Position Eligibility For 2005

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:26 am

Just so everyone knows, we have listed every player at every position who played at least 20 games at that position in 2004 on the Position Eligibility link on the right-hand side of our home page. Each player that qualifies at each position in 2005 is listed in the order of Total Bases, which helps a bit in your pre-season planning. So click there to find out about position eligibility for the NFBC in 2005.

Some September callups who may present questions about eligibility include the following:

B.J. Upton: SS (SS-16, 3B-13, OF-1)

Dallas McPherson: 3B (14 games)

Clint Barmes: 2B and SS (2B-9, SS-9)

Garrett Atkins: 3B (3B-4, 1B-3, LF-3)

Koyie Hill: C (11)

Chris Burke: 2B (7)

Ryan Howard: 1B (8)

Nick Swisher: OF (OF-17, 1B-3)

Jhonny Peralta: SS (22-7, 3B-2)

Based on their minor-league totals from 2004, the following players would be eligible on Draft Day at the following positions:

Rickie Weeks: 2B

J.J. Hardy: SS

Mark Teahan: 3B

Delmon Young: OF

Corey Hart: OF

If I missed anyone that you have a question about, please e-mail me directly at [email protected] or post it here. We will have a final position eligibility update for everyone before Draft Day to prevent any confusion.

[ January 03, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:55 am

Greg,

Is it possible to get the position list to include the 3 OF positions combined instead of CF LF RF ? There may be a case where an outfielder does not show up on your list because he played 15 in cf, 18 in rf, 10 in lf. Can we get a UTIL player list too ? Heck I admit it, im just being lazy

thanks

Q

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:06 pm

Yes, our magazine will have every player listed who played 20 games total in the outfield, not by RF, LF or CF. You will have a complete list of outfielders to you before Draft Day either via the magazine or via a Word document we'll e-mail out.

As for utility, every player qualifies there. It's not a DH position, it's a "wild card" position for hitters. Anyone can play there.

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:57 am

As for utility, every player qualifies there. It's not a DH position, it's a "wild card" position for hitters. Anyone can play there

Greg,

I meant to ask for the players that "only" qualify at the UTIL spot.

Q

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:43 am

Okay, my bad. Here's the list:

Frank Thomas

Troy Glaus

Travis Hafner

Erubiel Durazo

Brad Fullmer

Calvin Pickering

Tim Salmon

Herbert Perry

Jose Offerman

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:16 am

DIDNT HAFNER PLAY MORE THAN 20 GAMES AT FIRST BASE. SO HE SHOULDNT BE LISTED HERE, OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING.

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:54 am

He played 11 games at first. You need 20 to qualify at a position.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:04 pm

That's right, Eddie, he's a fulltime DH. He just never saw the field enough last year and might not this year, either. He can only be drafted at DH on Draft Day, but remember that we did change the in-season eligibility rule to 10 games, so once he plays 10 games at first base in 2005 he would qualify there as well.

85cards · Post by **85cards** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:30 am

what position(s) is aaron boone qualified for? he didn't play in 2004, and i think he played several positions in 2003, right?

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:41 am

Originally posted by 85cards:

what position(s) is aaron boone qualified for? he didn't play in 2004, and i think he played several positions in 2003, right? Boone will only quality at 3B. Since he did not play last season, we revert back to his 2003 eligibility. He played 137 games at 3B; 19 at 2B and 5 at SS.

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:07 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Just so everyone knows, we have listed every player at every position who played at least 20 games at that position in 2004 on the Position Eligibility link on the right-hand side of our home page. Each player that qualifies at each position in 2005 is listed in the order of Total Bases, which helps a bit in your pre-season planning. So click there to find out about position eligibility for the NFBC in 2005.

Some September callups who may present questions about eligibility include the following:

B.J. Upton: SS (SS-16, 3B-13, OF-1)

Dallas McPherson: 3B (14 games)

Clint Barmes: 2B and SS (2B-9, SS-9)

Garrett Atkins: 3B (3B-4, 1B-3, LF-3)

Koyie Hill: C (11)

Chris Burke: 2B (7)

Ryan Howard: 1B (8)

Nick Swisher: OF (OF-17, 1B-3)

Jhonny Peralta: SS (22-7, 3B-2)

So are the players listed here qualified at the positions noted above even if they did not play 20 games there in 2004? Thanks.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:57 pm

Just so I'm clear here... you're saying that for 'initial' eligibility a player has to have 20 games but for in-season eligibility they only need 10?

Call me crazy if you want, but would it hurt to just make the cutoff 10 games played in all aspects? I, for one, would rather see more flexibility and position eligiblity... these 15 team leagues are tough enough already and having a few more mix-and-match pieces can't hurt.

Dyv

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:31 pm

Yes, you are correct, Dyv, it's 20 games and then 10 games played at a position during the season. The reasoning is simple: A lot of guys can play a few innings at a position during a 162-game season and become eligible at multiple positions, even though they probably played primarily at one spot. Now it's more unlikely that they'll do that for 20 games over a season. So the 20 games played rule which was first established by Daniel Okrent and Glenn Waggoner makes sense since you'll be allowed to keep that player the entire next season if he justifies having REALLY played there the year before.

I agreed to move in-season eligibility to 10 games because many times a player switches positions well after Opening Day, possibly after the All-Star break. This gives owners more flexibility and makes sense again since it's harder to establish yourself with 20 games played at a new position by June or July when fantasy owners know a guy is now established at a new position. Why not make it more reasonable to get a new position eligibility before mid-season if you really are playing a new position?

I'll make sure everyone has consistent eligibility lists by Draft Day and we'll re-emphasize the 10 games played at a position rule often during the season.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:38 pm

Okrent and Waggoner... you know their last names together in acronym format spell 'OW' lol

They didn't write these rules for 15 team leagues and no trading, either... if they had to play in these scarcity leagues they would have written them differently

lol

Dyv

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am

LOL! Actually, they never wrote the rules for Mixed Leagues. I doubt either guy has ever played in a mixed league as they strongly believed in the stars and scrubs logic where your 23rd guy got 50 at-bats a year. They wrote the rules for AL-only and NL-only leagues where every team struggled to find 23 guys who played some, but not all with 500 ABs or 200 IP.

Obviously the game has changed since 1980 when they wrote the rules. I've adjusted ours and I still think they are representative of the original concept, yet flexible. 20 games played to start the year is very standard. Allowing more flexibility during the season with 10 games played makes sense, and it's only because I'm an old fart that we didn't make that change sooner.

Plymouth · Post by **Plymouth** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:26 am

So my question remains on the table, is the group of nine players listing Upton through Peralta eligle to play the positions listed or are they utility players until they get 10 games in a particular position in 2005?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:36 am

They are eligible at those positions I have them listed at.