Draft Philosophy Question

[cloverhurstdawg]

I'm sitting here trying to decide whether I should keep Shelton or Morneau and it got me thinking.

When faced with two players that you have similar projections for, except one may signifigantly exceed those projections or may battle injuries and dissappoint all year, while the other should provide steady production without the breakout potential, which do you choose?

Basically, which works better- drafting for potential or risk aversion?

[olympia0731]

I keep the one that would not be available with your next pick or your first pick in a keeper.

[olympia0731]

. sry double post

[Matthias]

i would say it depends on what tier of player you're talking about.

if you're talking about elite players (and people may jump down my throat for saying this) but, for example, barry bonds. if healthy and returning to form, he's a monster. could easily be the #1 player in the game. but.. but... but.... why not take manny who has not quite as high of a ceiling but is still pretty rock solid and you don't have all the weird questions swirling around?

if you're talking about your mid-level to low-level players, then you may as well roll the dice. if they're hurt, then it's not quite as much of a hit to replace them off of waivers (lower vorp) and if they really hit their groove, then you've hit the jackpot.

basically, what it comes down to the magnitude of the bet that you're making. with a top-level talent, if they're injured or off or what have you, you've lost a significant amount in replacement value. but, if it's someone further down the food chain, then the risk is smaller and the reward potentially larger, so why not.

[curious_george_43545]

Basically all my starters I want to be consistant, espically the first few I pick and once I get to my bench I am willing to take risks. Basically a good example this year is Beltre. I don't want him as my starting 3rd baseman, but I'd like him on my bench in case he plays close to what he did in 04.

[Another Blown Save]

Basically all my starters I want to be consistant, espically the first few I pick and once I get to my bench I am willing to take risks. Basically a good example this year is Beltre. I don't want him as my starting 3rd baseman, but I'd like him on my bench in case he plays close to what he did in 04.

Yup, that's what I do.

[olympia0731]

I too like consitency, but if you are very sure that the minimum they put up is about equal then take mr upside!!!!!!

[Dan Charette]

I like to make sure that I have 1 , and only 1 high risk-high reward type. If he bombs, then I'll be going to the waiver wire. But if he comes back strong, then you have an instant value pick .
By taking only 1 high risk player, I don't have to worry about too many injuries. Also, at whatever position the high risk guy plays, I'll be sure to draft another player to cover his position if he falters. (Can't always trust the ww)Thus , even less risk, with still having the possible high reward.
And also, it could lead to some trade possibilities, by having 2 players at the position, if your move pays off.

Dan the Bluesman

[Niffoc4]

totally agree with what's been said. I like having a couple of sleepers on my bench, and if they suck, then I can always pick up someone else on the WW. May also go with a sleeper or 2 in the lineup (but only in deeper leagues)
For example, in my 20 team league I have Youklis as my 3B. To minimize my risk I also have Encarnacion and Marte (and I can slide Polanco over to 3rd if all my 3B suck and my backup 2B Junior Spivey is hitting well). Luckily such desperate measures aren't needed in most leagues.

[RynMan]

I'd take Shelton.