Position eligibility rules

[BigbadB]

Hey Juan,

 

It was a great season. Had a great time and I'm looking forward to next year.

 

I'd like to get some input regarding position eligibility. I've noticed that a lot of exceptions have been made for position eligibility regarding SP converting from RP and vice versa, including exceptions before a guy threw a pitch at his new position. I'd like to see the position eligibility requirements lowered.

 

20 games is an awful lot for position players to play for a previous season. Why is it okay if they've played 10 this year, but need 20 the year before? Why not just make it 10 this year and 10 last year.

 

A utility player is pretty valuable to a team when 2/3 of their reserves are likely to be SP, but some utility players may not play 20 games at a single position the previous year. The same can be said for DH's. 20 games is a lot for them to not be eligible at any position except DH.

 

For example, Ian Stewart is eligible at 2b this year, but he won't be next year because he didn't play 20 games. Alexei Ramirez has played 16 games at SS, 11 in the outfield and he's eligible at those positions this year, but won't be next year because he had to have more games the previous year to regain eligibility he already had. It doesn't make all that much sense.

 

What's the possibility of changing the eligibility rules to something with the same requirements for each year?

[Guest]

yea, definitely. if anyone else has suggestions, please post them here. What's the feeling on the pitcher's scoring?

[BigbadB]

I liked the pitcher's scoring this year. I vote to leave it as is. One day you're riding a 50 point lead, and bam, your starter loses you 30 points instead of getting the 20 points you expected. There went that 50 point lead.

[abuck1220]

the position player eligibility is not analogous to the SP/RP situation.

 

if you didn't make a guy like dempster SP eligible until he made 10 starts, you'd be unable to use him in any capacity for nearly 1/3 of the season. you couldn't start him at RP because he would be starting, and you couldn't start him at SP until he made 10 starts. obviously that doesn't make sense. you can still play alexei and ian stewart til your heart's content at the positions they are eligible at.

 

i don't really see any reason to change the rules as they are now.

[BigbadB]

the position player eligibility is not analogous to the SP/RP situation.

 

if you didn't make a guy like dempster SP eligible until he made 10 starts, you'd be unable to use him in any capacity for nearly 1/3 of the season. you couldn't start him at RP because he would be starting, and you couldn't start him at SP until he made 10 starts. obviously that doesn't make sense. you can still play alexei and ian stewart til your heart's content at the positions they are eligible at.

 

i don't really see any reason to change the rules as they are now.

 

You claim that one part of the current rule doesn't make sense, then claim the other part of the rule does make sense. Why does it make sense that a position player only needs 10 games at a certain position to be eligible this season, but needed 20 last season. It makes no sense. Either change it to be 20 last season and 20 this season or make it 10 and 10.

 

To me, a player that plays 10 times at a position should get eligibility at that position. Whether it's "Pronk" logging 10 games at 1b or if it's Alexei Ramirez logging 10 games at SS.

 

The fact remains that most teams in this Roadkill league carry one position player reserve since the other two are typically pitchers. Players with as much eligibility at different positions should be welcomed with our limited bench positions. Especially considering how fragile major league baseball players have become.

 

It's not like I'm asking for eligibility if they play 1 game at that position like many fantasy leagues allow. I'm just asking that the eligibility rules be consistent. It also makes it a little easier for people to remember what the rule is when it's the same amount of games each season.

[BigbadB]

And just to take it one step farther.....

 

Ian Stewart was brought to Colorado to be their 2b. The reason he didn't get 20 games at 2b is because Helton got hurt, which moved Atkins to 1st and Stewart to 3rd. Just like Dempster changed positions, Stewart changed positions.

 

The same thing happened with Alexei Ramirez. He originally started in the White Sox outfield and only moved to 2b when an injury required the need for him to play there. But, because they now didn't play 20 games at those positions the previous season, they are no longer eligible there anymore. That doesn't make sense.

[abuck1220]

And just to take it one step farther.....

 

Ian Stewart was brought to Colorado to be their 2b. The reason he didn't get 20 games at 2b is because Helton got hurt, which moved Atkins to 1st and Stewart to 3rd. Just like Dempster changed positions, Stewart changed positions.

 

yeah, except dempster could not be used in any way at all unless he was made a SP. you could still start stewart at whatever position he's eligible at.

 

The same thing happened with Alexei Ramirez. He originally started in the White Sox outfield and only moved to 2b when an injury required the need for him to play there. But, because they now didn't play 20 games at those positions the previous season, they are no longer eligible there anymore. That doesn't make sense.

 

i mean, i guess i just see that as a tough break for you. just like how fielder got like 58 ab's his first year, thus making him non-exempt for this next season. i'd sure rather the ab limit go up to 100 or whatever, but that doesn't mean it should. it seems like you just don't like the rules all of the sudden because it hurts your team.

[BigbadB]

It's not about what's convenient for me. It's simplifying a rule. If you can be eligible at a position by only playing that position 10 times, then they should have also only had to play that position 10 times the previous year.

 

Make it 20 and 20 for all I care. That should prove it isn't about what works for me. I just think the number of games should be the same from year to year. I just like the 10 game requirement better because of the limited amount of bench options.

 

And at this point, I'm not even sure I'm keeping either Stewart or Ramirez.

 

As far as the 50 at bat rule is concerned, I believe I voiced my opinion that the number of at bats should be higher for position players. September call ups shouldn't lose an exemption year. With the current rules, position players can and probably will lose eligibility, but pitchers probably won't.

[abuck1220]

It's not about what's convenient for me. It's simplifying a rule. If you can be eligible at a position by only playing that position 10 times, then they should have also only had to play that position 10 times the previous year.

 

i see the rationale behind the number changing as the player being further removed from playing that position. in the same way soriano isn't eligible at 2b because it's been so long since he played there, 2009 ian stewart is further removed from being 2b-eligible, so the games played requirement for him to be eligible there is higher.

 

i don't think i said what i wanted to say very well there...

 

As far as the 50 at bat rule is concerned, I believe I voiced my opinion that the number of at bats should be higher for position players. September call ups shouldn't lose an exemption year. With the current rules, position players can and probably will lose eligibility, but pitchers probably won't.

 

i agree with you there.