Remove Fantrax's default position(s)?

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Should we remove Fantrax's default position(s) in addition to any position(s) a player qualifies for?
"If checked, a player will be eligible at his default position(s), determined by Fantrax's data provider. This would be in addition to positions qualified at due to the minimum game requirements above [10 appearances at the same fielding position, 5 starts or 5 relief appearances]."

Discussion here: mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/thread/4293/positional-eligibility

Voting will open on October 21. This thread will remain open to allow for discussion.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

My personal 2 cents:

I am in full agreement with TJ's post in this thread (mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/thread/4293/positional-eligibility), and keenly support this change.

I don't see why a player should be granted positional eligibility that they have not earned.

[Admin]

I wish I could give my vote to someone who feels more passionately than I do about this question. I don’t feel like there’s any right or wrong answer.

We’ve done a lot to remove subjectivity from the decisions in our league. Removing Fantrax’s “granted” eligibilities matches that tone. It could also be said to correct a mistake that never should’ve been allowed according to the rules. We just didn’t know what all the buttons could do.

However, there is also a logical side to accepting Fantrax’s default positions.
- The assigned eligibilities are mostly consistent in bearing some resemblance to reality.
- Increased eligibilities allows us to better utilize our roster.
- My uneducated guess is that allowing default positions is the more common practice across the fantasy landscape.
- And the subjective choices are decided external to our league.

When voting opens, I’m not sure which way I’ll go. Since some have stronger feelings about changing the Fantrax settings to match the stated rules, rather than the other way around. I’m leaning toward voting to eliminate the “default positions”.

[Royals GM (Jordan)]

should voters consider how much work the commishes have to do implement this rule? Or perhaps only if you guys let us know it's a decent amount of work...

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Oct 4, 2019 15:18:38 GMT -5 Royals GM (Jordan) said:

should voters consider how much work the commishes have to do implement this rule? Or perhaps only if you guys let us know it's a decent amount of work...

I believe it's only a tick box, so from our point of view it's no effort.



Sent from my SM-A310F using proboards

[Pirates GM (TJ)]

It is indeed only a tick box.

And every player who should have a position gets the position they should have. It only eliminated the completely unearned positions (like Gattis at C when it wasn't fair that he got it, Cruz at RF when it wasn't fair that he got it, various RP having SP that they didn't earn, etc).

I've spoken with friends who are in a total of 17 different Fantrax baseball leagues between them. There is only 1 other than ours among that group that has rolled with the "extra" positions. The rest have the setting toggled the other way and get exactly the position eligibility they set up in their league rules.

[Deleted]

I'll be a no on this for a variety of reasons, a couple of which I'll enumerate below:

1) DHs should qualify at a position other than UTIL. They sensibly play a position for their MLB club that is nonsensical for this type of league. IF DH didn't exist as a position in the AL, someone would stick a glove on a guy like Cruz and plant him somewhere. DH doesn't exist in our league, so in my view, he should have a glove stuck on him and be planted somewhere. The default position is as good a place as any.

2) The default position toggle certainly puts a pitcher or two in the wrong bucket i.e. the Conley example. Turning it off will put some young pitchers in the wrong bucket (RP only), limit eligibility of young position players that likely would qualify multiple places had they had a full season and will do a combo of the same for established, injured MLB regulars. Just a few examples because I don't really want to go thru all teams as I'm guessing I'm on the losing side of this poll anyhow, but Puk/Luzardo would qualify only RP next year, though they are viewed as SP prospects. Using my team and a non-prospect, Brent Suter would qualify RP only due to his late-season comeback from surgery, but he is likely a SP going forward as he was prior to surgery. Does playing all these likely SPs in RP spots for a month (likely bumping legit RPs depending on roster construction) until they qualify make sense to bump a guy or two who incorrectly qualifies as an SP?

3) I think given the depth of the league, it makes sense to keep the more inclusive setting even if a couple guys end up in an incorrect bucket. It's better for teams who are trying to come up in the world to be able to find qualifiers and field competitive squads. I went thru rosters last year to find guys like Conley, something I'm sure other people do and everyone can do if they want. I paid a real price to acquire him in trade, a guy who was a bad MLBer to that point, because of the funky SP setting. I then spent 2-3 months praying that the default setting from Fantrax's provider wouldn't change. And then it all back-fired in a wildly spectacular way since Adam Conley is terrible and that's why no one at Stats LLC bothered to change his default position in the first place! To me, that's half the fun of this stuff and I'd hate to lose it.

[Admin]

Whatever the result, it will be a good thing to make sure our settings and constitution are aligned.

I guess I have trouble seeing it as a question of anything being unearned or unfair, but rather as a simple question of preference. If the Astros see Gattis primarily as a catcher, and an outside arbitrator (Fantrax) sees him primarily as a catcher, then there is some basis for preferring to play with that eligibility. Is it unfair that he qualifies before 10 games played? Perhaps. Is it unfair that he doesn’t qualify if other authorities (including real-life baseball teams) consider it his primary position? Also perhaps.

(While Gattis and Cruz are the most common examples we’ve pointed to, there are undoubtedly many players who have been affected by the existing discrepancy. Off the top of my head, I know it will affect Josh Rojas on my team. - If his real-life primary position is 2B, do we prefer to restrict him to LF for fantasy? - I’m sure there are many more individual cases to think about. I don’t look at anyone else’s team as closely, but it’s surely not a rare occurrence to have a player whose games played and primary position don’t align perfectly. I wouldn’t expect every GM to comb through their roster to find which players might be affected and how. But if that was done, I’m guessing we’d find there’s a case to be made for either side.)

Controlling the eligibilities ourselves may well be a better way to play. It eliminates unexpected conditions. I could be convinced that predictability is more valuable than the flexibility and realism of the current settings.

TJ, thanks for asking around about how others handle this question. I’m guessing the others polled who have clicked the box to remove default eligibilities are likely experienced players in competent leagues. It probably is better to think of those as the landscape we want to emulate rather than the shallower, more common leagues I was imagining. I appreciate the input to think in that direction.

I’ll happily support the more passionate side here, so as to keep on the same page. But, I can’t go so far as to see it as a question of fairness. Rather, and more simply, “Which way do we prefer to play?”

[Braves GM (Eric)]

Cruz is now only UTIL eligible.

Are you happy, TJ!?

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Oct 5, 2019 7:27:13 GMT -5 Braves GM (Eric) said:

Cruz is now only UTIL eligible.

Are you happy, TJ!?

‘Tis better to have had dubious RF eligibility and lost,

Than never to have had dubious RF eligibility at all

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Just a reminder that this vote will be opening on October 21st - with the poll remaining open for 1 week.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

By a score of 12-10, the league has voted NOT to remove Fantrax's default position eligibility.