noseeum wrote:Matthias wrote:noseeum wrote:No leagues require a relief pitcher unless the league specifically opts to state that. If there's an RP slot, the league requires a pitcher with RP eligibility. It does not require an RP.
Sure, but specifically requiring it is exactly what we have been talking about.
Only you have really been talking about that.
No; that's the whole premise of the discussion. In the OP's league there's the possibility of RP/SP guys and the commissioner is telling the league that they can only use the pitchers in the role that they're actually pitching.
noseeum wrote:The question was whether the commish is overstepping his bounds and whether SP/RP is a glitch. The default for a league that uses SP/RP is that it does not specifically require it. It only requires eligibility. In fact, there is no support on these sites for specifically requiring it. ESPN, CBS, Yahoo, could easily implement an option where pitchers are only eligible for the position they've been assigned. I don't know of any site that has such an option.
CBS does. Since you can define how many games are required to attain eligibility, you could set it impossibly high... say, 500 games this year or 500 games last year. Then it would default to the pitcher's primary designation, as decided by Sportsline in the pre-season. It's not fluid, but it does limit pitchers to their assigned position.
noseeum wrote:It doesn't matter that there's a difference in real baseball, and I think you argue this point all the time in other posts, that fantasy does not have to duplicate real baseball.
Quite correctly, I might add.
noseeum wrote:BTW, you're backtracking. First you said it was a glitch and the first commenter's opinion was bush league. Now it seems you're agreeing with me but you don't want to admit it yet.
I really do think it's a glitch in the sense of an unintended consequence. Most websites (Sportsline is different) you define positional eligibility for all players with one rule: 5 games this year, 20 games last year, whatever. And that makes sense for positional players. But since the scoring and production is of such a different character for SPs vs. RPs, it doesn't for them. But they get painted with the same broad brush.
And the first response was bush league... it said positional requirements were for ESPN to decide, not you as your league, as if ESPN had some monopoly on wisdom. People debate all the time different settings / scoring categories / etc.... you don't just go with whatever ESPN or Yahoo decided for you. So to use that as argument, is bush league.
I agreed with you twice in one week this year; you sure you want to push your luck?