|
|
Post by Boca Bombers on Jan 1, 2016 16:17:10 GMT
What are the rules for position eligibility including for SP vs. RP?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ft. Myers Marauders on Jan 1, 2016 18:21:47 GMT
Here's the eligibility qualifications:
Games needed from previous season for a player to qualify at a hitting position : 20
Games needed from current season for a player to qualify at a hitting position: 5
Starts needed from previous season for a player to qualify as a starter : 5
Starts needed from current season for a player to qualify as a starter : 3
Relief appearances needed from previous season for a player to qualify as a reliever : 10
Relief appearances needed from current season for a player to qualify as a reliever: 10
Minor league pitchers for the most part are given both SP and RP eligibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 23, 2016 12:22:29 GMT
If a player hasn't made those marks in the previous season (injury, late call-up or whatever), how does that go - the position they appeared at most?
Also, if we spot some errors in Fantrax should we shout up here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Three Lions of Madison on Feb 23, 2016 13:23:05 GMT
Definitely let me know of any Fantrax errors here or shoot me an email and I will get them fixed.
Fantrax will give a player a primary position in the cases of what you mentioned. I don't know the exact formula or reasoning behind it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 23, 2016 14:22:10 GMT
It's usually the case with DH-only guys who haven't got 20 appearances elsewhere. Pretty sure that applies to Fielder, Sano, Ortiz, Morales and Rodriguez this year. Pretty sure you can turn the option off in Fantrax, though? There's usually a list somewhere around the internet that has all the borderline players, as different sites like Yahoo and CBS and the like have different requirements. Will see if I can dig something up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 24, 2016 20:07:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 28, 2016 23:28:23 GMT
Did we get this sorted? Using the default Fantrax options throws up some unusual examples having had a look around. Javier Baez gets 2B for 17 games but doesn't get 3B for 11, while Brock Holt picks up SS for his 11 games there. Alex Rodriguez meanwhile somehow gets 3B despite only 4 games played last year. Sano gets 3B for 9 games and others like Ortiz don't get 1B for the same 9 games. There's plenty of other weird quirks of sub-20 game players getting eligibility, but only in some cases and others not.
Think it'd be cleaner to just turn the option off and stick to the 20 game rule (with 5 in-season) personally, rather than this mish-mash of what Fantrax think a player should have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ft. Myers Marauders on Feb 29, 2016 1:12:33 GMT
I have no problem adding on positions to those players, but i think it'd be really unfair to take away a position at this point. For example, whoever won Sano did so thinking he has 3B eligibility because Fantrax told him so. That changes his valuation considerably.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Three Lions of Madison on Feb 29, 2016 15:32:05 GMT
I don't think we can add positions at this point either. It would be seriously unfair to strip guys like Sano, ARod etc of positions because of what they fetched at auction with a position other than DH listed. It would be the the opposite for other guys like Ortiz, Gattis, etc. I got Gattis at auction and he played 11 games in the OF last year. I can't be certain, but my thought is that if he was OF eligible he would have went for a higher price at auction. So to me, it's equally unfair to the league if some owners can benefit from adding positions to certain players, because they probably got them cheaper because of the lack of position(s).
I have had a couple interactions with people at Fantrax, but have never received an real answer as to why and how some players get a primary position, so I can't help there. We can though have a discussion to set specific limits for future years, and then vote on it. We can stick with whatever Fantrax lists or make a modification. For 95%, maybe more, of players the set limits are just fine, but we will have a few players to discuss every year based on a possible injury or late call up, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 15:55:50 GMT
Did we get this sorted? Using the default Fantrax options throws up some unusual examples having had a look around. Javier Baez gets 2B for 17 games but doesn't get 3B for 11, while Brock Holt picks up SS for his 11 games there. Alex Rodriguez meanwhile somehow gets 3B despite only 4 games played last year. Sano gets 3B for 9 games and others like Ortiz don't get 1B for the same 9 games. There's plenty of other weird quirks of sub-20 game players getting eligibility, but only in some cases and others not. Think it'd be cleaner to just turn the option off and stick to the 20 game rule (with 5 in-season) personally, rather than this mish-mash of what Fantrax think a player should have. I think I figured out why there are these quirks. I will then give the example as to why for each of the players you listed. So, the "league rules" in Fantrax state that "if a player does not reach the minimum required games at a position (20), he will qualify at the position(s) he played most last season".
When I look at the players you mention above Newcastle, it looks like a lot of the issue comes from players who are regular DHs. See below for what I think is the case for each:
Javier Baez -- Did not reach 20 games at any position so based on the rule above, he played most games at 2B. Gets 2B & UTIL eligibility. Brock Holt -- Fantrax does not show him having SS eligibility. Played at least 20gms at 2B, 3B, & RF. Has eligibility for all. A-Rod -- 136 Gms at DH. 4 gms at 3B. 2 at 1B. He gets 3B eligibility based on the rule above. Did not reach 20 gms at any position (besides DH) so the highest would be 4 at 3B. Sano -- Same as ARod. Played 69 Gms as DH. Did not play 20 Gms in the field. Most games in the field (9) came at 3B. They gave him 3B eligibility.
Ortiz -- This is the outlier. By the A-Rod and Sano logic, he should have 1B eligibility. 134 Gms at DH and 9 at 1B. But he only has UTIL eligibility.
It looks like Fantrax does not count DH as a position for some and gives Sano + A-rod position eligibility, but they did not give it to Ortiz.
As for Baez and Holt, they are determined by the "Under 20 games" rule that I described above. I do need to mention that I only looked into these players. I did not take the time to go find more. Just wanted to point out what I found with these names from Newcastle. If all of this info was already known, I apologize to make you read this and I hope I don't get fired for spending the first half of my Monday doing this instead of what my actual job asks me to do.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 29, 2016 16:05:09 GMT
I don't think we can add positions at this point either. It would be seriously unfair to strip guys like Sano, ARod etc of positions because of what they fetched at auction with a position other than DH listed. It would be the the opposite for other guys like Ortiz, Gattis, etc. I got Gattis at auction and he played 11 games in the OF last year. I can't be certain, but my thought is that if he was OF eligible he would have went for a higher price at auction. So to me, it's equally unfair to the league if some owners can benefit from adding positions to certain players, because they probably got them cheaper because of the lack of position(s). Absolutely agree - I'm not for adding eligibility to players, just pointing out the bizarre way in which it seems to have been allocated. Can understand that some players values would have changed if people were aware/were working to the 20 start rule rather than the Fantrax designation. I have had a couple interactions with people at Fantrax, but have never received an real answer as to why and how some players get a primary position, so I can't help there. We can though have a discussion to set specific limits for future years, and then vote on it. We can stick with whatever Fantrax lists or make a modification. For 95%, maybe more, of players the set limits are just fine, but we will have a few players to discuss every year based on a possible injury or late call up, etc. If anything I'd just see it (this weird Fantrax designation) scrapped from next season onwards and a stricter adherence to the rules as we have them. Pretty sure it's an option that's upto the commissioner to choose or not, seeing as how it's displayed on the league rules page along with the others (as if there's a yes/no button), but can't be sure as I've not commished a league in Fantrax, so would need one of you guys to check that out. If that's the case, we can agree to do it for next season before the deadline for submitting contract lengths this season, so that people don't get stuck with players they might not be able to use in future year(s) without being penalised for who they've bid on this year. But by the same token it seems pretty random how Fantrax allocate positions so there's no telling that this year's 11 games that got you a position eligibility will work next year, which is why I think it would benefit from clarification. |
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 29, 2016 16:08:53 GMT
And yeah, sorry, must've been looking at Holt in another league on Fantrax (which has different settings). The lack of Util/DH as a separate position does explain some of it, but then not why Fielder and A-Rod get treated different from, say, Ortiz and Morales. Either way, my point on clarification probably still stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Madison Billygoats on Feb 29, 2016 16:49:53 GMT
No research to back this. It looks to me like the quirks are with those that were either in the minors or in arods case he didn't play the previous year. So if you played last year you have different criteria on fantrax than had you not. Not sure if this makes sense or if it's true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newcastle Red Star on Feb 29, 2016 17:06:37 GMT
No research to back this. It looks to me like the quirks are with those that were either in the minors or in arods case he didn't play the previous year. So if you played last year you have different criteria on fantrax than had you not. Not sure if this makes sense or if it's true. Nope - if it was a case of 'there's no such thing as a DH-only' then people like Morales and Ortiz and Billy Butler would have 1B eligibility, as they played as many games there as Sano did at 3B who has 3B eligibilty. But it's not a strict numbers thing, either - John Jaso is still catcher eligible despite not playing there at all last year (where he should, using the Sano/A-Rod rule, be eligible at OF and Util only). Perhaps it's only those players who didn't get to 20 at one position because they played so much DH that it's affecting, I don't know, I haven't gone through the whole player universe, but in that case we've got a situation where some players (DH types) can have a handful of appearances and get eligibility whereas others (non-DH but who still played 10-19 games somewhere) can't, and then even that rule isn't applied evenly as we've seen from the examples above. Just seems a bit messy and in need of a clear-up, to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Three Lions of Madison on Feb 29, 2016 21:45:33 GMT
They could use some method of taking the last 3 years into consideration. Who knows. Us trying to figure out how they get there is rather futile, because we may think we have it figured out and then there will be an anomaly that blows up our theories again. Any one of us can hit up fantrax trying to get a specific answer. I've had no such luck. Ultimately, what we need to figure out(vote on) is if we are going to abide by Fantrax's somewhat funky system for position eligibility or if we are going to create a more concrete set of rules for our league.
|
|
