Player Eligibility Guidelines For 2008

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:56 am

First of all, a hearty thanks to Kevin Deckel who wrote many of these guidelines on a previous thread when position eligibility questions arose with Mark Reynolds and Jack Cust. Somehow that seems like a lifetime ago!!

Anyway, as I'm writing the rules for 2008, I went back to that thread and added many of the guidelines Kevin wrote down. Are we covered if these are the guidelines or am I missing something:

6. Position Eligibility: The NFBC will use the following position eligibility rules in 2008:

a) Players who played at least 20 games at any position in 2007 will qualify at that position for the entire 2008 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2008 will be eligible at that position after they have played for the 10th time there this year.

b) Players who played less than 20 games total in the majors last year and less than 20 games at any position in the majors in 2007 will be eligible at the position they played the most games at, not including DH or pinch-hitting.

c) Those players who only pinch-hit in the majors in 2007 will be position eligible according to their minor-league games played status in 2007. They would qualify at the position they played the most games in the minors.

d) Players who played all of 2007 in the minor leagues will be awarded position eligibility for 2008’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 2008 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) The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

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.

Just as a sidenote: I am not giving minor-leaguers who spent all of 2007 in the minors multiple position eligibility. I know that was raised with Mark Reynolds when he was called up to the majors, but I am sticking with "most games played" in the minors for those callups. That one was my preference.

If you have any other thoughts on this subject, speak now or forever......well, hold them until next year when you have a complaint!!

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:59 am

"not including DH or pinch-hitting."

Nice change!

~Lance

Terry H · Post by **Terry H** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:14 am

So using those definitions would the '04 Ramon Castro be a C or Utility only? Would the '05 Prince Fielder be a 1B/CI or Utility only?

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:28 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Just as a sidenote: I am not giving minor-leaguers who spent all of 2007 in the minors multiple position eligibility. I know that was raised with Mark Reynolds when he was called up to the majors, but I am sticking with "most games played" in the minors for those callups. That one was my preference.The exception being if a player spent all of 2007 in the minors and played 60 games at SS and 60 games at 3B, he'd qualify at both positions.

Looks very clearly written. Nice job by Greg. You too, Kevin.

Terry H · Post by **Terry H** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:35 am

So as to be clear in my mind

, Would Omar Infante be eligible as an OF or Utility only?

He has played in 63 games, 2B-18, 3B-9, SS-13, OF-19, DH-3.

Richie · Post by **Richie** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:26 am

see rule 6B- OF only- the position he played the most

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:32 am

Greg,

I am curious given the example of Omar Infante why use the 20 game / 10 game differentiation?

Spy

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:39 am

Originally posted by Terry Haney:

So as to be clear in my mind

, Would Omar Infante be eligible as an OF or Utility only?

He has played in 63 games, 2B-18, 3B-9, SS-13, OF-19, DH-3. 6B needs to be re-written more clearly. In 6B I am saying if he played less than 20 games in the majors and less than 20 games at any position, then we go with most games played. (I guess I can take that 20 games played part of the sentence out.) Infante has played more than 20 games in the majors this year and thus needs to play 20 games at a position to qualify there. He is UT-only right now until he plays 20 games at a position.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:40 am

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

Greg,

I am curious given the example of Omar Infante why use the 20 game / 10 game differentiation?

Spy He needs to play 20 games at a position in 2007 to qualify there for 2008. In 2008, if he plays 10 games at a new position, then he also qualifies there. Pretty simple and pretty standard.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:44 am

Originally posted by Terry Haney:

So using those definitions would the '04 Ramon Castro be a C or Utility only? Would the '05 Prince Fielder be a 1B/CI or Utility only? Not necessarily. Both Castro and Fielder played more than 20 games in the majors those years and didn't play at least 20 games at a position. Now I could make that possible by adding the "not including pinch-hitting or DH games played" in that line as well. Right now I just have it for the minor-leaguers designation.

Right now, this line would still allow me to rule either way with Castro and Fielder:

e) The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

If folks think we should add that line to the first eligibility requirement, I can. Then we'd be done with that controversy, the one you've called me "STUPID" over!!

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 3:09 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:

Greg,

I am curious given the example of Omar Infante why use the 20 game / 10 game differentiation?

Spy He needs to play 20 games at a position in 2007 to qualify there for 2008. In 2008, if he plays 10 games at a new position, then he also qualifies there. Pretty simple and pretty standard. [/QUOTE]I understand how the rule works, I was curious why having 20 games previous season vs. 10 games in season. Why not just use 10 games played across the board?

Spy

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:39 am

I cleaned up 6b a bit and added a line to 6e. The September callups who happen to play more than 20 games need to be covered to qualify at their most games played and it wasn't covered in the rules before. Hopefully this helps with 6e.

6. Position Eligibility: The NFBC will use the following position eligibility rules in 2008:

a) Players who played at least 20 games at any position in 2007 will qualify at that position for the entire 2008 NFBC season. Players who play 10 games at a new position in 2008 will be eligible at that position after they have played for the 10th time there this year.

b) Players who played less than 20 games total in the majors last year will be eligible at the position they played the most games at, not including DH or pinch-hitting.

c) Those players who only pinch-hit in the majors in 2007 will be position eligible according to their minor-league games played status in 2007. They would qualify at the position they played the most games in the minors.

d) Players who played all of 2007 in the minor leagues will be awarded position eligibility for 2008’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 2008 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 20 or more games in the majors last year and didn’t play 20 or more games at one position will be deemed UT-only eligible in 2008 unless otherwise designated by the NFBC Commissioner. The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

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.

Terry H · Post by **Terry H** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:48 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Terry Haney:

So using those definitions would the '04 Ramon Castro be a C or Utility only? Would the '05 Prince Fielder be a 1B/CI or Utility only? Not necessarily. Both Castro and Fielder played more than 20 games in the majors those years and didn't play at least 20 games at a position. Now I could make that possible by adding the "not including pinch-hitting or DH games played" in that line as well. Right now I just have it for the minor-leaguers designation.

Right now, this line would still allow me to rule either way with Castro and Fielder:

e) The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

If folks think we should add that line to the first eligibility requirement, I can. Then we'd be done with that controversy, the one you've called me "STUPID" over!!

[/QUOTE]Privately I may have insinuated that it wasn't the best decision that you ever made but I never said you were stupid. Really!

But I don't understand why you have a rule that restricts players from being eligible at positions that they actually play.

In 2003 Castro was clearly a catcher, it just happens that he was the 3rd string catcher thus he didn't get many opportunities and ended up with more games as a pinch hitter than as a catcher. The same situation with Fielder in 2005, although he did play 94 games at 1B in the minors that year.

Shouldn't players that are eligible at Utility only be the players that do not have a defensive position, players like Ortiz, Hafner, Thome, & Thomas, in other words designated hitters. I don't see how any NL player could be eligible at Utility only, unless they have come over from the AL with that designation.

I wonder if the word utility isn't the reason for the confusion, but there is no similarities in utility players in actual baseball and the utility position in fantasy baseball. A rule that restricts a player like Omar Infante to being eligible at a position of, for all practical purposes, designated hitter, just is not a rule that accurately portrays the position he deserves.

IMHO

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:16 am

Originally posted by Terry Haney:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Terry Haney:

So using those definitions would the '04 Ramon Castro be a C or Utility only? Would the '05 Prince Fielder be a 1B/CI or Utility only? Not necessarily. Both Castro and Fielder played more than 20 games in the majors those years and didn't play at least 20 games at a position. Now I could make that possible by adding the "not including pinch-hitting or DH games played" in that line as well. Right now I just have it for the minor-leaguers designation.

Right now, this line would still allow me to rule either way with Castro and Fielder:

e) The NFBC Commissioner will rule on player eligibility prior to the draft as he deems necessary. Those eligibility lists are final.

If folks think we should add that line to the first eligibility requirement, I can. Then we'd be done with that controversy, the one you've called me "STUPID" over!!

[/QUOTE]Privately I may have insinuated that it wasn't the best decision that you ever made but I never said you were stupid. Really!

But I don't understand why you have a rule that restricts players from being eligible at positions that they actually play.

In 2003 Castro was clearly a catcher, it just happens that he was the 3rd string catcher thus he didn't get many opportunities and ended up with more games as a pinch hitter than as a catcher. The same situation with Fielder in 2005, although he did play 94 games at 1B in the minors that year.

Shouldn't players that are eligible at Utility only be the players that do not have a defensive position, players like Ortiz, Hafner, Thome, & Thomas, in other words designated hitters. I don't see how any NL player could be eligible at Utility only, unless they have come over from the AL with that designation.

I wonder if the word utility isn't the reason for the confusion, but there is no similarities in utility players in actual baseball and the utility position in fantasy baseball. A rule that restricts a player like Omar Infante to being eligible at a position of, for all practical purposes, designated hitter, just is not a rule that accurately portrays the position he deserves.

IMHO

[/QUOTE]I think your interpretations of Castro's role with the Marlins and Fielder's reasoning for not playing in the field differ from mine, which is fine. Let's just leave it at my interpretation is stupid and yours isn't exactly accurate and agree to disagree on this one. Friends can do that, right?

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:35 am

Greg, how about trying to simplify the rule too? perhaps along these lines ...

In the absence of a player having eligiibility based on 20 or 10 games played at a position, he will be eligible only at:

a) the defensive position (or DH in the AL) he appeared at most last season in the majors, or if he did not appear at a defensive position or DH in the majors,

b) the defensive position (or DH) he appeared at most in the minors, or, if he did not appear at a defensive position or DH last season,

c) the defensive position (or DH) he played most frequently in the most recent season he played, or as determined by the NFBC Commishioner. This would eliminate the wierd "Fielder isn't a 1B" type of situation that I would bet 90%+ of the NFBC participants would like to do away with, and make your job easier. +

[ September 19, 2007, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Terry H · Post by **Terry H** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:16 pm

I think the confusion comes from counting appearances as a pinch-hitter as a game at the Utility position.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:35 pm

Originally posted by Terry Haney:

I think the confusion comes from counting appearances as a pinch-hitter as a game at the Utility position. that is the biggest part of it, no doubt