**ALERT Jack Cust ERROR?

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:08 am

cust isn't elgible to play the OF (per the rules of the contest that we all signed up for) and his stats shouldn't count in the OF slot. Gekko, I would agree; however, the slot must be filled, which will allow owners to manipulate who they want in.

I paid for Cust, want his stats...move him to DH and DH to OF if eligible, but if DH not eligible, now the line ups must be switched around.

Tough decision and I'd hate to be Greg, but we must have eligible line up each week. We'll have to go back a couple weeks and rework them.

Brilee's Brigade · Post by **Brilee's Brigade** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:19 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Kimo:

I bid over $600 on Jack Cust in two legues and I have Hafner and Ortiz.

I pass on players to go after Cust.

With Fielder and Castro we all knew they were DH only before the draft or pickups.

Cust, has been playing OF for 2 weeks for some owners.

Losing eligibilty during the season, Not good. i (and quite possibly many other nfbc owners) had a lower bid on Cust because he should have been U eligible only and i already have J.Thome on my team. allowing illegal eligibilty during the season, Not good. [/QUOTE]Gekko,

Why exactly are you waiting till now to bring this question/problem up. You voice your opinion on this message board all the time and should/could have said something when you bid the "small" amount that you did, questioning why Cust had OF eligibilty. But you waited till a week later after you saw what kind of stats he had. If Cust had gone 3 for 25 with 0 HRs and 4 RBIs would you be saying anything?....my guess is NO.

Liquidhippo · Post by **Liquidhippo** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:27 am

Wiping out stats..... yeah, now that's just silly. The NFBC website itself(run by STATS), lists his eligibilty at OF and Cust owners acted accordingly placing him in their lineups. Punishing owners for trusting what's listed on the NFBC's website? Silly.

I've got OF's coming out my *&*, started 6 OF, one at U, would have slotted him there, but he's slotted at OF simply because he was listed as eligible there. Where he's eligible doesn't matter to me. I can put him anywhere.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:35 am

This entire situation hinges upon Greg's interpretation of pinch hitting appearances counting towards position eligibility. If we simply went by "Games Played" then Cust would be an Outfielder. However, if we apply the same logic of Ramon Castro and Prince Fielder in the past, then Cust should be a Utility only.

I would venture to say that the STATS database does not consider pinch hittting appearances as a position, and thus did the natural thing: place Cust as an outfielder (most games played in 2006).

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 3:41 am

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

Punishing owners for trusting what's listed on the NFBC's website? Silly.It's happened before. Early in the 2006 season, Jered Weaver appeared as a free agent when he shouldn't have (not on 40-man roster, not drafted). He got picked up in one of the Chicago leagues, and was rostered for a couple of weeks while still in Triple-A. When the mistake was noted -- well after the pickup was made -- Weaver was removed from that team's roster.

STATS is a very good host site, but mistakes do happen. Bottom line is that the rules must be taken more seriously than the website's ability to adhere to them.

Liquidhippo · Post by **Liquidhippo** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:11 am

KOQ - The Weaver issue is different. I'm sure the guy didn't have him in his starting lineup and have the threat of wiping out a weeks worth of stats.

Where he's eligible doesn't matter to me, if it turns out he's eligible at U, fine, I'll slot him there. But to wipe out stats. That's silly.

KOQ wrote:

STATS is a very good host site, but mistakes do happen. Bottom line is that the rules must be taken more seriously than the website's ability to adhere to them.

Hmmmm.....funny, could someone please post the section in the rules that specifically states that stats should be wiped out under ANY circumstance, let alone this one? Anyone? Crickets?

Are we really concerned about rules here? Sounds more like someone trying to CREATE new rules(wiping out stats).

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:22 am

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Gekko, I would agree; however, the slot must be filled, which will allow owners to manipulate who they want in.

I paid for Cust, want his stats...move him to DH and DH to OF if eligible, but if DH not eligible, now the line ups must be switched around.

Tough decision and I'd hate to be Greg, but we must have eligible line up each week. We'll have to go back a couple weeks and rework them. ok, i said i'd wait for greg's response, but i'll follow up on some questions.

i have no problem with cust being moved to utility if you had an OF in the utility slot. or if the positions work out amongst starting players. for example, suppose you had cust at OF, swisher at 1B and P.Fielder at utility, i could see a switch of cust to utility, fielder to 1B, and swisher to OF.

but if you had F.thomas as your U and cust in the OF, i don't see how an owner can be allowed to take f.thomas out of their starting lineup.

as far as going back and reworking things from monday, as KoQ said, it's been done before.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:25 am

Originally posted by Brilee's Brigade:

Gekko,

Why exactly are you waiting till now to bring this question/problem up. You voice your opinion on this message board all the time and should/could have said something when you bid the "small" amount that you did, questioning why Cust had OF eligibilty. But you waited till a week later after you saw what kind of stats he had. If Cust had gone 3 for 25 with 0 HRs and 4 RBIs would you be saying anything?....my guess is NO. other than the posts i made in this thread, i made a total of TWO posts in the last week. i don't have enough time in the day to babysit everyone. sorry to disappoint you :rolleyes:

geez, instead of saying "thanks gekko for finding an error", i get a response like yours? :rolleyes:

sorry, doesn't make any sense.

[ May 20, 2007, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:28 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

This entire situation hinges upon Greg's interpretation of pinch hitting appearances counting towards position eligibility. If we simply went by "Games Played" then Cust would be an Outfielder. However, if we apply the same logic of Ramon Castro and Prince Fielder in the past, then Cust should be a Utility only.

I would venture to say that the STATS database does not consider pinch hittting appearances as a position, and thus did the natural thing: place Cust as an outfielder (most games played in 2006). yep, from day one "pinch hitting has counted".

it's unfortunate that STATS didn't have Cust listed correctly, but the elgibility rules must be upheld. Cust needs to go back to U only

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:29 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

Punishing owners for trusting what's listed on the NFBC's website? Silly.It's happened before. Early in the 2006 season, Jered Weaver appeared as a free agent when he shouldn't have (not on 40-man roster, not drafted). He got picked up in one of the Chicago leagues, and was rostered for a couple of weeks while still in Triple-A. When the mistake was noted -- well after the pickup was made -- Weaver was removed from that team's roster.

STATS is a very good host site, but mistakes do happen. Bottom line is that the rules must be taken more seriously than the website's ability to adhere to them. [/QUOTE]good point KoQ. there is precedent for a retro-move

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:31 am

Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

Hmmmm.....funny, could someone please post the section in the rules that specifically states that stats should be wiped out under ANY circumstance, let alone this one? Anyone? Crickets?

Are we really concerned about rules here? Sounds more like someone trying to CREATE new rules(wiping out stats). from the Rules section: if no starting lineup is submitted, your starting lineup will be that of the previous week.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:34 am

I would not suggest wiping out accumulated stats unless absolutely necessary. Here's my suggestion on how to handle this:

(1) Pickups of Jack Cust from 5/6/07 and 5/13/07 should remain intact

(2) Positions and, if necessary, rosters should be switched for the 5/7/07-5/13/07 and 5/14/07-5/20/07 periods. This would be at Greg's discretion, not the owners.

(3) Jack Cust remains Utility only until he plays 10 games at outfield

In any event, I am not the Commissioner of the NFBC, and will await comment from said individual. That's why Greg gets paid the big bucks!

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:01 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Liquidhippo:

Punishing owners for trusting what's listed on the NFBC's website? Silly.It's happened before. Early in the 2006 season, Jered Weaver appeared as a free agent when he shouldn't have (not on 40-man roster, not drafted). He got picked up in one of the Chicago leagues, and was rostered for a couple of weeks while still in Triple-A. When the mistake was noted -- well after the pickup was made -- Weaver was removed from that team's roster.

STATS is a very good host site, but mistakes do happen. Bottom line is that the rules must be taken more seriously than the website's ability to adhere to them. [/QUOTE]good point KoQ. there is precedent for a retro-move [/QUOTE]Clarification on this situation. Jered Weaver was drafted in a Chicago main event league last year, but illegally as he was not on a 40-man roster. The owner that drafted him dropped him either the first or second week of free agency. Because he was drafted, his name remained in the available free agent pool. The week after he was waived, another owner scooped him up. He remained on that owner's roster for at least two weeks before the error was caught. That owner was forced to replaced Weaver, though because Weaver had accumulated no stats, there was nothing done retroactively.

The point remains: rules and STATS sometimes contradict.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:53 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Kimo:

I bid over $600 on Jack Cust in two legues and I have Hafner and Ortiz.

I pass on players to go after Cust.

With Fielder and Castro we all knew they were DH only before the draft or pickups.

Cust, has been playing OF for 2 weeks for some owners.

Losing eligibilty during the season, Not good. i (and quite possibly many other nfbc owners) had a lower bid on Cust because he should have been U eligible only and i already have J.Thome on my team. allowing illegal eligibilty during the season, Not good. [/QUOTE]If this is the case why you lowered your bid, why are you bringing it up two week later? You should have brought it to the attention of Greg then.

There is no way Greg is going to take the stats off the board.

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:17 am

Well said Shawn, couldnt agree with you more.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:28 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

If this is the case why you lowered your bid, why are you bringing it up two week later? You should have brought it to the attention of Greg then.

There is no way Greg is going to take the stats off the board. i'm a successful businesss man (water delivery) with very little time to remember to tell greg or stats about every little thing i see. i just looked in the free agent pool, and i see at least one other player with the wrong elgibility listed. there needs to be a checks and balances by the nfbc and stats, not by gekko spending time researching every player and informing them of errors.

if i remember correctly, i thought that the cust situation was an error on STATS part and that they would have corrected it before he was being used in any lineups.

in any event, i had forgotten about the cust situation until last night. at that time, i raised the issue. it's not up to me to remember to be the policeman of the nfbc. i informed them of the error and that the rules aren't being upheld.

the bottom line is... according to the rules that we all signed up for, there is NO way cust should be elgible to be in the OF.

[ May 20, 2007, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

ALL-IN JD · Post by **ALL-IN JD** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:34 am

Being eligible is one thing (if he pinch hit and never took the field, which is what im assuming) and he played the FIELD only once (and that was in the outfield, he should be outfield eligible) but to say that two weeks of stats should be wiped out is another.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun May 20, 2007 8:48 am

As GG knows, I'm stuck in a Chicago airport today, but my Blackberry is humming with e-mails about Cust's eligibility. I made the decision with stats to allow him to have outfield eligibility as we followed the eligibility rules. The only poaition he played last year in the majors was outfield.

When he was available via free agency, he had an outfield designation. Everyone saw that and had the right to bid accordingly. Only one owner questioned that, the day after bids were processed.

I will add more on this when I get back, but unquestionably his stats will remain and he will continue to qualify as an outfielder. It was not a mistake to keep him at of as I conversed with stats aboutthis at the time.

I hope to get on a new flight in an hour or so.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:15 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I made the decision with stats to allow him to have outfield eligibility as we followed the eligibility rules. The only poaition he played last year in the majors was outfield.

When he was available via free agency, he had an outfield designation. Everyone saw that and had the right to bid accordingly. Only one owner questioned that, the day after bids were processed.

I will add more on this when I get back, but unquestionably his stats will remain and he will continue to qualify as an outfielder. It was not a mistake to keep him at of as I conversed with stats aboutthis at the time.

greg, i have a lot of respect for you as a person, but this decision is horseshitt. i can't wait to read your reasons why cust is made OF elgible even though he played more games and had more AB at "pinch hitter", than at OF.

Remember Ramon Castro in 2004. he had more games and AB at "pinch hitter" than at C and YOU said he was only eligible at Utility.

You have gone against precedent here and against the rules.

Again, here is the rule: Minor-leaguers who did not play 20 games at any position in 2006 but who still played at least one game in the majors last year, will qualify at the position they played the most at in the majors in 2006.

Ramon Castro followed this rule, but somehow Cust doesn't?!?!? Show me in the rules how Cust is eligible as an OF. Thanks.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 10:55 am

While I am not as upset about this as Gekko, I do agree that this decision is inconsistent with past rulings on player eligibility. There have been many discussions about "pinch-hitting" qualifying as a position. I think that Greg made it quite clear with Ramon Castro in 2004 and again with Prince Fielder in 2006 that pinch hitting appearances do count towards position eligibility. Since Jack Cust played in the majors last year, we are supposed to use his major league games played to determine position eligibility. One game at OF, 3 appearances as a pinch hitter. Based on previous rulings, this SHOULD make Cust a Utility player.

Just for sake of clarity, I would like to know how Cust is different than Castro or Fielder. Either pinch hitting counts towards position eligibility, or it doesn't. Were we wrong before to not make Castro a catcher or Fielder a first baseman?

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sun May 20, 2007 11:11 am

Not taking sides here...just curious if the rules are written exactly the same as they were in 2004-2005.

It seems the error may have occurred with Castro if they were exactly the same scenarios.

According to the wording of the rule you quoted...Cust would be OF. "Pinch Hitter" is a situational play/tactic...not a position.

What happened to the Price Fielder comparisons?

I'm having a tough time finding a breakdown of positions played with Fielders AB's in MLB in 2005, and if he took the field. He had a .1000 fielding %...so he must have played somewhere? I apologize for not fulling knowing the Castro situation...but if it's a National League team with no DH...it's either a fielding position or no credit for each game he played AND took the field. (IMO)

Sorry if it looks like I'm butting in...I just see pinch hitting and pinch running as managerial moves...not having any impact on position eligibility.

~Lance

[ May 20, 2007, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 11:28 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

While I am not as upset about this as Gekko, I do agree that this decision is inconsistent with past rulings on player eligibility. There have been many discussions about "pinch-hitting" qualifying as a position. I think that Greg made it quite clear with Ramon Castro in 2004 and again with Prince Fielder in 2006 that pinch hitting appearances do count towards position eligibility. Since Jack Cust played in the majors last year, we are supposed to use his major league games played to determine position eligibility. One game at OF, 3 appearances as a pinch hitter. Based on previous rulings, this SHOULD make Cust a Utility player.

Just for sake of clarity, I would like to know how Cust is different than Castro or Fielder. Either pinch hitting counts towards position eligibility, or it doesn't. Were we wrong before to not make Castro a catcher or Fielder a first baseman? I think it is pretty simple. Cust made it to the free agent list as an outfielder by mistake. Not one person complained when he was available. Everyone who was interested in him bid on him accordingly. Anyone else didn't see he had any value at the time. Therefore, he was brought to the pool as an outfielder. He was bid on as such. It was an equal playing field accross the board for all leagues. Once he cleared the first free agent period, it wouldn't be fair to allow him to be picked up as a DH only as he was already allowed to play as an outfielder. Greg has a tough job. It would be easy to make the right call before he was bid on. But after the fact, he has to make judgement that is best interest of the event. Everyone had a fair shot at him. Not one person got screwed because they thought he was a DH. I have agree with Greg.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sun May 20, 2007 11:30 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Not taking sides here...just curious if the rules are written exactly the same as they were in 2004-2005.

It seems the error may have occurred with Castro if they were exactly the same scenarios.

According to the wording of the rule you quoted...Cust would be OF. "Pinch Hitter" is a situational play/tactic...not a position.

What happened to the Price Fielder comparisons?

I'm having a tough time finding a breakdown of positions played with Fielders AB's in MLB in 2005, and if he took the field. He had a .1000 fielding %...so he must have played somewhere? I apologize for not fulling knowing the Castro situation...but if it's a National League team with no DH...it's either a fielding position or no credit for each game he played AND took the field. (IMO)

Sorry if it looks like I'm butting in...I just see pinch hitting and pinch running as managerial moves...not having any impact on position eligibility.

~Lance Prince Fielder was prior to the draft. Everyone knew he was utility only. It isn't even the same agruement.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Sun May 20, 2007 12:48 pm

I have to agree with everything Shawn said, you cant go back in time two weeks ago and now bring this up.This wouldnt be fair to anyone , whats done is done.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:15 pm

There's no crying in baseball.

PH is not a position.

Cust was, and is, qualified at OF.

And the evil weasel goes down in flames again.