Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **kingmike74** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:51 pm

I am the commissioner in a 14 team roto league and below are the current roster settings.

C-2
1B-1
2B-1
MI-1
SS-1
3B-1
CI-1
OF-5
U-1

P-9

Reserve-7
DL-2

I have had some owners question me as to why I only have 1 U spot? I think 2 would be way to many starters and with the MI/CI, would be overkill.

Just wanted some expert Cafe members thoughts on the U spot.

by **Neato Torpedo** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:59 pm

Why more than one? You have enough flexibility with an extra C/CI/MI/2OF.

by **kingmike74** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:13 pm

My thoughts exactly.

by **DaSh 1s** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:29 pm

2 Catchers in a 14 team league? :-°

by **jackie hayes** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:39 pm

I don't mind when a league goes deep at one particular position (like catchers here, or 2 qb leagues in football). Then the thin ww can truly make things interesting. But when it's util spots (or flex, in football) -- meh, that's just more scoring. It doesn't add much to the game. I'd leave it as-is.

by **Ender** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:12 pm

A single UT slot is fine. I wouldn't want 2 C in a 14 team league either though. There are 28 starting C in baseball and injuries are just too common to the position. 2 C is marginal in 12 team leagues but downright annoying in 14 team leagues.

by **jackie hayes** » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:56 pm

Ender wrote:A single UT slot is fine. I wouldn't want 2 C in a 14 team league either though. There are 28 starting C in baseball and injuries are just too common to the position. 2 C is marginal in 12 team leagues but downright annoying in 14 team leagues.

So which two teams play without catchers? Cuz if that's the case, I'm going to stream the hell out of stolen bases this year. :-b

I don't think it's such a problem, because there are a lot of teams that employ a heavy timeshare, so there are a lot more than 30 catchers playing at least somewhat regularly. It just adds some extra strategy to the draft. Noone likes spending early picks on catchers, but when the wire is going to be so thin, it starts to be more tempting. Doesn't seem to be a bad tweak.

by **Bloody Sox** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:47 am

Yeah, if you had a small roster with no MI/CI and only 3 OF, then 2 U spots makes perfect sense (that's what we used to do in my league). When we added a CI, MI and 4th OF, we dropped down to 1 Utility spot. The only other thing 2 U spots would really do for you is boost the value of DH-only guys, but that's not much of an issue.

by **raiders_umpire** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:12 am

I like that type of roster settings. ;-D

by **bigken117** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:19 pm

that's perfect as is...I play in a 16 tm with 2 C spots and finding that $1 guy who doesn't cripple you feels like a success. This season's $1 guy...Jesus Flores.