Starting No Catcher?

[Yoda]

You never do it in any league. It makes absolutely no sense when you can't lose in 4 categories out of 5.

To do it or advise it is simply incompetent fantasy baseball managing.

That is just silliness. I've seen it happen first hand. One guy in my 10 team H2H league went an entire season without a C on his roster. He made it to the finals but lost. We changed the rule in this league that you must carry all starting positions.

Why change the rules? He was hurting no one but himself. He made the finals because he had a decent team, not because he didn't start a catcher.

Honestly, in a 10 team league, yes I agree that he was absolutely hurting himself. However, he was hoarding all the closers and other members were pissed off by this.

I think it could make sense in a larger league. Using my 20 team example, regardless of what Towles did, I would still hold the lead in R, HR, RBI while gaining 3 pts in AVG .270 vs. .264.

[Dreamscape]

Never know until you try it, I guess. There is merits to start a catcher, but if you only have crappy choices, there is also merits to not starting one. To say it's black and white lacks much objectivity. I'm in a friendly league from a Braves forum where it's just for fun. Seems like a perfect place to give it a try and see how it works.

[NZ Eff]

Never know until you try it, I guess. There is merits to start a catcher, but if you only have crappy choices, there is also merits to not starting one. To say it's black and white lacks much objectivity. I'm in a friendly league from a Braves forum where it's just for fun. Seems like a perfect place to give it a try and see how it works.

Actually it is black and white. If you don't start a catcher it can only potentially help you in 1 category. If you do start one it helps you in at least 4. No grey area at all. It's stupidity to even attempt it even in a 20 team league.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Without doing any in-depth calculations, it's really hard to say. However, I think I agree with NZF on this one. Even a crappy catcher (over 500 ABs) can get you 50/10/50/2/.240. My favorite strategy with this (if I have a crappy C) is to try and do one of 2 things.

A. I take a high-AVG, do nothing else C (examples: Kendall)
B. I take a high-power C who will hurt your AVG and try to make up AVG at the other spots (ex: John Buck)

The spots gained from gaining 50 R and 50 RBI would seem to be worth more points than the .003 or .004 your team BA will drop due to having a crappy C. However, I would advocate going without a C for a few days maybe, while you decide which C to pick up or try to trade for a C.

[Guzman24]

i really don't see why anyone would care if someone chooses not to field a catcher. perfectly legit strategy, probably hurts more than helps but it's still legit. as long as the interface allows it and it's not forbidden by the rules, there's really no conceivable complaint.

Im really confused here.

If you don't start a catcher, who is receiving the pitches??? The umpire must be getting hit in the head a lot. Not cool

[Dreamscape]

Never know until you try it, I guess. There is merits to start a catcher, but if you only have crappy choices, there is also merits to not starting one. To say it's black and white lacks much objectivity. I'm in a friendly league from a Braves forum where it's just for fun. Seems like a perfect place to give it a try and see how it works.

Actually it is black and white. If you don't start a catcher it can only potentially help you in 1 category. If you do start one it helps you in at least 4. No grey area at all. It's stupidity to even attempt it even in a 20 team league.

However, if you are comfortable with your numbers in the other cats week in week out and the only thing in need of help is AVG, it's worth a try. So, no, not black and white.

[NZ Eff]

Never know until you try it, I guess. There is merits to start a catcher, but if you only have crappy choices, there is also merits to not starting one. To say it's black and white lacks much objectivity. I'm in a friendly league from a Braves forum where it's just for fun. Seems like a perfect place to give it a try and see how it works.

Actually it is black and white. If you don't start a catcher it can only potentially help you in 1 category. If you do start one it helps you in at least 4. No grey area at all. It's stupidity to even attempt it even in a 20 team league.

However, if you are comfortable with your numbers in the other cats week in week out and the only thing in need of help is AVG, it's worth a try. So, no, not black and white.

Why would you ever be comfortable with your numbers and how could you guarantee them from one week to the next.

[Yoda]

I just gave you two real life examples where not having a C worked: 1. my 20 team currently 2. my 10 team where someone finished 2nd.

Yet you keep saying it is stupid and it doesn't work?

[Guzman24]

:-? Why would you ever be comfortable with your numbers and how could you guarantee them from one week to the next.

You're right, nothing is guaranteed in fantasy baseball but you can definitely play the averages.

I'm sure you've benched a SP against an unfavourable matchup in fear of your peripherals getting destroyed. Sitting a catcher who continuously goes 0/4 and leaving the C spot vacant is basically the same thing. All he's doing is wrecking your average and not giving you anything else. I really don't understand your argument.

......once again

[NZ Eff]

I just gave you two real life examples where not having a C worked: 1. my 20 team currently 2. my 10 team where someone finished 2nd.

Yet you keep saying it is stupid and it doesn't work?

It didn't work, it just didn't make a difference because the team was good enough.

If you play in competitive leagues like I do and give away the opportunity of even 1 extra run, rbi, hr, sb etc then it could very well be the difference between finishing 1 spot higher in the league. Why take that chance? You always have to maximise your roster production and by constantly sitting a catcher you simply don't do that.

It's a no brainer.