Im in a bit of a pickle now that I have the 4th pick overall in a 12 team league. The reason I would rule out Vlad is because there is so much OF depth, but hes still a monster. Tejada and Soriano look great because they have so little depth at their position, and Helton could be an option too, but I doubt it. What does everyone think I should do? Please give me some advice...
AI8818 wrote:I think it might be roto, we havent decided quite yet. But I dont see why Tejada shouldn't be considered. Am I missing something?
wow. you should probably figure that out.
i'd take vlad in a heartbeat assuming the typical 5x5 category scoring. incidently, i'd take him ahead of beltran and arod, too. helton would be my 2nd choice.
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"
"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
George_Foreman
General Manager
Posts: 4351
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi
I'd definately go with Vlad. Thinking back on the kinds of teams that have won the leagues I've been in , and after reading this article:
Q: I was wondering if there are any articles or your thoughts on the idea of position scarcity and do you use it or discount it in terms of auction format? For example, in my league, catchers routinely go for almost double the projected dollar amounts from your Fantasy Domination Ranking Sheets.
A: I actually used to believe in it and was even a proponent of it until around the mid to late 90's when we did a study on several hundred (and subsequently within a few years, several thousand) real fantasy leagues worth of data. What we found was that with perfect hindsight, position scarcity simply did not work and it wasn't even close. I know there are readers who disagree with me on this and I've heard the many good arguments on the other side but a home run is a home run whether your catcher hits it or your first baseman hits it. One argument goes that you should pay more for the catcher because he gives you more production out of a spot from which you normally wouldn't get much production. In real baseball, this is absolutely true and I'm completely a believer in real baseball position scarcity value but it's because the player makes a defensive contribution that doesn't exist in fantasy baseball.
When we did this analysis on the many fantasy leagues, we tried drafting based on inflating prices for players at weak positions and we did it with perfect hindsight, knowing exactly how players would perform. We even knew, with perfect hindsight, exactly how weak each of the positions really were. We had the computer simulate billions of drafts using these many leagues of data and with a third of the teams doing absolutely perfect position scarcity analysis and valuation and the rest of the teams ignoring it. Even with perfect hindsight, the position scarcity teams dramatically suffered in the standings, often ending up with middle-of-the-road teams that got reliable production out of the weak-hitting positions like catcher and second base, but suffering overall because it either had to try to find bargains at the good-hitting positions or because it ended up paying more for the production of the 20 home run catcher as an opposing team paid for the 20 home run outfielder. If the positions are weak, then it's okay to fill them, on average, with weak hitters. If you get lucky and can buy Alfonso Soriano at the same price you would have paid for him to fill your DH spot, great. If not, you move on and accept it.
After that study, and the sequel to it, which had even more data to work with, it seems hard to believe that I used to believe in this idea in fantasy baseball and I know there are many people who still do. It doesn't work for me and I've tried all of the valuation adjustment methods out there, both using hindsight analysis and for forecasting. The most common argument I get is that the guy who does pay more for the 20 home run catcher says that "it's easy to fill a roster with good hitting outfielders late in the draft" and I argue otherwise. They're only good in terms of a distorted perception based on the real baseball population rather than your actual fantasy population.
I can tell you that this is an area I know I differ on compared to some other fantasy experts and perhaps they're right and I'm wrong. My analysis tells me it's a good way to finish around the middle of the pack and if I'm wrong about that, then somehow I've found fantasy success most of the time by doing otherwise. If you believe that a home run from your catcher is worth more than a home run from your first baseman, then you are very much on the other side of this debate from me. At least you know where I stand.
...I don't think in category based scoring formats that positional scarcity should impact evaluation of players across positions. Give me a team loaded at the corners and let the positional scarcity folks try and catch me. When Vlad hits a homerun for your team, it will count as one homerun in the standings. When Tejada hits a homerun for your team, it will count as one homerun in the standings, and so on. Tejada will produce more than other shortstops, but Vlad will also produce more than other outfielders.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by AI8818 » Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:32 pm 
