ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: Colby on September 19, 2010, 11:52:11 AM
-
GP - Games played
GS - Games started
Currently...
Batters need 20 GP from the previous season or 5 GP from the current season.
Starting pitchers need 5 starts from the previous season or current season.
Relivers need 5 games from the previous season or current season.
Also, we have the following option checked - Use Fantrax's default position(s) even if player qualifies for at least one position based on above criteria:
Also, the following box will be unchecked going into 2011 (it was checked for 2010)... Allow players to play at an ineligible position without making the roster illegal
-
For starters, I think it's important we keep the 'previous season' criteria, since we need some stability for owners to plan their rosters.
-
I would recommend raising previous years' SP and RP appearances to 8 and 12 respectively and current year to 6 and 9.
-
I would recommend raising previous years' SP and RP appearances to 8 and 12 respectively and current year to 6 and 9.
Actually I would prefer 10 and 15 but I could settle for that to start
-
Another question is how do we deal with a player that does not qualify at either, either a new call-up or played partially at both positions but not enough?
-
Actually I would prefer 10 and 15 but I could settle for that to start
I am all for stricter requirements, 10/15 seems reasonable to me. Many leagues use 20 games at a position for hitters.
-
Rookies when called up should be eligible to play in the position they played the most in the minors. In case of a player not playing enough in either position due to injury or whatever reason, he should maintain the position eligibility of his previous season. By the way, I wouldn't mind 10 and 15; I was just throwing up a reasonable number to start the discussion.
-
Rookies when called up should be eligible to play in the position they played the most in the minors. In case of a player not playing enough in either position due to injury or whatever reason, he should maintain the position eligibility of his previous season.
Seem like reasonable ideas, but can we implement them in Fantrax?
-
Seem like reasonable ideas, but can we implement them in Fantrax?
Yes, there is a position override feature. I can set the position of any player in the league. This may be something to look at, but I feel that it would take up a lot of time.
-
:bump:
-
For pitchers its not a big concern. Its the hitters is where it is a concern. If a player didnt play 50 games at a position for a whole year he shouldnt be considered eligible at that position. Think about it. We dont designate individual positions. So Omar Infante did not play more than 10 games in the OF so next year he should not be allowed to play that spot. For a current year I would go with 25. You have to raise the bar, its a way better alternative than getting rid of Defense.
-
Another option is to have our own system of positions that is reflected in the official rosters. I can override positions in Fantrax. In all honesty, this wouldn't be too difficult with our own position eligibility requirements. Players eligible for multiple positions in our system (C-CI-MI-OF) are not as many as a traditional fantasy league. We could even base those requirements off of the minors which is something that we would all like to do. Basically, if you, as a GM, see that your player has eclipsed our requirements then you can go to a special thread here at the board and request the position upgrade.
-
Sounds good to me...
-
I'm alright with that. However, are we still increasing those requirements?
-
I'm alright with that. However, are we still increasing those requirements?
Yes... we need to... here is my suggestion.
We have a 50 GP and 40 IP rule for the establishment of the major league clock on prospect contracts. Why note use those same numbers for position eligibility?
1) A minor league player called up from the EDR will immediately have their eligibility analyzed.
2) All players eligible for multiple positions will be analyzed at the trade deadline. The rule can be 50 GP and 40 IP for the past and current season. At the trade deadline, only the current season will count - similarly to how the 2008 rankings were phased out for contract extensions at the trade deadline. Players hurt for the year may end up losing out on this, but they can regain position eligibility once they hit those numbers again.
3) Players are always eligible for at least one position. If they were eligible for multiple positions and then became ineligible for such positions, positions will be removed in order of when they first became eligible for such positions in the first place.
-
Yes... we need to... here is my suggestion.
We have a 50 GP and 40 IP rule for the establishment of the major league clock on prospect contracts. Why note use those same numbers for position eligibility?
1) A minor league player called up from the EDR will immediately have their eligibility analyzed.
2) All players eligible for multiple positions will be analyzed at the trade deadline. The rule can be 50 GP and 40 IP for the past and current season. At the trade deadline, only the current season will count - similarly to how the 2008 rankings were phased out for contract extensions at the trade deadline. Players hurt for the year may end up losing out on this, but they can regain position eligibility once they hit those numbers again.
3) Players are always eligible for at least one position. If they were eligible for multiple positions and then became ineligible for such positions, positions will be removed in order of when they first became eligible for such positions in the first place.
I strongly disagree with 2 - you cant have a player lose eligibility mid season.
-
I agree. You can't lose eligibility at a position once you have it.
-
I agree. You can't lose eligibility at a position once you have it.
Fair enough... that makes things easier for me. Position removal can take place at the end of the season (after the draft).
-
I strongly disagree with 2 - you cant have a player lose eligibility mid season.
I like what Colby is suggesting in his 1st and 3rd points. I also support much of the rule changes (I don't think we have many) in place for the upcoming season such as weekly lineups and the new position eligibility rules.
-
Good with 1st and 3rd points. I like the approach.
-
It's cool with me!
-
I'm good with points 1 and 3. The GP and IP might need to be lowered after we see the results next year.
-
Yes... we need to... here is my suggestion.
We have a 50 GP and 40 IP rule for the establishment of the major league clock on prospect contracts. Why note use those same numbers for position eligibility?
1) A minor league player called up from the EDR will immediately have their eligibility analyzed.
2) All players eligible for multiple positions will be analyzed at the trade deadline. The rule can be 50 GP and 40 IP for the past and current season. At the trade deadline, only the current season will count - similarly to how the 2008 rankings were phased out for contract extensions at the trade deadline. Players hurt for the year may end up losing out on this, but they can regain position eligibility once they hit those numbers again.
3) Players are always eligible for at least one position. If they were eligible for multiple positions and then became ineligible for such positions, positions will be removed in order of when they first became eligible for such positions in the first place.
Agree with Colby on points 1) and 3).
-
Agree with 1 and 3 as well.
-
I agree, 50 GP may be a bit steep though
-
I agree, 50 GP may be a bit steep though
I also think 50 is pretty steep. Very few players will qualify for more than one position, which isn't necessarily bad but eliminates the value that some bench players bring (their position flexibility). I wouldn't vote against 50 if that's what everyone else thinks is best, but personally I would suggest 20-30 games.
-
Ben has a very solid point. I think 20 is a good number. I think we could do 15 as well. I think given a set of numbers in a poll would prolly be the easiest way to do that.
-
:judge: I am going with half of those values - 25 GP and 20 IP.
-
yeah ill approve..... 50 was alot, but like your guys final discussion. I approve!
-
Question about this new rule though, and I didn't even think of it until Paul had mentioned something in his post for his trade with the Nats. If Luke Scott has lost eligibility at both CI/OF then how is he to be paid. He has eligibility as neither, so he falls outside of the chart that we base our salary requirements on. If he is going to be paid as an OF, then he should be able to play OF. I have the same problem with Adam Lind. I paid him 16.5 mil coming into this year and his eligibility is now that of a UT, and only UT. His value is obviously diminished, now that he only can play in one spot. So how do we approach the salary issues? There are only a few guys in the majors that will have this issue, but chances are they will all be on a roster at some point this year.
-
Question about this new rule though, and I didn't even think of it until Paul had mentioned something in his post for his trade with the Nats. If Luke Scott has lost eligibility at both CI/OF then how is he to be paid. He has eligibility as neither, so he falls outside of the chart that we base our salary requirements on. If he is going to be paid as an OF, then he should be able to play OF. I have the same problem with Adam Lind. I paid him 16.5 mil coming into this year and his eligibility is now that of a UT, and only UT. His value is obviously diminished, now that he only can play in one spot. So how do we approach the salary issues? There are only a few guys in the majors that will have this issue, but chances are they will all be on a roster at some point this year.
See part three of the rule... a player loses eligibility at a position in the order they gained. As a DH, which position did he gain first - CI or OF?
-
If he remains elegible at OF or CI that wouldn't be quite as bad. I thought this would be another example of Travis Hafner or David Ortiz who can only be used at UT but are paid as CIs.