'm digging this now unless someone offers a better interpretation.

[/QUOTE]If this results in non-DHs having true position eligibility, rather than being labeled DH, I'm in favor it.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:28 pm

Agreed.

Schwartzstops · Post by **Schwartzstops** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:00 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

This is the Tout Wars rule, and it is based from the original rule book definition. I am pretty sure LABR uses the same definition. This is actually pretty standard.

Okay, if this clarifies things better and is standard then I'm all for it. I think I created some confusion with my interpretation of the 20 games played rule from the start. I'm digging this now unless someone offers a better interpretation.

[/QUOTE]This gets my vote. A guy plays in 150 games as a DH and he qualifies as UT-only, but if a guy plays in 19 games and 18 of them in the OF, he qualifies as OF. That seems appropriate to me.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:48 am

I drafted Kendry Morales as he was listed in MOCK Draft Central as an outfielder.Then come to find out he's not.This sucked for me as i had Puljos and Fielder at first and corner and Ortiz at dh.So all year Morales or Ortiz had to sit.If Morales was listed ut i could have gotten an outfielder i could use.My 5th outfielder all year was bad.[Gerut or Infante]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:42 am

Okay, thanks to Lord Zola and Tout Wars for this help. I've made an amendment to "B" in our rules and shaved "E". Does this make more sense for the NFBC going forward?:

6. Position Eligibility: The NFBC will use the following position eligibility rules in 2010:

a) Players who played at least 20 games at any position in 2009 will qualify at that position for the entire 2010 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2010 will be eligible at that position after they have played for the 10th time there this year.

b) If a player did not appear in 20 games at any position, he qualifies at the one position he played most frequently the prior season in the majors. Designated Hitter is considered a position for these purposes (pinch-hitting is not). A player who only qualifies as a DH may only be assigned to the UT position.

c) Those players who only pinch-hit in the majors in 2009 will be position eligible according to their minor-league games played status in 2009. They would qualify at the position they played the most games in the minors.

d) Players who played all of 2009 in the minor leagues will be awarded position eligibility for 2010’s NFBC season based on the most games played at all levels in the minors. Fanball will determine that one eligible position before Draft Day and that will determine that players’ status for 2010 once he is called up to the majors. Those players who only pinch-hit or DH in the minors will only be UT-eligible.

e) The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

f) Additional position eligibility will be awarded during the season when a player has played a new position 10 times which he was not previously eligible.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 5:37 am

Four things…

The last sentence of ‘A’ is the same as ‘F’. You may want to remove one of them as it’s a duplicate and just clutters the rule up more than it should be.

If I’m reading the rules correctly, a player who played 1 game at 2B, 1 game at SS and 1 game at OF would be eligible at all three positions entering 2010, correct?

For clarity, you may want to add that CI and MI are NOT positions. I believe a couple people asked you about that this year.

If STATS has the WRONG position eligibility listed for a player and you bid on that player, and acquire him through FAAB, will you be able to use that player at the incorrect position for the remainder of the season?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 6:03 am

Greg, I agree with the changes you've made and the above items from Mark (except for maybe the STATS error, that is problematic either way).

Also, I'll suggest adding the following to the end of rule b:

"If a player's most games played at a position is less than 20 and tied among more than one position, the commishioner will assign eligibility at one position only".

Players shouldn't be awarded multiple positions because of a statistical anomoly.

[ October 06, 2009, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Tue Oct 06, 2009 7:04 am

I guess this was the first time I had this problem, but in week 26 I had Garrett Jones in my lineup. He played at 12:30. I know he should be locked in my lineup, but I should have been able to move him to outfield and put someone else at UT. I think we have that option in football where you can move a player out the flex position after he is locked.