**ALERT Jack Cust ERROR?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 19, 2007 3:53 pm

Why is Jack Cust eligible at OF? In 2006 Cust appeared in 4 major league games. 1 as an OF and 3 as a pinch hitter. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (see rule below), Cust should only be allowed to be played at U.

I see some teams have him in the OF this week. If he should only be U eligible, to protect the integrity of the contest, will Cust's stats be removed from teams that played him at an illegal position?

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.

[ May 19, 2007, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:04 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

Why is Jack Cust eligible at OF? In 2006 Cust appeared in 4 major league games. 1 as an OF and 3 as a pinch hitter. Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (see rule below), Cust should only be allowed to be played at U.

I see some teams have him in the OF this week. If he should only be U eligible, to protect the integrity of the contest, will Cust's stats be removed from teams that played him at an illegal position?

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. Can't wait for the ruling on this one...

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:12 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Can't wait for the ruling on this one... again, assuming that i am interpreting the rules correctly...the kicker is that teams who have a DH-only type of player...thome, d.ortiz, f.thomas, etc... likely bid far less for cust last week in faab knowing that he only qualified at Utility. since you can only play 1 utlity guy, cust would have been a waste for a lot of those team, hence lowered (or no) bids last week

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:14 pm

If so, will the owners of Cust be able to switch their line ups then? With him listed as OF eligible, it obviously goes into play as to who gets to start where.

If there is a reversal, then I think we should be allowed to reset our lineups for the week if we are affected.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:22 pm

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

If so, will the owners of Cust be able to switch their line ups then? With him listed as OF eligible, it obviously goes into play as to who gets to start where.

If there is a reversal, then I think we should be allowed to reset our lineups for the week if we are affected. if you started him at OF, you lose his stats

[ May 19, 2007, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:32 pm

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

If so, will the owners of Cust be able to switch their line ups then? With him listed as OF eligible, it obviously goes into play as to who gets to start where.

If there is a reversal, then I think we should be allowed to reset our lineups for the week if we are affected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if you started him at OF, you lose his stats

I think that's BS...he shouldn't have been listed in Stats with OF eligibility then. You want to talk about integrity? Punishing owners because of an incorrect listing is not exactly the best way to show integrity...again, the line ups would have been set differently.

Not to mention the advantage it gives to other owners, who have players starting at each position.

Tough decision here, Greg, but to take away stats from owners who used Stats eligibility, with no bad intent, doesn't seem fair to me.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:37 pm

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

he shouldn't have been listed in Stats with OF eligibility then. would you agree that it's up to each nfbc owner to know and follow the rules? if d.ortiz was listed as 2nd base, would his stats be allowed to count?

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

Punishing owners because of an incorrect listing is not exactly the best way to show integrity...okay, so you want to punish all of the non-OF-playing cust owners? there's 300+ owners getting punished here by allowing cust's stats as an OF. not to mention all the owners who already had a DH player and knew the rules and either bid low or didn't bid at all on cust last week.

[ May 19, 2007, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:47 pm

Gekko...he was listed as OF...I assumed the eligibility listing was correct. Not fair to pull his stats away...

Also, rules state and I'll quote now...

Starting Lineup Requirements: Starting lineups will consist of:

2 Catchers

1 First Baseman

1 Second Baseman

1 Shortstop

1 Third Baseman

1 Middle Infielder (2B/SS)

1 Corner Infielder (1B/3B)

1 Utility Player (any offensive position)

5 Outfielders

9 Pitchers

If you try to submit a line up that is illegal, you are not allowed to...Greg has removed FAAB's in the past, if you drop one player to pick up another, but do not have the minimum requirements. This is done, because, as the rules state, you must have someone leigible at each position above.

You want to remove Cust, that's fine, but if you want to keep the integrity, as you say, then you MUST stick with all rules and make sure owners have an eligible line up submitted...

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:55 pm

I'll check tomorrow for Greg's ruling. I'm sure we will be allowed to have a complete line up - either way.

[ May 19, 2007, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: poopy tooth ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:05 pm

Originally posted by poopy tooth:

You want to remove Cust, that's fine, but if you want to keep the integrity, as you say, then you MUST stick with all rules and make sure owners have an eligible line up submitted... suppose you started cust in the OF and F.Thomas at U (hit .200 this week in 10AB). IMO, cust's stats shouldn't count, and there is no way you should be allowed to switch thomas out of your starting line-up.

suppose you started cust in the OF and B.Bonds at U. i could live with a cust/bonds switch since the positions work out.

[ May 19, 2007, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Brilee's Brigade · Post by **Brilee's Brigade** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:19 pm

nice to see YOU could live with it. I was not under the impression that YOU set the rules or really had a say in the descion making process. I personally do not have Cust on my team, and agree that if the rules should have had him at U, then he should become one....from here on out, but I will leave that descion to the good folks that make descions.

It is good that we have someone on here with enough time to check these things, but why not "call out" the problem'error and let those folks who make descions make them.

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:20 pm

suppose you started cust in the OF and F.Thomas at U (hit .200 this week in 10AB). IMO, cust's stats shouldn't count, and there is no way you could switch thomas out of your starting line-up.

suppose you started cust in the OF and B.Bonds at U. i could live with a cust/bonds switch.

Well, as you have stated, rules are rules...all owners are required to have a player at each position. With that in mind, I'm sure there will be some switches you can live with and some you will not be happy with.

It's a shame this wasn't caught earlier.

I will say, if Cust is removed and no stats can be used to replace him, then I would like the ability to do the same with some of my pitchers who suck or have match ups that I don't like for the week. An open slot could be helpful...

I have Cust in a satellite league. I also have D. Lee, K. Youkilis and Adrian Gonzalez. If he's listed as DH only, my strategy is different and so is my starting line up...

Going to be a tough one to decide.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:26 pm

Originally posted by Brilee's Brigade:

nice to see YOU could live with it. I was not under the impression that YOU set the rules or really had a say in the descion making process. I personally do not have Cust on my team, and agree that if the rules should have had him at U, then he should become one....from here on out, but I will leave that descion to the good folks that make descions.

It is good that we have someone on here with enough time to check these things, but why not "call out" the problem'error and let those folks who make descions make them. of course greg makes/enforces the rules.

i was voicing my opinion. this IS a message board forum.

:rolleyes:

thanks.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:35 pm

Designated Hitter is a position. (For AL) (Under MLB rules)

Pinch hitter is not a "position". (Under MLB/NFBC rules)

Outfield is a position. (Under NFBC/MLB rules)

Seems like he's an OF.

~Lance

[ May 19, 2007, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:44 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Brilee's Brigade:

nice to see YOU could live with it. I was not under the impression that YOU set the rules or really had a say in the descion making process. I personally do not have Cust on my team, and agree that if the rules should have had him at U, then he should become one....from here on out, but I will leave that descion to the good folks that make descions.

It is good that we have someone on here with enough time to check these things, but why not "call out" the problem'error and let those folks who make descions make them. of course greg makes/enforces the rules.

i was voicing my opinion. this IS a message board forum.

:rolleyes:

thanks. [/QUOTE]I too dampened my bid if I even entered one for some leagues because the UTIL spot was jammed and didnt see Cust getting OF elig for a while if at all. However STATS threw him in the FA pool as an OF and that's how he was bid. Even then the OF elig. wouldnt have changed anything for me because I thought it would be struck from his positioning based on the rules for position eligibility. However that is not the case as STATS listing albeit incorrect is > stated rules.

Q

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:46 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Designated Hitter is a position. (For AL) (Under MLB rules)

Pinch hitter is not a "position". (Under MLB/NFBC rules)

Outfield is a position. (Under NFBC/MLB rules)

Seems like he's an OF.

~Lance based on prior ruling see P.Fielder eligibility going into 2006 season. He had pinch hit 20+games and played 1b 6 or 7 (#'s could be off) so he went into the season as UTIL only

Q

[ May 19, 2007, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Quahogs ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat May 19, 2007 6:23 pm

Just curious if after pinch hitting...did either of them play an actual position...even for one inning in those AB's?

I guess I could look it up.

~Lance

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat May 19, 2007 6:29 pm

Is there a difference in the NFBC language between "Draft day position eligibility", and "Call-up position eligibility?"

I'm tired.

~Lance

poopy tooth · Post by **poopy tooth** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:19 am

Lance,

I agree with you, as far as pinch hitting is not a position, but others are correct in saying Fielder was a Util eligible player last year.

I don't like the rule, but it's not for me to decide.

Personally, I did not look up the eligibility for Cust, so when he was listed as OF/DH, I bid accordingly. With less eligibility, my bid would have also been less.

Too bad those who knew and bid based on DH only, didn't say something at that time - not that it's their responsibility, but it would have been a big help.

I read stuff about players being eligible or not eligible for bidding all the time.

IMHO, owners are just finding out NOW and saying something about it. This talk of different bids is being thrown out there to help their case.

I will say again, if he was DH eligible only, my bid would have been less and my line up would be different. If we are allowed to adjust these, then I don't have a problem with the change, but if we don't and switches are made for us, then I would have to question the fairness of that.

I believe Greg will make a fair decision.

Earlier Gekko wrote, if David Ortiz was listed as 2B, would we allow it? In response to that:

1. Owners would have said something sooner.

2. Cust is no where near as popular. Where he played last year was not common knowledge.

3. If we look at stats listing, I feel confident it is correct.

I really have to question and call out those who knew all along and are just saying something on Saturday. Assuming they placed bids on Sunday, that's still almost a full week.

1. Either they waited to see if it would work to their advantage before saying something.

2. They lost out on the bid and are not happy, now that they see he's productive.

3. It was stumbled upon by Gekko, who posted his finding, which is correct, but is noe adding additional comments to feed his case.

This "I knew all along and am just saying something now" can be proven false by one question...

When has Gekko ever been known to be quiet?

[ May 20, 2007, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: poopy tooth ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:28 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Designated Hitter is a position. (For AL) (Under MLB rules)

Pinch hitter is not a "position". (Under MLB/NFBC rules)

Outfield is a position. (Under NFBC/MLB rules)

Seems like he's an OF.

~Lance based on prior ruling see P.Fielder eligibility going into 2006 season. He had pinch hit 20+games and played 1b 6 or 7 (#'s could be off) so he went into the season as UTIL only

Q [/QUOTE]And Ramon Castro the year before.

I went back and forth with Greg about this issue for a LONG time. The bottom line is that the NFBC has always used pinch hitting appearances as a position. Players with more pinch hitting appearances than a field position, and who don't reach 20 games at a field position, are Utility only.

Greg, my heart goes out to you on this one.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:32 am

Additionally, I will confirm that Cust has been listed as Outfield-eligible since he first appeared on the STATS website two weeks ago. I specifically checked to see if he qualified at a position other that Utility on May 6th -- he was on the Outfield list.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:11 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

STATS listing albeit incorrect is > stated rules.

Q player eligibility as stated in the rules for a player like Cust is...

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.

where does it say that STATS determines a player's eligibility? it doesn't.

here is something that greg posted when i was trying to change something that was in the rules...

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I've been told by a few owners I can't change this rule mid-season, that they signed a contract under the current rules. bottom line...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.

Kimo · Post by **Kimo** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:40 am

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.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:42 am

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.

[ May 20, 2007, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:45 am

i have emailed greg and will wait for a response on the MB addressing this before posting any further.