J35J wrote:I don't think I ever fully pay attention to what my numbers look like...if I'm drafting the best players on the board at each position it should, for the most part, take care of itself....and if it doesn't then I'll make trades in season or look to pick guys up off of WW/FA to make up for it. Don't get me wrong, if I visually see my roster and I can tell I'm a little weak on SB then I'll try to grab 1 or 2 guys that has more speed than someone similarly ranked that doesn't but I don't really shoot for specific numbers...the numbers will come if you draft the best players.
Agree with the most of it, but there's a difference between best available player overall, and best availble player for your team IMO.
If you already have two 1b on a team with only one 1b and 1 Util spot to put them, than you surely don't want to draft Konerko. Rather draft a SP or CL instead, even if Konerko is more valuable.
And there are many league where trades are rare, or just don't happen. Theres a league I was able to make a trade only once. In 9 years. And not that I didn't try.
In leagues where managers are active traders it might be worth a try to draft another 1b, but Im not convinced.
TheRock wrote:1. Just because someone wrote an article about it doesn't make it true.....
Basically a plug for their products
I didn't say it's true. I said it's a good article. Might be worth a thought.
But without any explanation, your post is worth less than a though.
You merely came up with a useless phrase.
I got another one.
If someone doesn't understand something, it doesn't mean it's incorrect.
For a byproduct, it's certainly a big one.
But enough with useless phrases.
So true or not, I think everyone has to learn as much as they can, and than draw their own conclusions.
I guess they try to say that if you take the next best player as your 3rd OF with still many good options available, while a scarce postion's current tier is about to dry out, than at the end you end up with less combined numbers. And don't think only the next two picks. Think next 4-5, or more.
For me it certainly makes sense.
Or they might be saying something else, and I didn't understand correctly.