NFBC Eligibility Lists For 2009

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:12 am

I'd like to see at least one position for every draft-worthy hitter unless they are a true DH, so I'd agree with 2B for Matt.

As to the input 2 years ago, I didnt help write that - I may have agreed it was better than what we had before, but I don't think I've changed my thinking that every hitter should have a position unless they're a DH.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:15 am

For next season, I also think the rule should be amended to state that a player cannot earn dual-position eligibility if he played less than 20 games at those positions in the prior season ... in such cases that he played two positions equally and both being less than 20 games, the commishioner will assign him a single position.

[ January 14, 2009, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:17 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I'd like to see at least one position for every draft-worthy hitter unless they are a true DH, so I'd agree with 2B for Matt.

As to the input 2 years ago, I didnt help write that - I may have agreed it was better than what we had before, but I don't think I've changed my thinking that every hitter should have a position unless they're a DH. So the rule would be that if a batter had more dh appearances than 2b and the 2b appearances were under 20 games, that he would be a dh.

But if we substitute ph for dh, he would qualify at 2b?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:25 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I'd like to see at least one position for every draft-worthy hitter unless they are a true DH, so I'd agree with 2B for Matt.

As to the input 2 years ago, I didnt help write that - I may have agreed it was better than what we had before, but I don't think I've changed my thinking that every hitter should have a position unless they're a DH. So the rule would be that if a batter had more dh appearances than 2b and the 2b appearances were under 20 games, that he would be a dh.

But if we substitute ph for dh, he would qualify at 2b? [/QUOTE]Yes, because he then would presumably be a DH. DH is a fixed position in the lineup. PH is not. Antonelli would not make it as a DH, I'm afraid.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:30 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]YES - the original rules used 20 games played

BUT - they also had "if a player did not play 20 games he may be drafted only at the position (not DH or pinch hitter) at which he appeared most frequently."

MOST leagues still use that

...AND from the original rules ...."Once the season is under way a player becomes eligible for assignment to any position at which he appeared at least once"

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:31 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I'd like to see at least one position for every draft-worthy hitter unless they are a true DH, so I'd agree with 2B for Matt.

As to the input 2 years ago, I didnt help write that - I may have agreed it was better than what we had before, but I don't think I've changed my thinking that every hitter should have a position unless they're a DH. So the rule would be that if a batter had more dh appearances than 2b and the 2b appearances were under 20 games, that he would be a dh.

But if we substitute ph for dh, he would qualify at 2b? [/QUOTE]Yes, because he then would presumably be a DH. DH is a fixed position in the lineup. PH is not. Antonelli would not make it as a DH, I'm afraid. [/QUOTE]Probably, no other team would have him as a ph.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:32 am

I would agree with that rule change.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:35 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

For those who haven't read the Rules section, here is our eligibility rule. Please note the bolded section:

6. Position Eligibility: The NFBC will use the following position eligibility rules in 2009: a) Players who played at least 10 games at any position in 2009 will qualify at that position for the entire 2010 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2010 will be eligible at that position after they have played for the 10th time there this year.

b) Players who played less than 10 games total in the majors last year will be eligible at the position they played the most games at, not pinch-hitting.

c) Those players who only pinch-hit in the majors in 2009 will be position eligible according to their minor-league games played status in 2009. They would qualify at the position they played the most games in the minors.

d) Players who played all of 2009 in the minor leagues will be awarded position eligibility for 2010's NFBC season based on the most games played at all levels in the minors. STATS will determine that one eligible position before Draft Day and that will determine that players' status for 2010 once he is called up to the majors. Those players who only pinch-hit or DH in the minors will only be UT-eligible.

e) Players who played 10 or more games in the majors last year and didn't play 10 or more games at one position will be assigned the one position they played the most.

f) Additional position eligibility will be awarded during the season when a player has played a new position 10 times which he was not previously eligible. Fixed for 2010.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:41 am

One more reason for 10 to start season.

Without an IR, position flexibilty can be critical with only 7 bench spots and adds a tad more strategy to the game.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:02 pm

Originally posted by JohnZ:

One more reason for 10 to start season.

Without an IR, position flexibilty can be critical with only 7 bench spots and adds a tad more strategy to the game. Devils advocate, but maybe less strategy considering a lot more players would have more eligibility at different positions.

Or are you going on the theory that more positions equals more strategy?

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:37 pm

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

One more reason for 10 to start season.

Without an IR, position flexibilty can be critical with only 7 bench spots and adds a tad more strategy to the game. Devils advocate, but maybe less strategy considering a lot more players would have more eligibility at different positions.

Or are you going on the theory that more positions equals more strategy? [/QUOTE]It's 30/70

I'm not sure if it would be "a lot" more players.

If the average owner went from drafting one of these to two, that would change the dynamics of the draft and value of these players, adding a "tad".

If there were too many of them, or an IR/more roster spots then I could see it being less.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:18 am

Talk about shifting a paradigm...without a clutch!

The executive decisions on players with less than 20 games played in the prior season and generally on what in most cases are immaterial players (Castro went on to be a superstar, Cust's .230 BA makes him my prime target, and if I don't get Sandoval on my team I know I will lose...again) is not an issue with me.

The rules are fine (does that put me in the 10% or the 90%...I am so confused) in my opinion. Just give me the eligability lists predicated on a few basic rules and a few incidental judgement calls by an impartial advocate and I am ok. I will adapt. I will survive. I feel like I need a Helen Reddy song....

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:23 am

What is Josh Fields position eligibility?

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:38 am

Originally posted by Plymouth:

What is Josh Fields position eligibility? he's available at SLEEPER OF THE YEAR

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:40 am

Originally posted by Plymouth:

What is Josh Fields position eligibility? Josh Fields played 12 of 14 MLB games at third base last year. Under our rules guidelines he would be third base eligible.