Mark Reynolds Is A SS In The NFBC

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:40 am

Again, I'll start a new thread to set the facts straight on Mark Reynolds' position eligibility in the NFBC. He was only SS eligible in free agency last night and NFBC owners bid accordingly. He will continue to have only SS eligibility in the NFBC until he plays 10 games at another position.

Here's our rules on Reynolds and his eligibility was confirmed between me and STATS last week:

"Any minor-leaguer who didn't play any games in the majors in 2006 and who starts the 2007 season in the minors will earn position eligibility for 2007 based on his minor-league games played total in 2006 and he will earn other position eligibility after he plays 10 games at a different position in the majors."

He played the majority of his games at shortstop in the minors last year and that's how NFBC position eligibility is determined. It's how it has always been determined as no minor-leaguer has ever been given multi-position eligibility when he enters the majors in the NFBC. That minor-leaguer can attain multi-position eligibility in the NFBC after he plays 10 games at a different position, as stated in the rules.

If you read between the lines, you can question whether a minor-leaguer should attain multi-position eligibility. I can definitely see that. But in four years of running the NFBC we have used this one position criteria with STATS and all players are automatically given a position designation by STATS based on this criteria when they enter an NFBC free agent list. I will finetune the language in the rule at season's end to close this vagueness, but again this is how we have always run this through STATS. No other example of a multi-position minor-league callup will be found in the NFBC's past as we never used that assumption.

STATS only had Reynolds eligible to be bid on as a shortstop. I do see that he is now listed as Mark Reynolds, 3B and STATS said they have him listed that way because he's now starting at third base. I will try to work with them in the future to do as much as possible to prevent confusion on a player's eligibility and it's possible we may have to add one more category listing (NFBC Eligibility) on all players. But I feel confident that most people who bid on Reynolds last night knew he qualified only at SS.

I hope this clears up another situation that occurred while I was high in the skies. I wouldn't mind going back up there right now!! ;D

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:44 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I do see that he is now listed as Mark Reynolds, 3B and STATS said they have him listed that way because he's now starting at third base. i bid on him thinking he was 3B elgible as STATS indicated. I don't need a SS. Why list him at 3B if he isn't even eligible? that's very confusing to say the least. Another STATS SNAFU i guess.

Please remove him from my team and give me back the player I dropped. thanks in advance.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:12 am

This is the first time that I can recall that a desireable minor leaguer, making his first appearance in the majors, had more than 20 games played at multiple positions in the minors the year before.

Nevertheless, Greg has made his ruling that minor leaguers cannot attain multi-position eligibility upon entering the major leagues. This would be an excellent entry for the 2008 NFBC Rules.

Cooperstown · Post by **Cooperstown** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:44 am

I have no stake in this either way, but I don't have a problem w/ reversing GG's move if you could get through all the red tape.

Reynolds would then have to go to the next highest bidder. And you would have to check contingency bids on other players that would be affected. It's possible that the new Reynolds owner had a successful contingency bid that would have to be undone. And that could trickle to other contingency bids.

And, you would have to give all Reynolds bidders in other leagues the same opportunity. And, all this would have to be done before roster freeze today.

Seems like a lot work to me.

rmurph3 · Post by **rmurph3** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:02 am

There were no other bids for Reynolds in NY5.

SluggoJD · Post by **SluggoJD** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:13 am

I wonder if the fact that the person Gekko dropped (Germano) pitched 6 innings of shutout ball last night, has anything...

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:41 am

Originally posted by rmurph3:

There were no other bids for Reynolds in NY5. not neccesarily true- a contingency bid can be masked. Often times I bid on guys that have no second bid.

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:54 am

GG,

If I may make a lineup suggestion... Take advantage of Reynolds SS eligiblity and sit Alex Gonzalez. He is 4 for his last 39. As a Red Sox fan, I can say he is streaky with the bat, and when he is cold, get out the winter hat and mittens...

rmurph3 · Post by **rmurph3** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:54 am

not necessarily true Fair enough, but since GG picked Reynolds up for $1, and no other contingent bids were shown... then that should indicate that there are no other cascading effects of a reversal, per Cooperstown's post above.

(Not that I'm necessarily advocating a reversal.)

[ May 21, 2007, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: rmurph3 ]

Cooperstown · Post by **Cooperstown** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:01 am

There were 16 other main event leagues that bid on Reynolds and each of those winners would have to be shown the same courtesy. My point is that it's a lot work if Greg decides to go this way.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:02 am

Somehow I suspect this has more to do with getting Justin Germano back than anything else. Interesting how he pitched another fine game on late Sunday!!!!

Gekko has been around for 4 years, so that excuse just doesn't cut it IMO.

bluenose · Post by **bluenose** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:32 am

Greg writes in part:

But I feel confident that most people who bid on Reynolds last night knew he qualified only at SS.

I would not be very confident of this.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 12:19 pm

i've explained what happened with my bidding on reynolds at least twice. STATS had him listed as a 3B and he's even playing 3B for the diamondbacks. i secured him with a $1 bid last night and tried to put him in as 3B but STATS wouldn't let me. I come to find out that STATS listed Reynolds as a 3B incorrectly.

i've asked last night and today for the transaction to be rescinded as i didn't need a SS (although i value him slight higher than a.gonzalez this week), he was not worth dropping germano for. i already had 2 SS for this week.

now lineups have locked and reynolds is still on my team?!? i haven't received an email or MB post from the NFBC addressing my request. i wonder if i'm being punished for my non-agreement on the Cust ruling or if the customer service was lacking today. either way the frustration mounts on this end. esp since i was strongly considering starting germano over guthrie this week.

[ May 21, 2007, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

IRS · Post by **IRS** » Mon May 21, 2007 12:49 pm

Srebro,

We too are disappointed as we want you to have every opportunity to win this thing, as we fully expect our cut this year. We gave you a pass on the NFFC, but you will not have that luxury second time around.

Good luck! We're watching.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:00 pm

Originally posted by IRS:

Srebro,

We too are disappointed as we want you to have every opportunity to win this thing, as we fully expect our cut this year. We gave you a pass on the NFFC, but you will not have that luxury second time around.

Good luck! We're watching. shoot me your address in NY. i'll have someone stop by and give you what you're looking for.

[ May 21, 2007, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:05 pm

Gekko:

I agree with you, but your last post doesn't bode too well. Seems like you are trying to have your proverbial cake, and eat it too.

either way the frustration mounts on this end. esp since i was strongly considering starting germano over guthrie this week

Lineups were due at 7:00 today. Were you going to start Germano, the man that you just cut, or were you going to start Guthrie?

As you know, "Strongly considering" gives you an out.

If Guthrie pitches well, then you gave Germano "strong consideration," and but still chose to start Guthrie.

If Germano pitches well, then you "strongly considered" Germano, and would have started him but for the fact that you cut him in favor of Reynolds, and were unable to rescind the deal.

Whether or not the powers-to-be resolve your Reynolds issue, you ought to come out, NOW, before both pitchers pitch, as to who you were going to start. Anything else leaves too much wiggle room. Additionally, there could not be any harm to you, or advantage to the league, as all of the rosters are already set.

This way, at least, there will be no question, and if you are indeed ultimately damaged by the Reynolds situation, the NFBC can better assess your damage, if any.

My NFBC Zone column on CREATiVESPORTS.com due out this week deals with both Cust and Reynolds, and while it pains me to be in agreement with you, I do agree that this was less than a perfect situation.

IRS · Post by **IRS** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:16 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by IRS:

Srebro,

We too are disappointed as we want you to have every opportunity to win this thing, as we fully expect our cut this year. We gave you a pass on the NFFC, but you will not have that luxury second time around.

Good luck! We're watching. shoot me your address in NY. i'll have someone stop by and give you what you're looking for. [/QUOTE]Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 660406

Dallas, TX 75266-0406

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:40 pm

If I had germano, I'd start him over guthrie for this week.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:44 pm

Originally posted by Buster:

My NFBC Zone column on CREATiVESPORTS.com due out this week deals with both Cust and Reynolds, and while it pains me to be in agreement with you, I do agree that this was less than a perfect situation. Do you agree with me on cust, reynolds, or both. If you need an interview or have questions for me for your article, shoot me a PM. Thanks.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:47 pm

Originally posted by Buster:

My NFBC Zone column on CREATiVESPORTS.com due out this week deals with both Cust and Reynolds, and while it pains me to be in agreement with you, I do agree that this was less than a perfect situation. Sounds like an interesting read. Please post the link when the article is ready.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:07 pm

Never mind, I found it:

The NFBC Zone > Trouble in Paradise?

I am a staunch supporte[r] of the National Fantasy Baseball Championship (NFBC). The NFBC is the best fantasy baseball competition, bar none. It is, however, anything but perfect. This past week, a number of issues have been raised in the NFBC that demonstrate that while the competition is certainly fantastic, it still needs work.

The NFBC utilizes STATS, LLC as its provider for the league’s web site. While STATS was simply horrible to start, they have improved significantly. However, for reasons that are left unexplained, on occasion, some (at least one) of STATS’ player positioning notations differ from the NFBC eligibility requirements, therein potentially causing issues.

The first issue involves Jack Cust. This Roy Hobbs-like slugger played only four games in the major leagues last season, all for the San Diego Padres. In his four games with the Padres, Cust appeared in three games as a pinch hitter, and one game in left field. Cust’s one appearance in left field came on September 16, 2006, wherein Cust was a defensive replacement (now there’s a stretch) coming into the game in the bottom of the eighth inning as a left fielder. In his two innings in left field, Cust had zero put outs, zero assists, and zero errors. From an old account of the game, it appears that Cust fielded one base hit and threw the ball back to the infield without incident.

So, what is the rule on Cust’s eligibility once he got called up to the majors this season? Is Cust eligible at outfield since that is the only position that he played last year in the majors, or is he only eligible at Utility (a designated hitter type designation)?

According to the NFBC rules, "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."

That helps, some. The only options are outfield (2 innings) or pinch hitter (three times). In all my years of watching baseball, I have never heard of a pinch-hitting position. Therefore, it would appear that Cust is an outfielder, right? STATS thought so, as they listed Cust with an OF designation next to his name.

Not so fast. There might be some precedent to consider.

In 2003, Ramon Castro caught eighteen games, and pinch hit in 27 games. So, he is a catcher, right? Well, no. Castro was not eligible at catcher, but instead was only eligible in the Utility position.

In 2005, Prince Fielder played seven games at first base, four games at Designated Hitter, and fourteen games as a pinch hitter. Fielder was eligible in 2006 only at Utility. Had Fielder not pinch hit for those fourteen games, would he have been eligible at first base? One would think that, looking at the rules, he would have been. Hence, it appears that while pinch-hitting is not really a position, the NFBC considered it a position in this one isolated case.

So, based on precedent, one might think that Cust having pinch hit three times as often as actually playing in the field, and based upon the fact that Cust spent all of one game in the outfield in 2006, that Cust would be eligible as well as a Utility, only.

Which is right, the written rule or the precedent? More importantly, how is a participant going to know which to follow? To be fair to the NFBC, it should be noted that the Castro and Fielder situations were dealt with prior to the draft, and not during a hectic free agent period. However, does that make it any less of a precedent? Indeed, as the precedent was well-communicated, one might assume that the precedent was well-known, and the participants might be relying on such precedent for future issues as well.

The bottom line is that there are conflicting thoughts on Cust’s eligibility. As a participant, I don’t think it would be possible to know, without doubt, whether or not Cust was going to be eligible at OF (as designated by STATS), or a UT (based upon prior written precedent).

This brings us to the [Diamondbacks'] rookie, Mark Reynolds, who had not appeared in the major leagues until this past week.

The NFBC rule regarding minor leaguers is, "Any minor-leaguer who didn't play any games in the majors in 2006 and who starts the 2007 season in the minors will earn position eligibility for 2007 based on his minor-league games played total in 2006 and he will earn other position eligibility after he plays 10 games at a different position in the majors."

Reynolds was a shortstop in 2006 in the minor leagues. Based upon the NFBC clear rule, Reynolds would be shortstop-only eligible in the NFBC. Yet, STATS had Reynolds listed with the notation (3B) next to his name. Thus, one might think that Reynolds was eligible at third base. Further, since STATS had Cust listed as an outfielder, despite past precedent, one might have thought that Reynolds’ 3B designation was correct.

Yet, the NFBC ruled that as Reynolds played more games at shortstop than third base last season in the minors, Reynolds was eligible only at shortstop, notwithstanding the 3B indication next to his name. In this situation, the NFBC followed the exact letter of the rule, and totally disregarded STATS’ 3B designation next to Reynolds’ name.

The NFBC’s explanation on Reynolds was that STATS had him listed with the 3B next to his name because that is where Reynolds is playing now, but that he is not eligible at 3B, yet.

This leaves the participants in a potential quandary. Do we go by the letter of the rule? Do we rely at all on past precedent? Can we rely on the web site’s designation of a player? Unfortunately, I don’t have a clear answer on any of this.

Nothing can be done about the past. Cust’s stats cannot be erased, Reynolds cannot be made eligible where he is not eligible. What concerns me is the next instance wherein a player is deemed (or not deemed) eligible. Will it be based on the actual rule, on past precedent, or on STATS’ determination? Sadly, I am unsure as I write.

Do not misunderstand. The NFBC is, by far, the very best game in town. It is, however, far from perfect and needs some significant tweaking to make certain that the participants know, without a shadow of a doubt, how player eligibility is to be determined.

posted @ Monday, May 21, 2007 1:20 PM by Buster H., Esq.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:13 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Buster:

My NFBC Zone column on CREATiVESPORTS.com due out this week deals with both Cust and Reynolds, and while it pains me to be in agreement with you, I do agree that this was less than a perfect situation. Do you agree with me on cust, reynolds, or both. If you need an interview or have questions for me for your article, shoot me a PM. Thanks. [/QUOTE]Yes and please contact me Scott. I can't imagine this article without talking to the person who made the decisions on each move. [/QUOTE]Perhaps a good follow-up article to the one already written...

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:19 pm

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

i've explained what happened with my bidding on reynolds at least twice. STATS had him listed as a 3B and he's even playing 3B for the diamondbacks. i secured him with a $1 bid last night and tried to put him in as 3B but STATS wouldn't let me. I come to find out that STATS listed Reynolds as a 3B incorrectly.

i've asked last night and today for the transaction to be rescinded as i didn't need a SS (although i value him slight higher than a.gonzalez this week), he was not worth dropping germano for. i already had 2 SS for this week.

now lineups have locked and reynolds is still on my team?!? i haven't received an email or MB post from the NFBC addressing my request. i wonder if i'm being punished for my non-agreement on the Cust ruling or if the customer service was lacking today. either way the frustration mounts on this end. esp since i was strongly considering starting germano over guthrie this week. It looks like you a day late and a dollar short. You decided at 7:20 to add "I might pitched Germano". It wasn't in your post 7:19. You added it a minute later. You know everything to know about Jack Cust, but you failed to your homework on Reynolds.....If you did it by search before you put your bid in, it was your ignorance for not reading what was right in front of you. If you did by utilty, you were just assuming he a third baseman. Most likely, you didn't even know until he was on your team. And now you want a rebate....Why? Because you didn't take time to do your homework. Or is it you feel slighted and you are looking for another axe to grind?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:22 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Buster:

My NFBC Zone column on CREATiVESPORTS.com due out this week deals with both Cust and Reynolds, and while it pains me to be in agreement with you, I do agree that this was less than a perfect situation. Do you agree with me on cust, reynolds, or both. If you need an interview or have questions for me for your article, shoot me a PM. Thanks. [/QUOTE]Yes and please contact me Scott. I can't imagine this article without talking to the person who made the decisions on each move. [/QUOTE]Perhaps a good follow-up article to the one already written... [/QUOTE]I guess it makes for a better story without quotes. I'm too much of an old-fashioned journalist, I guess. Oh, and Fielder pinch-hit 30 times that year. That would have embellished that side of the story even more with the right number.

nydownunder · Post by **nydownunder** » Mon May 21, 2007 2:23 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Buster:

My NFBC Zone column on CREATiVESPORTS.com due out this week deals with both Cust and Reynolds, and while it pains me to be in agreement with you, I do agree that this was less than a perfect situation. Do you agree with me on cust, reynolds, or both. If you need an interview or have questions for me for your article, shoot me a PM. Thanks. [/QUOTE]Yes and please contact me Scott. I can't imagine this article without talking to the person who made the decisions on each move. [/QUOTE]Perhaps a good follow-up article to the one already written... [/QUOTE]I don't see anything from Creative Sports on the web. Amazing! We've got 2 egotistical arseholes on this board! Get a life guys!