Skin Blues wrote:I think it's pretty obvious that the point he was trying to make is that position scarcity is given far too much weight by the average fantasy baseball player. And it's a valid point. Although it's more more true in traditional roto leagues that have CI, MI, and 5 OF spots. The idea behind it is that the replacement players at each position are generally just as good (or bad) as one another. The only real exception is catcher since the 25th best catcher is usually either really, really horrible at hitting, or doesn't get many at-bats.
Well if you're going to make that argument, why talk about Hanley and not someone like Reyes, Rollins, or Phillips? Hanley's "lackluster" 2010 was a lot like Kemp's 2009 (minus 25 RBI), and Kemp was a top 7 pick coming into this year.
Rocinante2: you know Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team ofanrex: go on Rocinante2: i'm done Rocinante2: lmao
I don't know why, I didn't start the thread. The fact that he's the biggest name from one of the so-called shallow positions probably had something to do with it. Also, a lot his value comes from SBs, as opposed to pure hitters like Pujols and Miggy Cabrera.
Inukchuk wrote:Fenway's really resting his balls in a vice with this thread. Gonna be a lot of bumpage come June if Hanley puts up non 2010 numbers...
FWIW, he's top 5 in my book all day. Not quite sure where yet, though. I'll have to check with Jay...
I am not. I'm pointing out that it is POSSIBLE that Hanley is a risk when it costs a top 5 to obtain him.
Everyone is a risk that high. Utley and Rodriguez were bigger busts among top 5 picks. So were Wright, Grady, and Reyes in 2009. Hanley was ranked 15 overall this year without taking position into account, and I consider that on par or better for guys picked that high. We don't draft guys in the top 5 because they'll produce top 5 numbers, but because they're more likely to produce top 5 numbers than anyone else. They most likely won't, but that will be because every year at least a couple Carlos Gonzalezes or Josh Hamiltons or Jose Bautistas will walk in from the fifth round or later and end up in the top 10. With rare exceptions, production across the board is volatile. Just because Hanley didn't produce top 5 numbers doesn't mean it was wrong to pick him there, and just because Bautista did produce top 10 numbers doesn't mean that he should have been picked in the top 200.
Rocinante2: you know Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team ofanrex: go on Rocinante2: i'm done Rocinante2: lmao
Neato Torpedo wrote:Everyone is a risk that high. Utley and Rodriguez were bigger busts among top 5 picks. So were Wright, Grady, and Reyes in 2009. Hanley was ranked 15 overall this year without taking position into account, and I consider that on par or better for guys picked that high. We don't draft guys in the top 5 because they'll produce top 5 numbers, but because they're more likely to produce top 5 numbers than anyone else. They most likely won't, but that will be because every year at least a couple Carlos Gonzalezes or Josh Hamiltons or Jose Bautistas will walk in from the fifth round or later and end up in the top 10. With rare exceptions, production across the board is volatile. Just because Hanley didn't produce top 5 numbers doesn't mean it was wrong to pick him there, and just because Bautista did produce top 10 numbers doesn't mean that he should have been picked in the top 200.
Neato Torpedo wrote:Everyone is a risk that high. Utley and Rodriguez were bigger busts among top 5 picks. So were Wright, Grady, and Reyes in 2009. Hanley was ranked 15 overall this year without taking position into account, and I consider that on par or better for guys picked that high. We don't draft guys in the top 5 because they'll produce top 5 numbers, but because they're more likely to produce top 5 numbers than anyone else. They most likely won't, but that will be because every year at least a couple Carlos Gonzalezes or Josh Hamiltons or Jose Bautistas will walk in from the fifth round or later and end up in the top 10. With rare exceptions, production across the board is volatile. Just because Hanley didn't produce top 5 numbers doesn't mean it was wrong to pick him there, and just because Bautista did produce top 10 numbers doesn't mean that he should have been picked in the top 200.
This.
Agreed. The point of the thread was to get arguements on both sides, and we got some Katy Perry boobage as a bonus!
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Neato Torpedo » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:16 pm 
