Separate OF spots?

[RotoValue]

Does anyone have experience with leagues using separate positions for LF/RF/CF? If so, how you you work it?

I'm considering a change in a long-time NL to go from 5 OF to 1 each LF/RF/CF, plus 2 more OF of any position, so I'm curious about what you all think.

[bigmck]

I don't like LF,CF,RF. Using OF is a simpler.

[snash]

I don't like LF,CF,RF. Using OF is a simpler.

[snash]

I don't like LF,CF,RF. Using OF is a simpler.

agreed. we used the LF/CF/RF designations last year. It just add another level of complication without providing any incremental values strategically. I suggest going with the 3 OF model.

[GiantsFan14]

Does anyone have experience with leagues using separate positions for LF/RF/CF? If so, how you you work it?

I'm considering a change in a long-time NL to go from 5 OF to 1 each LF/RF/CF, plus 2 more OF of any position, so I'm curious about what you all think.

All it really does is increase the value of CFers a little more since it tends to be the most defensive and least offensive-minded OF position. Personally I don't think it's worth the hassle, but I can see why people would like using it as it adds a little more strategy and realism to the league.

[fsbarren]

We had separate outfielders in our league and it also made trading harder than it was just OFs. People still found ways to trade, but something to consider...

[RotoValue]

Thanks for the feedback. I thought it might make trading a little harder, and it would boost the value of the CF, and be more realistic. So I don't really like the former, but do like the latter. One possible option I was thinking would be to use the defensive spectrum concept: say that you can use a CF at any OF spot, or a RF at either corner OF spot, but a LF only is limited to LF. It increases flexibility a little compared to just sole position, and is more realistic (typically the CF can easily cover other spots, but not necessarily the opposite).

With that interpretation, my league had just one team that wouldn't have had a legal OF lineup at the end of last year. With the simpler one (CF is CF only, unless he's also played enough games to qualify somewhere else), there was a second team that would have needed a switch. So 8/9 teams in our 10 team league would have been fine at the end of last year....

[GibandLou]

I'm Commish of a league that counts 4 OF + 1 CF. I just figured a little complexity would add an element of strategy. CF-eligible OF's are slightly more valuable in the league than non-CF.

[mkultra]

Piling on the "bad idea" bandwagon here. The couple leagues I've played in that used specific LF/CF/RF positions were really annoying. Replacing dinged up players can be a pain, not to mention trades. Also, I would call it totally arbitrary, but there's not a lot of logic behind players gaining multi-OF-position eligibility.

The best reason not to do it, IMO, is that most projections don't take it into account. It's a whole other layer of work your managers have to do.

[pvhawkeye]

If you're gonna go that route I would recommend the flex route you mentioned with cf being eligible anywhere, corner of, and lf only etc. The way I see it, this is called "Fantasy" baseball for a reason. It's like imagining you are calling the names of big leaguers at your local ball field. Then when you have your team if McCutchen said "nah I can't play left! I would be useless there!" Even in a real world setting teams that acquire outfielders might put their best in center but I think there's at least SOME flexibility... I just use the three OF in my league

Please help with mine? viewtopic.php?f=189&t=454817
And quick trade advice viewtopic.php?f=26&t=454814