Advantage in Dominating a position?

[markj11]

I am keeping David Wright, Miggy and Braun, all 3B but we have two extra IN spots. By taking such great talent from one position does that make them even more valuable? If I traded for equal or close value, say Wright for Hanley, would that actually decrease my advantage?

[Yoda]

I am keeping David Wright, Miggy and Braun, all 3B but we have two extra IN spots. By taking such great talent from one position does that make them even more valuable? If I traded for equal or close value, say Wright for Hanley, would that actually decrease my advantage?

It depends on who you are replacing Hanley with. If you have the worst SS in the league then you would gain more than say someone like Furcal.

[markj11]

I am keeping David Wright, Miggy and Braun, all 3B but we have two extra IN spots. By taking such great talent from one position does that make them even more valuable? If I traded for equal or close value, say Wright for Hanley, would that actually decrease my advantage?

It depends on who you are replacing Hanley with. If you have the worst SS in the league then you would gain more than say someone like Furcal.

Yeah, I understand that part, but just based on me having the majority of top talent from one position doesn't really mean much? I guess it would be easier to see if I had Hanley, Reyes, and Rollins. I think I see your point though.

[markj11]

Another thing is that I wouldn't be replacing a SS since we have not drafted yet so if you take the replacement factor out does it mean much?

[RugbyD]

Given the roster flexibility in your league I would say the value is diminished. By you not keeping a stud at some other position, that player is free for someone else to use at their generic infield spot. Given that 3B is pretty strong this year, the value to keeping all 3 is that they are all 1st round material (i like Braun late there), which has nothing to do with position.

[Yoda]

Given the roster flexibility in your league I would say the value is diminished. By you not keeping a stud at some other position, that player is free for someone else to use at their generic infield spot. Given that 3B is pretty strong this year, the value to keeping all 3 is that they are all 1st round material (i like Braun late there), which has nothing to do with position.

+1

[markj11]

My other keeper is M. Holliday.

[Inukchuk]

Given the roster flexibility in your league I would say the value is diminished. By you not keeping a stud at some other position, that player is free for someone else to use at their generic infield spot. Given that 3B is pretty strong this year, the value to keeping all 3 is that they are all 1st round material (i like Braun late there), which has nothing to do with position.

Agree with the fact that their real value lies in having 3 top 15 players, but I also think that having the top 3 3B puts an additional squeeze on the rest of the league. Even though 3B as a whole is deep, if the top 3 were gone, the position would consequently become weaker.

[Amazinz]

I don't think the "squeeze" exists mathematically. If there is any edge here it's psychological.

[Inukchuk]

I don't think the "squeeze" exists mathematically. If there is any edge here it's psychological.

I would agree with that. The key is the owners out there who put a lot of stock into position scarcity. Were those owners to consider a certain position as "dried up," that would put more pressure on them to reach for what's left.

Mathematically, you are right. The amount of talent available would be the same if Miggy, Wright, and Braun all played different positions. If you're in a league full of guys who draft for straight value, then the "squeeze" would not exist. But it seems like there are always owners who reach for players due to scarcity, whether or not it's manufactured by another leaguemate.

I guess in a way, having 3 top 3B is like starting a run before the draft starts. If people choose to continue it, it's their problem, not yours.