Fantasy Sports Genie wrote: bayside wrote:
ok I found the previous discussion:viewtopic.php?f=7&t=438456&p=3469062&hilit=moore+RP#p3469062
Fantasy Sports Genie wrote:So yeah... I now understand exactly how this happens, but we'll need to have a discussion here about whether it is really the best way to handle this situation. Moore started twice last year, and pitched in relief 3 times. So for the record, if we followed the flow described without this weird 'P' angle on it, he'd qualify at RP and not SP, but that might still be better than just P. But we look and say:
- He didn't qualify at any positions last year
- Last year he played SP twice, RP three times, and P 5 times. So I guess he's a P.
I'm sort of inclined to think that P shouldn't be one of the possible answers if we're reduced to using this case to determine eligibility. But I need to make sure I'm not forgetting something, see what other people around here think, figure out how dangerous it is to touch this code, figure out if we can clean up players in this state, etc. etc.
In short, this will happen for any player who pitched last year as both a starter and reliever, but didn't qualify for either. That currently would be 6 guys:
So if Yahoo is going to be consistent with their pitcher eligibility rules then they should in fact list Teheran as either a SP or RP (or both since he made one appearance as a starter and one appearance as a reliever in 2012)
I think it remains an interesting discussion as to how to best handle this, but what do you believe is inconsistent? We've now identified two cases where a pitcher didn't have enough games to qualify as a SP or RP, and in both cases was marked only a P. Yeah?
no, last year Moore WAS given RP status to begin the year.
and all the other guys from the above quote were also given either RP or P status to begin the year as well, even though they had not accumulated enough appearances from the previous year.
i think the conclusion that was reached last year, and was then implemented prior to Opening Day, was that from a logic standpoint, you could say that it is impossible to be a P without being either a SP or an RP first.
also common sense dictates this.