CBS eligibility question

[bryanbutler]

it has probably always been this way, but i've just noticed it.

our league has a "20 games played last year, or primary position" rule for eligibility.

last year Martin Prado had 13 games at SS and 10 at 2B, so he qualifies at neither. but, CBS seems to count all of those games for MI eligibility. i would have expected qualifying at one or the other of 2B or SS as a prerequisite for qualifying for MI.

is this what you all expect? and is there a way to change the settings to make it not do it the way it's doing it now? (i had a look and couldn't see one.)

[Judge Jude]

apparently this is how CBS does it, and it's hardly been noticed before.
it's contrary to any leagues I know of that weren't boirn with the silly CBS variation from Day One.

We are one of those dinosaur leagues that have been using All-Star Stats since 1990, now giving CBS a shot because it's free for us for the year. was not impressed with "ease of use" in getting the league page started. obvious things like it doesn't prompt you to the page where you invite owners to join, creating needless frustration. you wonder how many thousands of calls they would need to get on something like that before someone fixed it.

I'm probably going to have to put together my own list of eligible positions and send that to the owners, since CBS is ignoring fantasy baseball convention...

[mgwiz22]

I noticed it years ago and complained to CBS. CBS never responded to my complaint.

I urge everyone to complain and then maybe they will do something about it.

[Lucky]

We need an Fantasy Baseball Advisory Board. There was a time when everyone pretty much went with the Rotisserie book, which somewhat standardized all the variants we were playing. Since the explosion, we have more variants than ever.

[revo]

I noticed it a few years back, and we disallow the use of the position in our leagues. Yes, it's very stupid and CBS should correct it.

[mgwiz22]

I noticed it a few years back, and we disallow the use of the position in our leagues. Yes, it's very stupid and CBS should correct it.

I tried that at first but it was too difficult to enforce.

[bryanbutler]

I tried that at first but it was too difficult to enforce.

^this. i think i'm just going to hold my nose and let it slide.

[revo]

I tried that at first but it was too difficult to enforce.

You're right, it is. I usually start the season by identifying those who fall through the cracks, like Prado, and inform the owner he's not eligible there.

[Hornsby]

So what they do is to add the two positions together (13 at SS and 10 at 2B) and you're over the positional requirement for MI. It actually makes perfect sense to me, the player fulfilled the requirements, more than 20 games at MI, to qualify for the "position".

[revo]

So what they do is to add the two positions together (13 at SS and 10 at 2B) and you're over the positional requirement for MI. It actually makes perfect sense to me, the player fulfilled the requirements, more than 20 games at MI, to qualify for the "position".

But there's no such position as "middle infield" or "corner infield." They are concocted for fantasy purposes only with the idea behind them being expanding the player pool/starting lineups.

The spirit of the law, if it could be applied & enforced, is that the CI & MI spots are for those who qualify at a single CI or MI position already -- which I would have to guess is what 99.999% of fantasy commissioners expect it to be. But the site has a glitch which doesn't allow this to be corrected. So you can only declare "20 games last year" and the site thinks it should be adding the two together. I don't believe a single commissioner actually intends for this to be the case, but there's no alternative due to the glitch.

[Judge Jude]

If they don't fix it next year, they'll lose at least one league, I can say that much. Sometimes stupid needs a hit in the pocketbook to get smarter.

[Hornsby]

But there's no such position as "middle infield" or "corner infield." They are concocted for fantasy purposes only with the idea behind them being expanding the player pool/starting lineups.

The spirit of the law, if it could be applied & enforced, is that the CI & MI spots are for those who qualify at a single CI or MI position already -- which I would have to guess is what 99.999% of fantasy commissioners expect it to be. But the site has a glitch which doesn't allow this to be corrected. So you can only declare "20 games last year" and the site thinks it should be adding the two together. I don't believe a single commissioner actually intends for this to be the case, but there's no alternative due to the glitch.

But in terms of roto/fantasy, there are such positions, so it's perfectly understandable. If you want to get technical about it, and really play strictly by the book, I'm in a league that's position specific. You must have a CF, LF, RF, have only 4 starters and 2 relievers, and no concocted positions including MI, CI, Utility, or Rover Outfielders. Face it, almost all of fantasy is well, a fantasy, and this tiny issue is nothing at all in the grand scheme of things, and affects well less than 1% of all the players in the game. And BTW, I'm a commissioner who thinks that it's just fine..., since MI IS a position in our game, no harm, no foul.

I think that your complaint should be with the people who invented positions, not a web site that simply came up with a different interpretation of what should constitute a middle infielder. You want the game pure, join a league like I did, if you want to have fun and play like the other 95%, occasionally, very occasionally, you'll have to put up with an odd little thing like this. In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing at all...

[revo]

Here are other players who won't qualify under "20 games at the position" rules but would qualify at MI or CI due to combined games:
Pedro Ciriaco, MI
Jordany Valdespin, MI
Michael Young, MI
Jayson Nix, MI
Justin Turner, CI

These players wouldn't qualify under "15 games at the position" but qualify at MI or CI due to combined games:
Eduardo Escobar, MI
Elian Herrera, MI
Adeiny Hechevarria, MI
Adam Rosales, CI

[virgonomic]

This probably won't win anyone a league and it probably only means a week or two of extra production from a stopgap player.

Still, I can see why the purists don't like it and I do agree that MI is a spot for someone who qualifies at 2B or SS.

[mgwiz22]

But in terms of roto/fantasy, there are such positions, so it's perfectly understandable. If you want to get technical about it, and really play strictly by the book, I'm in a league that's position specific. You must have a CF, LF, RF, have only 4 starters and 2 relievers, and no concocted positions including MI, CI, Utility, or Rover Outfielders. Face it, almost all of fantasy is well, a fantasy, and this tiny issue is nothing at all in the grand scheme of things, and affects well less than 1% of all the players in the game. And BTW, I'm a commissioner who thinks that it's just fine..., since MI IS a position in our game, no harm, no foul.

I think that your complaint should be with the people who invented positions, not a web site that simply came up with a different interpretation of what should constitute a middle infielder. You want the game pure, join a league like I did, if you want to have fun and play like the other 95%, occasionally, very occasionally, you'll have to put up with an odd little thing like this. In the grand scheme of things, it means nothing at all...

That's very philosophical. Actually, fantasy baseball means nothing in the grand scheme of things yet we take it seriously. I think it would have been, and still is,very easy to change their programming to give league commissioners the power to interpret this rule. They have had this in their rules for many years and like many of their strange quirks they don't tell you about them. The only way you find out about them is to encounter issues yet they advertise that they can adapt to your league rules.