position eligibility

wojo moneyball · Post by **wojo moneyball** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:08 am

why is it that some players come up from minor leagues and have a position they are immediately eligible for and we picked up Shelton last week and he qualifies only at Utility?

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:25 am

Originally posted by wojo moneyball:

why is it that some players come up from minor leagues and have a position they are immediately eligible for and we picked up Shelton last week and he qualifies only at Utility? Because he didn't play any position in the majors last year for more than 10 games, but the one he played the most was DH so that's the eligibility he gets until earning 10 games in the majors at a new position this year.

Dyv

wojo moneyball · Post by **wojo moneyball** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:36 am

so you are saying because he played in the majors last year, his position in minors is irrelevant?

and while we're at it, what is the # of games needed to qualify at a position for all players?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:27 am

Originally posted by wojo moneyball:

why is it that some players come up from minor leagues and have a position they are immediately eligible for and we picked up Shelton last week and he qualifies only at Utility? It's a legitimate question on Chris Shelton. Players that were called up at anytime in 2004 have their position eligibilities set by the most number of games that they played in the majors last year. For players who spent most of the season in the majors, they need 20 games played at any position to qualify. For August and September callups, it's the most games played at a position. In Shelton's case, he was called up enough to play in 27 games last year: 10 at DH, 8 at 1B, 6 at C and 1 in the OF. STATS and I have agreed that his primary position was DH, which is why he qualifies at UT right now. Once he plays 10 games at 1B or any other position this year, he will earn a new position eligibility.

Some may argue that DH isn't a legitimate position and that he should qualify at 1B, but that isn't our position. It's not like pinch-hitting. The Tigers felt he was most qualified to DH last year and thus that's where his eligibility lies. It's a consistent interpretation of the rule we've had each year.

I hope this helps. I meant to explain this sooner, but didn't want to draw attention to a player who may have been a free agent in some other leagues. Your question gave me the opportunity to explain this further.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:28 am

Originally posted by wojo moneyball:

so you are saying because he played in the majors last year, his position in minors is irrelevant?

and while we're at it, what is the # of games needed to qualify at a position for all players? Yes. Shelton's UT role was determined from his eligibility in 2004.

Last year's eligibility was 20 games played at a position, unless he was a late-season callup. A player earns a new position qualification once he's played 10 games at that position in 2005. I hope this helps.

wojo moneyball · Post by **wojo moneyball** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:47 am

Greg, when i picked up Shelton, his position listed next to his name was 1B. I therefore fully expected him to be eligible at 1B,CI, and Utility. Once I picked him up, I went to set my lineup and was stuck with utility only. He did play 8 games at 1B last year as indicated and it sounds like this was a subjective decision. (albeit 1 that was consistent with other decisions, I'm assuming that have been made in the past). If possible, I, as well as any other owners that have picked him up would like the flexibility that was assumed based on his position listed in STATS INC. list of free agents. Please let me know if this decision is the way it is.

Thanks,

Moneyball

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:12 am

I am unfamiliar with the 1B next to his name because I had several people e-mailing me on Sunday asking why he was only available at UT. So the position eligibility was certainly clear to most that I talked to beforehand. I'll check with STATS on that, but again he is only eligible at UT now and the Tigers are DHing him more than playing him at 1B. He needs 10 games this season to qualify at 1B.

wojo moneyball · Post by **wojo moneyball** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 9:49 am

the 1B next to his name still exists as he sits on my bench right now. It should have said DH. Don't you agree?

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:30 am

Originally posted by wojo moneyball:

the 1B next to his name still exists as he sits on my bench right now. It should have said DH. Don't you agree? This is a 'Stats' thing I believe... they recognize DH as a specific position and so based on Greg's rules they apply that. Still, he is clearly listed as a 1b on the roster and under any search function he's listed as a 1b.

Greg and I have gone up and down on this topic in the past - seems to me a broad definition of player eligibility would be better and downgrading from last year's 20 games to this year's 10 game requirement is a step in the right direction. The Tigers play him at DH only because they HAVE a DH spot. It's not because he can't play 1b or even catcher... he has and will play those positions again this year. He'll get 1b eligibility in a week or two, but catcher he may not get in 10 games unless something happens to Pudge (beyond his existing broken hand, that is...)

Personally, I would think ruling that "DH" in and of itself is not a position in major league baseball could be a fair way to approach it. Certainly the NL doesn't have a DH, so why penalize the AL players? There are 'professional pinch hitters' in the NL but they get a position. Go figure

Dyv

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:02 am

Originally posted by wojo moneyball:

the 1B next to his name still exists as he sits on my bench right now. It should have said DH. Don't you agree? I have asked STATS to explain that and to make sure all callups have their exact eligibility next to their name. We talked on Sunday morning about Shelton specifically, so I know we're both on the same page with this.

Yes, Dyv, it's possible that a more exact ruling on late-season callups with most games played at a position needs to be defined more clearly if DH or Pinch-Hit is involved. He clearly has more value to the Tigers as a DH than a position player and that's where he's being used now and was used last year. But clarifying callups' position eligibility outside of DH or PH does make sense for 2006.

I'll work on STATS to make sure future callups don't have misleading positions next to them. I honestly don't know why it happened with Shelton, other than that's probably how he was in the STATS database for all of their games and our ruling is slightly different. But I can see where it was misleading in this instance and I certainly wasn't aware of that before you brought this up.

We'll fix it....going forward unfortunately.