NFBC Eligibility Lists For 2009

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:21 am

Originally posted by JohnZ:

Why not change 20 games to 10 and end all of this confusion?

Does anyone have this confusion with other leagues they play in?

Sorry, I just don't understand why it has to be 20 and why some are exempt, and others not. Executive Decision?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTo8JzuNgWQ

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:32 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

Why not change 20 games to 10 and end all of this confusion?

Does anyone have this confusion with other leagues they play in?

Sorry, I just don't understand why it has to be 20 and why some are exempt, and others not. Executive Decision?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTo8JzuNgWQ [/QUOTE]LOL.. Thanks... every year, we have numerous pages on this topic. By the end of the first page, I opt to take a baseball bat to the head than going on any further and reading the rest of the posts.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:42 am

Originally posted by JohnZ:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

Why not change 20 games to 10 and end all of this confusion?

Does anyone have this confusion with other leagues they play in?

Sorry, I just don't understand why it has to be 20 and why some are exempt, and others not. Executive Decision?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTo8JzuNgWQ [/QUOTE]LOL.. Thanks... every year, we have numerous pages on this topic. By the end of the first page, I opt to take a baseball bat to the head than going on any further and reading the rest of the posts. [/QUOTE]Didn't you learn anything from RamonCastrogate?

This has been going on since the beginning -- I've come to accept Greg's Chewbacca Defense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5dt_PK_7c

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:01 am

Originally posted by JohnZ:

Why not change 20 games to 10 and end all of this confusion?

Does anyone have this confusion with other leagues they play in?

Sorry, I just don't understand why it has to be 20 and why some are exempt, and others not. Why not change it to 5 games and make it easier? Why have any position eligibility at all? John, the 20 games per position has been established since The Rotisserie League Baseball: Official Rulebook was printed in 1984. I think most leagues use 20 games played per position, not 10.

The definition of position eligibility is in the rules. Keep arguing about Sandoval earning 1B eligibility as he's the only one of controversy, not anyone else. And again, I stated why I've chosen to allow Sandoval to have 1B eligibility and I have no problem with it.

Now that we all know where each player is eligible at, two months in advance, adjust your Cheat Sheets accordingly and good luck.

[ January 14, 2009, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:07 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

the 20 games per position has been established since The Rotisserie League Baseball: Official Rulebook was printed in 1984. This is a fact. And while I don't have the book in front of me, I'm pretty sure that the in-season changes were 20 games played (not 10 as we have had here for the past 3-4 years).

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:09 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Now that we all know where each player is eligible at, two months in advance, adjust your Cheat Sheets accordingly and good luck. I'll agree with this as well. The logic may be fuzzy, but there are no surprises here.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:19 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

Why not change 20 games to 10 and end all of this confusion?

Does anyone have this confusion with other leagues they play in?

Sorry, I just don't understand why it has to be 20 and why some are exempt, and others not. Why not change it to 5 games and make it easier? Why have any position eligibility at all? John, the 20 games per position has been established since The Rotisserie League Baseball: Official Rulebook was printed in 1984. I think most leagues use 20 games played per position, not 10.

The definition of position eligibility is in the rules. Keep arguing about Sandoval earning 1B eligibility as he's the only one of controversy, not anyone else. And again, I stated why I've chosen to allow Sandoval to have 1B eligibility and I have no problem with it.

Now that we all know where each player is eligible at, two months in advance, adjust your Cheat Sheets accordingly and good luck. [/QUOTE]I don't buy the 1984 thing. Many rules have been changed since then.

5 would be ok. 10 is a better number. 20 makes things too complicated.

If a guy STARTS 10, his team is comfortable with him there as opposed to a one-week fill in for 5. In this vain, 10 is the same as 20 IMO.

Like I said, I stop reading when the arguments start each year on who is ok and who is not.

I'm in several other roto leagues and they've all switched to 10. You know what program I like to use, and I can't switch qualifications and modifications(Sandoval) for each service. (And about 30% of your players use that same program)

It would just make life easier for you and us, and 10 doesn't compromise the integrity of player designations if you take out any games DH only hitters appear in when they play on the road the previous year.

Quit "acting" older than me and make the change

Or do a poll....

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:23 am

I'm ok with 20/10 for automatic position elgibility, but since there is no DH in the Natl Lge it doesn't make any sense to me for an NL player to be positionless, and likewise in the AL when the player in question is clearly not a DH.

I would much prefer "executive decision" assigning a position for ALL non-DH hitters based on where our commisioner expects them to play.

[ January 14, 2009, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:26 am

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:27 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Was just about to post that Antonelli is a great example of why the rule makes no sense. Everyone in the world knows he is a 2B, and Q's point makes an evern stronger case.

[ January 14, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:29 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

the 20 games per position has been established since The Rotisserie League Baseball: Official Rulebook was printed in 1984. This is a fact. And while I don't have the book in front of me, I'm pretty sure that the in-season changes were 20 games played (not 10 as we have had here for the past 3-4 years). [/QUOTE]I do have the book in front of me.

page 12. Item 4.

A player is eligible to be drafted at any position at wich he appeared in 20 or more games the preceding year.

If he did not appear in 20 games or more the procedeing year, he is eligible for the position he appeared the most times.

Once the season commences, a player qualifies for a position by playing at at least ONCE .

This is why I don't buy 1984 argument.

Last paragraph has been changed for good reason.

On the second, I've never understood how this UTIL thing evolved here when the position he played most should be used. But again, I don't read all the posts.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:33 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Was just about to post that Antonelli is a great example of why the rule makes no sense. Everyone in the world knows he is a 2B. [/QUOTE]I'm ok with the 20g for next season. I'm ok with the most games played for a position if they DON'T play 20 in one position. Just get rid of the specific rule that makes Antonelli a UT instead of a 2B. That he played 5g or 21g should have no bearing on his positioning - as per my prior example.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:37 am

Originally posted by JohnZ:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

the 20 games per position has been established since The Rotisserie League Baseball: Official Rulebook was printed in 1984. This is a fact. And while I don't have the book in front of me, I'm pretty sure that the in-season changes were 20 games played (not 10 as we have had here for the past 3-4 years). [/QUOTE]I do have the book in front of me.

page 12. Item 4.

A player is eligible to be drafted at any position at wich he appeared in 20 or more games the preceding year.

If he did not appear in 20 games or more the procedeing year, he is eligible for the position he appeared the most times.

Once the season commences, a player qualifies for a position by playing at at least ONCE .

This is why I don't buy 1984 argument.

Last paragraph has been changed for good reason.

On the second, I've never understood how this UTIL thing evolved here when the position he played most should be used. But again, I don't read all the posts. [/QUOTE]Wow, one game played????? I had forgotten about that -- and with good reason!

Scott Sheldon would have qualified at every position in 2000 (but only for the last month of the season).

If you play in lots of different formats, I can see where this might be an issue. However, since I only play in the NFBC, I really don't care anymore. Greg can assign whatever positions he wants, and with two months to prepare, it doesn't affect me.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:38 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

Just get rid of the specific rule that makes Antonelli a UT instead of a 2B. That he played 5g or 21g should have no bearing on his positioning - as per my prior example. Agreed, that is the quirk which mucks up the logic for everyone involved. The only thing I don't agree with is having multi-position eligibility if they didnt play enough games.

If Antonelli had played 1 game at 2b and 1 game at 3b, then he'd have dual position eligibility with 2 major lge games under his belt, whereas now he has zero eligibility with 21 games played ... meanwhile if he had never been called up he'd be a 2b again.

There's a short-circuit in the rule. 25 years is long enough, fix it!

[ January 14, 2009, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:44 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

Just get rid of the specific rule that makes Antonelli a UT instead of a 2B. That he played 5g or 21g should have no bearing on his positioning - as per my prior example. Agreed, that is the quirk which mucks up the logic for everyone involved. The only thing I don't agree with is having multi-position eligibility if they didnt play enough games.

If Antonelli had played 1 game at 2b and 1 game at 3b, then he'd have dual position eligibility with 2 major lge games under his belt, whereas now he has zero eligibility with 21 games played ... meanwhile if he had never been called up he'd be a 2b again.

There's a short-circuit in the rule. 25 years is long enough, fix it!

[/QUOTE]Yes.. it's funky just like my high school gym clothes. ALSO 25 yrs old !

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:48 am

I assume the pictures aren't working yet?

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:50 am

Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

quote:Originally posted by King of Queens:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

the 20 games per position has been established since The Rotisserie League Baseball: Official Rulebook was printed in 1984. This is a fact. And while I don't have the book in front of me, I'm pretty sure that the in-season changes were 20 games played (not 10 as we have had here for the past 3-4 years). [/QUOTE]I do have the book in front of me.

page 12. Item 4.

A player is eligible to be drafted at any position at wich he appeared in 20 or more games the preceding year.

If he did not appear in 20 games or more the procedeing year, he is eligible for the position he appeared the most times.

Once the season commences, a player qualifies for a position by playing at at least ONCE .

This is why I don't buy 1984 argument.

Last paragraph has been changed for good reason.

On the second, I've never understood how this UTIL thing evolved here when the position he played most should be used. But again, I don't read all the posts. [/QUOTE]Wow, one game played????? I had forgotten about that -- and with good reason!

Scott Sheldon would have qualified at every position in 2000 (but only for the last month of the season).

If you play in lots of different formats, I can see where this might be an issue. However, since I only play in the NFBC, I really don't care anymore. Greg can assign whatever positions he wants, and with two months to prepare, it doesn't affect me. [/QUOTE]I was shocked when I read the one game thing also.

I know LABR switched that to five.

JMO, I think it would help marketing all events if it was 10-10. One simple number for start of season, and in-season.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:50 am

Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Heck, you wrote most of those stipulations so don't act so surprised!!!

Yeah, we agreed to qualify September callups who played less than 20 total games at a position but more than 20 overall. You helped with that. Trust me, someone would complain either way no matter what rules guideline we listed or what decision I made. Six years of these boards have taught me that much.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:51 am

Agreed.

Executive decision the players as needed if a complex rule is too confusing, or leaves openings to create fake(ish) dual eligibility.

Boom...Antonelli is 2B...next player?

~Lance

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:54 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Was just about to post that Antonelli is a great example of why the rule makes no sense. Everyone in the world knows he is a 2B, and Q's point makes an evern stronger case. [/QUOTE]And if we all agree on that and we give Antonelli position eligibility, then there will soon be a poster calling me Stache and telling me I'm rewriting the rules. If I recall, the guidelines were agreed to by the group two years ago when I think a certain high-profile poster was going to go ballistic over Jack Cust or something.

If there's an adjustment that needs to be made, we'll make it in 2010 and every one of you will again have a chance to make it foolproof. Good luck. This occurs with September callups and most games played is fine by me.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I assume the pictures aren't working yet? Not until after this thread is finished.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Heck, you wrote most of those stipulations so don't act so surprised!!!

Yeah, we agreed to qualify September callups who played less than 20 total games at a position but more than 20 overall. You helped with that. Trust me, someone would complain either way no matter what rules guideline we listed or what decision I made. Six years of these boards have taught me that much. [/QUOTE]Greg, follow a simple principle. No player should be penalized with less eligibility for a primary position than another player who played fewer games at that position.

I could re-write the rule and I guarantee you 90% would prefer it to what we have now.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:58 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Was just about to post that Antonelli is a great example of why the rule makes no sense. Everyone in the world knows he is a 2B, and Q's point makes an evern stronger case. [/QUOTE]And if we all agree on that and we give Antonelli position eligibility, then there will soon be a poster calling me Stache and telling me I'm rewriting the rules. If I recall, the guidelines were agreed to by the group two years ago when I think a certain high-profile poster was going to go ballistic over Jack Cust or something.

If there's an adjustment that needs to be made, we'll make it in 2010 and every one of you will again have a chance to make it foolproof. Good luck. This occurs with September callups and most games played is fine by me. [/QUOTE]fyi... I didn't mean to imply this year. But!! Other companies are changing rules after sign ups these days!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:00 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Heck, you wrote most of those stipulations so don't act so surprised!!!

Yeah, we agreed to qualify September callups who played less than 20 total games at a position but more than 20 overall. You helped with that. Trust me, someone would complain either way no matter what rules guideline we listed or what decision I made. Six years of these boards have taught me that much. [/QUOTE]Greg, follow a simple principle. No player should be penalized with less eligibility for a primary position than another player who played fewer games at that position.

I could re-write the rule and I guarantee you 90% would prefer it to what we have now. [/QUOTE]I trust that ANYTHING we do would have at least 10 percent disagreeing with me. Sheesh. That's an easy one.

The disputes are already there for giving Sandoval position eligibility, when we all know he will be drafted well before Antonelli or anyone else we're discussing here. You helped with the guidelines for this rule, so fill in the loophole for 2010 and away we go.

I have no problem making an executive decision to allow Antonelli 2B eligibility, which would be consistent with allowing Sandoval a position of eligibility. Heck, he played 18 of 21 games there at 2B, so all in favor of Antonelli following my decision with Sandoval say "AY".

The other 10 percent, bring it on.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:03 am

Originally posted by JohnZ:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Quahogs:

If Antonelli played for example 5 LESS games at 2b he would have played 16 games with 13 at 2B. According to your rules he would then be listed as a 2b. Because he played 5 MORE games at 2b he's no longer a 2b.

Was just about to post that Antonelli is a great example of why the rule makes no sense. Everyone in the world knows he is a 2B, and Q's point makes an evern stronger case. [/QUOTE]And if we all agree on that and we give Antonelli position eligibility, then there will soon be a poster calling me Stache and telling me I'm rewriting the rules. If I recall, the guidelines were agreed to by the group two years ago when I think a certain high-profile poster was going to go ballistic over Jack Cust or something.

If there's an adjustment that needs to be made, we'll make it in 2010 and every one of you will again have a chance to make it foolproof. Good luck. This occurs with September callups and most games played is fine by me. [/QUOTE]fyi... I didn't mean to imply this year. But!! Other companies are changing rules after sign ups these days!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]The rules already allow us to give a player a position of eligibility through an executive decision. That's what it's for, to make players who fall through the cracks eligible at a position he will likely play in 2009. The negative feedback was in me allowing Sandoval 1B eligibility. If folks agree that Antonelli should be treated similar to Sandoval and we now have two months of knowing what position he qualifies, I would agree to assigning him 2B eligibility. I didn't even look at his stats before today and under our current rules he's not eligible at 2B. But I sure am leaning towards making him eligible there.