Position eligibility

[Kevin]

I mentioned in an email a few weeks ago that I wanted to finally put into writing some official guidelines for determining position eligibility within the DTBL. The rule has always been pretty clear cut: a player will be placed at the position in which he played the most games the previous season. But there is one small exception to this rule for which I'm looking to remove any confusion going forward. I have allowed players to remain at catcher despite playing more games at another position since it is hard to find enough decent catchers to fill the ranks. But I only make this exception when the number of games caught is relatively close to the games played at that other position. So from here on out, this will be the metric used:

A player can be designated as a catcher as long as they did actually catch in a game the previous year and the number of games caught was within at least 15 of the number of games played at their most frequently played position (not counting DH/PH/PR). Also, if a player catches at least 40 games, they can be designated as a catcher regardless of how many games they play at other positions.

How did I come up with these 15/40 numbers? Well, I wanted to set a rule that has historical precedent. So I used Baseball Reference's awesome Play Index tool to identify all of the instances in DTBL history where I have chosen to put a player at catcher despite playing more games somewhere else. Then I looked at each of those cases to find numbers that matched up with most of those decisions. Turns out, this has happened nine times, including twice last year (Victor Martinez and Evan Gattis). Here are the players, years and number of games played at each position for those nine instances:

2013 - Evan Gattis - 42 C, 48 OF, 4 1B -> C (DTBL rookie)
2013 - Victor Martinez - 3 C, 11 1B, 139 DH -> C
2010 - Mike Napoli - 66 C, 70 1B, 2 DH -> C
2007 - Ryan Doumit - 28 C, 38 OF, 3 1B, 1 DH -> C
2004 - Mike Piazza - 50 C, 68 1B, 8 DH -> C
2002 - Matt LeCroy - 6 C, 8 1B, 41 DH -> C (DTBL rookie)
1998 - Dave Nilsson - 7 C, 49 1B, 37 OF -> C
1998 - Todd Hundley - 2 C, 34 OF -> C
1993 - Mickey Tettleton - 56 C, 59 1B, 55 OF, 4 DH -> C

As it turns out, my new guideline would have caused a different result in 2 of these 9 cases. But I don't want to repeat whatever my reasoning was behind leaving Dave Nilsson and Todd Hundley at catcher in 1999 after both of them played another position far more frequently the previous year. Piazza's '04 season was the reason why I decided to add 40 games as an automatic qualifier. On the flip side, there was one instance where I found a player who could have been placed at catcher using these guidelines, but I chose a different position:

2008 - Pablo Sandoval - 11 C, 17 1B, 12 3B -> 1B (DTBL rookie)

But Sandoval was a DTBL rookie at the time. Which leads me to my next clarification. I can override these guidelines and place a player at the position he played most often, rather than catcher, if the player is in the draft pool and not on a DTBL roster. I might do this in cases like Sandoval where they are not expected to continue to catch. Also, if you are keeping a player who is eligible to play catcher based on these guidelines, but you would prefer them to move to their primary position for some inexplicable reason, just let me know and I will grant your wish.

So... this is Nick's second piece of bad news regarding Victor Martinez this week. Martinez will not remain at catcher since he only caught two games last year while played 35 at first base.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to remind you how I determine positions for pitchers who made appearances as both a starter and a reliever the previous year. Unlike offensive players, it isn't based on number of games started vs. relieved. As long as they had at least one of each, their position will be set based on their projected role for the upcoming season. I do this to try to keep to a minimum the number of RPs who are actually starters. Thus, a guy like Josh Collmenter will be a SP this year.

Official position changes for 2015 won't be posted for a little while since I haven't even started working on the player list yet, but you ought to be able to figure out where your guys will be positioned yourselves using these revised guidelines.

[Marc]

Does this new rule mean Carlos Santana is no longer a C? If so, do I get to change my keeper selections? Figured he would stay at C this year based on Vmart staying at C last year

[Kevin]

Marc, Santana will be moving to 1B this year. The difference between Santana this year and V-Mart last year is that V-Mart was almost exclusively a DH and only played a handful of games at other positions, including catcher. Santana played over 90 games at 1B last year. With the exceptions I mentioned previously (Nilsson and Hundley back in '99), players with Santana's profile have always been moved to a position other than catcher. Here are some more cases I found in my research:

2009 - Pablo Sandoval - 3 C, 120 3B, 26 1B, 2 DH -> 3B
2004 - Craig Wilson - 4 C, 100 OF, 65 1B, 2 DH -> OF
2004 - Brandon Inge - 39 C, 73 3B, 26 OF -> 3B
2003 - Craig Wilson - 21 C, 46 OF, 36 1B, 3 DH -> OF (DTBL rookie)
1999 - Mike Sweeney - 4 C, 74 1B, 71 DH -> 1B
1999 - Phil Nevin - 31 C, 67 3B, 13 OF, 11 1B, 1 DH -> 3B (DTBL rookie)

There were a few more pre-'98 that were a little funky because we actually had players assigned as DHs back then.

If your decision to keep Santana was based solely on the assumption that he would remain at C, I will allow you to make a change. But I would have preferred if you had asked me for clarification on him and other questionable players prior to the deadline. Please email me as soon as you can with your adjustment so I can make the change for you.

I should also apologize for not getting this posted before the deadline. That was my intention, but I just didn't have enough time to complete my research. I definitely knew Martinez and Santana were likely to be moved though, so I should have let you know that was coming.

[Marc]

Kevin, look at the dates next to the guys you referenced. Only one is from the last decade. Vmart caught 3 games in 2013 and stayed at C. He played almost four times as many games at 1B. This was a large part of why I voted him MVP over Trout. The impact he had was great. I feel like you are cherry picking cases from long ago and ignoring recent history by essentially saying DH doesn't count.

Of course the only reason I kept Santana is because he was a C. He may go undrafted as a 1B.

It seems like you recognized a bad loophole and want to fix it, which is great. However, I feel like this is just getting slipped in there as an "oh by the way..." Rule change

[Kevin]

Fair point. I'm going to try to bring attention to this thread so we can get some other opinions.

I definitely did not try to sneak this by everyone. That's why I specifically mentioned (in an email) that I was planning on putting something in writing weeks ago, before the cut deadline. Victor Martinez's value last year was exactly the reason why I thought I needed to fix this.

I am not cherry picking old cases here. In my two previous posts, I have listed every example of a DTBL player who played at least 2 games at catcher and more games at some other position (not including DH) since 1998. It just hasn't happened that often. But I did want to use those cases to help me come up with whatever the new rule would be. Games played at DH have never been used in my position decisions, at least not since the very early days of the league when we had actual DH designated players.

You can hold off with your Santana roster adjustment until I'm able to determine the consensus of the league. It was definitely poor form on my part not getting this ironed out before the deadline.

[Marc]

That sounds fine. I guess I just feel that based on recent history (meaning Vmart) this rule change should have been announced last year to take effect in 2015. All year I thought Santana would stay at C one more year based on Vmart

[Kevin]

Let me add that this shouldn't turn into an "old way" vs. "new way" debate. The "old way" for determining catcher eligibility was somewhat arbitrary and undefined. We are going to fix that now. The question is whether or not you agree with the guidelines I have established, and if not, what do you think they should be? I tried to come up with something that was consistent with prior decisions I have made. But we don't have to go that route if others think there is a better option.

If you think we should completely revamp the way we determine position eligibility (like allowing multiple positions and things like that) please save that for another time. I'm not looking to make a major rule change here. Just trying to provide clarification to existing rules.

[Marc]

I like the rule. It's good to have guidelines. One change I would like is to have games played as DH be valued here as if they were played at 1B. Wasn't Edgar a DTBL 1B when he was a full-itme DH?

I would rather be able to throw Santana back and keep a different guy rather than delay the rule change and keep him at C

[Kevin]

I'm glad you brought up designated hitters, because that reminds me I forgot to mention something in my original post: how I determine positions for players who go the full year without playing a defensive position (full time DHs or injured players). In those cases, the position decision goes back to the last season in which they actually did play in the field. In Edgar Martinez's case, he was assigned to 1B from 1998 through 2004 despite playing almost all of his games at DH. The reason for that is because he did play a handful of games at 1B from '97 through '01. His last two DTBL seasons followed years in which he exclusively played DH, so the decision went back to him playing 1B in '01.

Most full time DHs do wind up at 1B, but that's because that is the position they usually play in the rare instances when they are put in the field.

[Dom]

I've come up with the perfect solution -- let's retroactively apply the rule (disregard 'ex post facto,' trust me, I'm a lawyer) to Victor Martinez. All of his points as a catcher last year should be erased...which would mean that the Demigods win the DTBL Championship!

In all seriousness, I agree that there should be some guidance and I think what you've proposed is reasonable. I think all of us recognize when we draft a superstar catcher, their staying power at catcher is fairly limited (dammit Joe Mauer)--that's part of the game.

[Nick]

Figured VMart would be at 1B this year so worries. One question -- if a "catcher" plays 5 games at C in a season, 140 at DH and plays at no other position, he would then be eligible at C the next year? Have we considered making players eligible at Utility only? We do have a Util spot in our lineups so it seems reasonable. Anyway, glad there will be a rule in place going forward.

Nick

[Kevin]

Figured VMart would be at 1B this year so worries. One question -- if a "catcher" plays 5 games at C in a season, 140 at DH and plays at no other position, he would then be eligible at C the next year? Have we considered making players eligible at Utility only? We do have a Util spot in our lineups so it seems reasonable. Anyway, glad there will be a rule in place going forward.

Nick

Nick, in the scenario you described, the player would be a catcher the following year. I do not consider games played at DH when setting positions. Only games played in the field count. I haven't previously mentioned players who fall into this category because I'm fairly certain I have assigned them as catchers 100% of the time.

For those of you who are not original DTBL members, WAY back in the day, we used to have players who were explicitly assigned as DHs. Only those players were allowed to fill the DH slot on the roster. Once we expanded to 10 teams in '98, it became fairly obvious that we would need to change this rule because there just weren't enough respectable DHs to fill the rosters. The general rules I've been using for determining position eligibility have been in place since '98 when we stopped assigning players as DHs. Nick's idea of having those full time DHs only be eligible to fill the Util spot in the roster is a good one. However, I think it falls into the category of a major rule change that I'd rather consider earlier in the off-season (or in-season to be applied a year later).

[Marc]

C'mon Kevin. That doesn't make sense. DH has to cout as a position. Your response to the scenario mentioned by Nick means that this C loophole remains open. Like I said earlier DH should equal 1B in DTBL position definitions.

I also don't see how that change is major but the rule at the start if this thread is not major

[Mike]

[quote="Marc"]Does this new rule mean Carlos Santana is no longer a C? If so, do I get to change my keeper selections? Figured he would stay at C this year based on Vmart staying at C last year[/quote]

Out of curiosity, did you ask Kevin what position he'd be before making your selections? I always verify with Kevin before cut day who's moving positions on my team so I can make my cuts accordingly.

That being said, I'm fine with the new rule. However, I dunno about retroactively making changes to keepers after the cutoff point if you were working off an assumption and didn't ask Kevin directly. I'm not totally against the idea in this situation, but perhaps being more proactive wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[Marc]

I didn't think it was necessary to ask. Vmart played 3 games at C and remained at that position just one year earlier. Didn't expect a drastic change in course to be made immediately