I don't like the idea. It locks you down to how the MLB is playing their guys instead of letting you play them as you like. For instance a CF can play any OF position and often play LF/RF when they get traded or have new players come to their team. I think you as a manager of your team deserve this same flexibility.
I would personally advocate a 1 CF + 2 OF approach in my league, but those kinds of decisions I think are best left to a majority of owners. I feel like mandating a CF makes it more challenging which hopefully results in it being more fun. But in the league I run, we just have 3 OF.
Last edited by dfa on Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks for the feedback. We currently have 5 OF slots, and I was proposing 1 at each slot plus 2 extra. My thinking was that guys who can play CF should be worth more, and this would give them a boost.
But after floating the idea to owners, there wasn't much interest in changing, so we're not going to do so. At least not yet.
Definitely good advice not to make changes unless you get buy-in from the group.
I can’t disagree more with the responses in this thread. My pool has, for the last ten years, separated outfielders and everyone loves it. So what if CF are scarcer than say a LF. How is that different then a good SS being scarcer than a 1B? It just adds more strategy to drafting. Does it make it more difficulty? Absolutely… but so what?!?! How can you argue that it’s too complicated to split up the outfield yet simultaneously split up the infield? What is the difference?
The fact that an CF can play either corner position in real baseball is irrelevant. I am sure many a SS can play 2B yet what pool allows that to happen?
Nice to see someone out there likes separate OF! We're not going to try it in my long-time leagues, but I do like that it gives extra value to players who can cover center.
I would say that leagues which use corner/middle infield slots do have extra flexibility. No, you can't play 3 SS in such a format (you need at least one guy to qualify at 2B). In a deep single-league format, the flex guy is often a utility player anyhow who plays enough games to qualify at either position anyhow.
I remember reading in an old Bill James Baseball Abstract that if he were assessing defense and could know just one stat about an old-time player at 3B, he'd want to know how often he played at SS.
If the web site lists LF/CF/RF, then I doubt it would be that hard to keep track of. But it does tweak relative valuation between positions.
I would find it hard to play in a league that does not do this anymore. I happen to love it. The fact that so many people think it just puts a premium on CF just shows how little they understand this (CF was actually the strongest OF spot last season) Here are some guys who had CF eligibility last year just to name a few... Hamilton, Victorino, Harper, Upton, Granderson, Trout, Kemp, Jones, Bourn, Ellsbury, McCutchen... I like it just for the added strategy element. Someone mentioned it would cause owners to do a little more research because "rankings" dont account for this... Wouldn't that be the point? If all you want is for your league to pull up some experts list and go down the paper then by all means go for it, but that sounds horribly boring to me. We use C/1B/2B/3B/SS/LF/RF/CF/OF/Util with 2 flex spots a 1B/OF and 2B/3B/SS. This is part of a dynasty auction league with a farm system. Yes our owners have to do a little more research but that is our goal. There is a lot more strategy and actually encourages more trading thanks to the position eligibility, development of farm talent, and player salaries.
TLDR; if you want more depth to your league do it, if you want to make it easier to follow "experts rankings" dont.
BDevil wrote:The fact that so many people think it just puts a premium on CF just shows how little they understand this (CF was actually the strongest OF spot last season) Here are some guys who had CF eligibility last year just to name a few... Hamilton, Victorino, Harper, Upton, Granderson, Trout, Kemp, Jones, Bourn, Ellsbury, McCutchen...
Point taken about the number of offensive stars in CF last year, but isn't that somewhat anomalous? When the AL had a young A-Rod, Jeter, Garciaparra, and Cal Ripken was still going strong, SS was a loaded position for an AL-only league.
Ultimately what matters is for valuation is replacement level at a position, not so much how good the stars are, and even last year, a replacement level corner OF contributed more on offense than a replacement level CF.
CF is not as hard as SS or C to fill, but it does take skills many offense-first players don't have.