Fielder at 1B and CI

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:23 am

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

I for one, in the past trusted the elgibility designations that the site allowed.. Fortunately I don't own fielder (feel he is overvalued for his risk / reward but that is another matter). I feel terrible for those owners who put him at non-util. They probably just assumed that he was elgible there... I wonder in the future if there is another mistake what will happen. Personally I think they should keep the stats as they were.

Spy You are confused Chris. All of the stats were kept from Week 1.

As for Week 2, everyone is allowed to have Fielder in their lineup. It's just that he MUST be at Utility this week. It looks like he should have first base eligibility by week's end and at that point teams that didn't use him at first base in Week 1 will be allowed to put him at 1B or CI. Nobody's team has been slighted any stats and every team that owns Fielder will have kept him at Utility for two weeks of the NFBC season. Again, three of the 22 main event owners will see this adjustment next week.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:25 am

Originally posted by Plymouth:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

[qb] Okay, here's the official statement on this:

Greg, I am confused, what do you mean when you say that "All Week 2 lineups have him eligible ONLY at 1B/CI"? He is still not qualified to be 1B or CI in week 2, which is the week we are now playing. Those that used him at 1B and CI should not be able to use him except as a UT in weeks 3 and 4 correct?

Thanks, John My bad John. I meant he was ONLY eligible at UT for Week 2. I've changed my quote above. Fielder is ONLY eligible at UT this week.

el futter bastardinos · Post by **el futter bastardinos** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:58 am

So let me get this correct. Teams with Fielder that used him at 1B or CI during week one, cannot do so until he has played 10 more games at 1B/CI? So they are looking at week 4 before they can play him in that position. So based on your error, you have decided to penalize teams. I don't think anyone intentionally took advantage of Fielder having the 1B or CI eligibility. Most likely people thought the system was reflecting a more accurate position eligibility.

Its always easier to pass them blame onto someone else, like you are doing so to STATS. You are responsible for them, and are now letting them affect the integrity of your leagues. Instead of just 1 week being unfair, you now want to make it 3. Everyone knows Fielder was going to be the starting 1B for Milwaukee. I sent an email questioning why he wasn't eligable this week. The response I got from you was that "prior to the start of the season, Krause made a decision that he would only be eligible at UTL to start the season since he appeared as a DH in interleague play the most last season" So if you we making that decision, then you should be responsible not STATS. Fielder should be eligible at 1B/CI following 10 games, not based on where teams played him last week.

As far as I am concerned this is unacceptable. This is why I avoid Yahoo/ESPN/Spotsline leagues, I want to avoid so corrupt commish making thier own rules. Right off the bat you guys have shown you can't manage a league correctly. Admit your errors instead of blaming STATS.

Lastly, I like most people in the league work, and can't check my email 24/7. When this issues was discovered, why wasn't there a better attempt to noptify people. Instead, I got home and checked my email to find out about this error & that my roster was modified. Granted, you did replace Fielder with Nevin who got a homerun Monday night, but it would be nice for you guys to explain it to everyone (all teams in all leagues) about the error. You have a responsibility as organizers of the league to make all participants aware of the situtation and how it is going to be corrected.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:59 am

[ April 11, 2006, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:05 am

El Futter,

Greg's resolution is because some managers respected the fact that Fielder should only have been eligible at UTIL, yet others didn't. Think about it, if a manager did move Fielder to CI, that would mean he had a better player to play UTIL than he would have for the 'original' CI (if Fielder wasn't eligible there). So all Greg is trying to do, is make sure every team whom had him is equalized.

Why should those whom respected Fielder's true eligibility be penalized and those whom didn't benefit? Seriously, tell me? Face it, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

[ April 11, 2006, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:18 am

Clarifications el Futter: Fielder played in 39 MLB games last year from June through September as he was not a September callup. He pinch-hit in 30 games, played first base in seven games and DH'ed in four games. In the NFBC's estimation, he was a Utility player with the Brewers last year and thus his qualification before Draft Day was strongly given as Utility until he played 10 games in 2006.

He was mistakenly allowed to be played at 1B/CI in Week 1 and three of 22 main event league teams had him there. Those three teams had the luxury of playing him at a position he wasn't allowed at. Now they will have to wait until he plays 10 more games at first base during Weeks 2 and 3. They will have Fielder at UT for two weeks, just like everyone else in the competition will have done.

No passing the blame on my part. I'll take the blame and make sure the rules are kept intact. Good luck the rest of the way.

The Lollygaggers · Post by **The Lollygaggers** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:53 am

Hey Greg - Quick suggestion on the seven teams who used Fielder in a non-Utility role: If a team could have used the same lineup with Fielder in the UT spot, it seems like they shouldn't be punished. For example, one team had Inge at UT and Fielder at CI. In that case, the two players would have swapped positions had Fielder been labeled correctly. No harm, no foul.

You should be able to whittle the number of offending teams down from seven using this approach. It also doesn't seem fair to punish a team who would have had a legal roster anyway. With the number of teams who have multi-position qualifiers or who used a CI in their UT spot, this seems like a worthwhile approach.

Just my 2 cents.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:19 am

Originally posted by el futter bastardinos:

As far as I am concerned this is unacceptable. This is why I avoid Yahoo/ESPN/Spotsline leagues, I want to avoid so corrupt commish making thier own rules. Right off the bat you guys have shown you can't manage a league correctly. Admit your errors instead of blaming STATS. Hey, nobody's perfect, and mistakes happen all the time. I can also understand why you might be upset. That said, to insinuate that Greg is a "corrupt commish" is wrong -- nothing could be farther from the truth.

Ask yourself, if you were in Greg's shoes, how would you handle this problem? As far as I am concerned, he made exactly the right move here to correct this situation.

Let's move on here...

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:29 am

Originally posted by The Lollygaggers:

Hey Greg - Quick suggestion on the seven teams who used Fielder in a non-Utility role: If a team could have used the same lineup with Fielder in the UT spot, it seems like they shouldn't be punished. For example, one team had Inge at UT and Fielder at CI. In that case, the two players would have swapped positions had Fielder been labeled correctly. No harm, no foul.

You should be able to whittle the number of offending teams down from seven using this approach. It also doesn't seem fair to punish a team who would have had a legal roster anyway. With the number of teams who have multi-position qualifiers or who used a CI in their UT spot, this seems like a worthwhile approach.

Just my 2 cents. We did that and got to seven. You are correct, several teams had Fielder at CI and a corner infielder at Utility and thus we just changed the designations. That brought us to seven.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:37 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by el futter bastardinos:

As far as I am concerned this is unacceptable. This is why I avoid Yahoo/ESPN/Spotsline leagues, I want to avoid so corrupt commish making thier own rules. Right off the bat you guys have shown you can't manage a league correctly. Admit your errors instead of blaming STATS. Hey, nobody's perfect, and mistakes happen all the time. I can also understand why you might be upset. That said, to insinuate that Greg is a "corrupt commish" is wrong -- nothing could be farther from the truth.

Ask yourself, if you were in Greg's shoes, how would you handle this problem? As far as I am concerned, he made exactly the right move here to correct this situation.

Let's move on here... [/QUOTE]Did he really say I'm "corrupt?" Damn, now my feelings are really hurt.

We've had mistakes in the past and I'm sure we'll have mistakes in the future. Nobody hates them more than me as we aim for perfection. But when there is a mistake the key is to correct it as best we can and keep the integrity of the contest intact. Fielder's eligibility remains the same and no team gained an advantage. We've also addressed every web site issue that was presented to us and we'll continue to upgrade areas that you guys tell us about. So keep the suggestions coming and don't be afraid to criticize me or us when we're not doing the job right. We'll do what we can to fix it.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:10 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by el futter bastardinos:

As far as I am concerned this is unacceptable. This is why I avoid Yahoo/ESPN/Spotsline leagues, I want to avoid so corrupt commish making thier own rules. Right off the bat you guys have shown you can't manage a league correctly. Admit your errors instead of blaming STATS. Hey, nobody's perfect, and mistakes happen all the time. I can also understand why you might be upset. That said, to insinuate that Greg is a "corrupt commish" is wrong -- nothing could be farther from the truth.

Ask yourself, if you were in Greg's shoes, how would you handle this problem? As far as I am concerned, he made exactly the right move here to correct this situation.

Let's move on here... [/QUOTE]A little unsolicited advice for you here man-

The folks at Krause care about mistakes in fact I would be willing to say Greg would call the Fielder thing embarrassing. You will get results by calmly stating the facts of your concerns. If you want them to give you a pound of flesh every time an error happens you may be disappointed.

I like KOQ have been accused of being too pro Krause/Tom/Greg in the past.

My contention is this- Tom and Greg are probably not going to get promoted over the growth of the NFBC, not going to get an extra 10k bonus for it going smoothly, or going to get in a whole heap of trouble if it goes away.

With that said it has to be our event as much as Greg's and this is not your typical customer/supplier relationship. If someone spends this much of their personal time on this- with relatively little benefit to themselves they deserve to be spoken to with respect and we need to have ownership in this process too.

The Fielder snafu hurts us all. The integrity of this event is something we should all have a vested interest in and we should all realize if this were to fail it would probably hurt us more than anyone.

I would love to see the dialog get more constructive from our end and I also want these problems corrected quickly. In short I would like for Greg to be able to use his time getting some bugs fixed rather than have to answer some wild accusations from someone who I am quite confident has never taken the chance to get to know the man.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:55 am

I too am pro Greg and Tom. Meesages like Futters are embarrassing and counter productive. Having said that, it is Greg and Tom's responsibility to manage Stats as a 'sub contracted service provider'. I know you guys are stretched but there have been a larger number of issues on basic stuff than is warranted (see me list of bugs). I hope that you can find the time to periodically test the site for potential problems hands on and not just trust stats. for example I am sure new players will be coming into the pool and you personally check they have the right positions.

Regards

Chris

rmurph3 · Post by **rmurph3** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:17 am

Perhaps this little incident will provide impetus for Greg to drop the silly "PH appearances count as a position for eligibility purposes" rule? If the NFBC had ignored those PH appearances and treated Fielder as someone who played 7 games at 1B and 4 at DH (as almost every other league in the country would do), we wouldn't be in this situation.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:32 am

Originally posted by rmurph3:

Perhaps this little incident will provide impetus for Greg to drop the silly "PH appearances count as a position for eligibility purposes" rule? If the NFBC had ignored those PH appearances and treated Fielder as someone who played 7 games at 1B and 4 at DH (as almost every other league in the country would do), we wouldn't be in this situation. Anything is possible Ray, but this ruling was consistent with our ruling of 2004 when we listed Ramon Castro as UT for the same reasons. I agree with you that our ruling is unique as I'm in 13 leagues and he was 1B eligible in all of them. I understand the reasoning behind that as he played his most games in the field at first base, a total of seven.

But the Brewers had him on their roster for 40+ days and used him as a full-time pinch-hitter, what I'd call a Utility position. They chose not to play him in the field for a reason. We ruled accordingly.

Are we just being stubborn and stupid? Possibly and maybe we should re-evaluate this in the future. But to me, Fielder was a full-time pinch-hitter and the Brewers said as much. Giving him eligibility at first base just didn't make sense to me and wasn't consistent with our evaluation of this situation in the past. But again, my interpretation could be wrong. We'll think it over for the future.

Nonetheless, we should have been able to make him UT-only eligible on the site from the start.

Mr. LBN - Jeff Price · Post by **Mr. LBN - Jeff Price** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:19 am

It seems to me that having a utility-only definition on a player is more trouble than it's worth. It makes the game a bit different, but not necessarily any better or worse from a "having fun" standpoint. And, it seems to cause confusion.

Between the current Fielder issue and the discussion that every utility-only player brought out during the draft - 1) Somebody mentioning a player was utility-only 2) The draft coordinator feeling compelled to explain the implications 3) Assessing if the rest of the drafter's roster could compensate the pick (in auction leagues) - it seems like this is an unnecessary waste of time and energy.

My suggestion is for each player to have a position eligibility next year. We'll all be on the same playing field and can bump Big Papi up a spot or two on our rosters, accordingly.

viper · Post by **viper** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:31 am

Jeff has a point. Those guys who live in the DC area are sure smart. Why not assign a position to each player. It eliminates areas of confusion. As long as everyone is aware of this prior to the draft, we will all be on the same foot. I mean, how much difference can it make if we all draft with this understanding?

Mudster · Post by **Mudster** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:51 am

That's actually a really good idea...Greg and Tom could take the list of players that would start the season at DH and put them in at the position that would make the most sense for them. No one would have an advantage as long as this list is supplied to everyone ahead of time.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:15 am

Originally posted by Mudster:

That's actually a really good idea...Greg and Tom could take the list of players that would start the season at DH and put them in at the position that would make the most sense for them. No one would have an advantage as long as this list is supplied to everyone ahead of time. I too would support doing that-

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:47 am

I support owners using players at the position Greg repeatedly told us before the season started.

And based on that, owners should alert Greg about any problems before they knowingly try to gain an advantage by playing him at a position he is not eligible for.

I'm not taking the blame off Greg or Stats, but some of the blame should go on these owners that cry "Stats has him listed there" when they KNOW Stats is a third party provider that provides stats for many games and he wasn't eligible to be listed as CI.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:47 am

....it still has to be setup correctly in/at STATS. :rolleyes:

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:01 pm

Why should Frank Thomas or David Ortiz or Travis Hafner be allowed to be slotted into 1B or CI if they do not play there?

They have a reason why players who play one or two games as fill in catchers do not qualify as catchers.

~Lance

[ April 11, 2006, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:17 pm

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Why should Frank Thomas or David Ortiz or Travis Hafner be allowed to be slotted into 1B or CI if they do not play there?

They have a reason why players who play one or two games as fill in catchers do not qualify as catchers.

~Lance

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:19 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Why should Frank Thomas or David Ortiz or Travis Hafner be allowed to be slotted into 1B or CI if they do not play there?

They have a reason why players who play one or two games as fill in catchers do not qualify as catchers.

~Lance [/QUOTE]Because it is America Lance a land where exceptions are made when the masses want everyone to have a position.

A land where people can debate ideas and argue against any perceived improvement to the game even though they are not even participating in the actual main event.

That is why..

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:24 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Why should Frank Thomas or David Ortiz or Travis Hafner be allowed to be slotted into 1B or CI if they do not play there?

They have a reason why players who play one or two games as fill in catchers do not qualify as catchers.

~Lance [/QUOTE]Because it is America Lance a land where exceptions are made when the masses want everyone to have a position.

A land where people can debate ideas and argue against any perceived improvement to the game even though they are not even participating in the actual main event.

That is why.. [/QUOTE]DH is a position, UTIL is not.

Without DH, I can't get Hafner in Round 3