How many platooners on your team is too many? Ex: Rockies

[chem]

With 16 teams in the NL and 8 in your league, you should easily be able to find a reasonable everyday player at every position on your team. If one of them has a very drastic split and there's someone who could compliment them as a split then I'd consider it, but as a weekly league the advantage of that really goes out the window.

Rockies? Even worse.

The only, I repeat only, non-platoon players available on the waiver wire are low OPS middle infielders and catchers (who get frequent rest anyway). The rosters are ESPN standard (with LF/CF/RF + 2 OF instead of 5 OF), and 3 bench slots, so given 16 teams in the NL and 8 teams in the league, essentially every starting player in the NL is rostered except for the above mentioned and some rookie OFs whose roles are unclear (ie possible platoon). Frankly, anyone who has decent OPS, platoon or not, is rostered in the league.

Why all the hate for Rockies? Assuming you don't pass on superior players solely to roster them (I mean, did you read the thread? You realize I'm not talking about starting Rockies that are bench players, or having an only-Rockie team, right?). Baseball Prospectus predicts the Rockies to score 2nd most runs in the NL this year.

Anyway, thanks for the replies, but the condescending attitude in some of them is internet-lame.

[AllDay]

I have a bit of comedy going on, pretending that I'm Eric Cartman from Southpark

How about you pretend to be Kenny instead?

[chem]

I have a bit of comedy going on, pretending that I'm Eric Cartman from Southpark

How about you pretend to be Kenny instead?

Yawn.

[West]

With 16 teams in the NL and 8 in your league, you should easily be able to find a reasonable everyday player at every position on your team. If one of them has a very drastic split and there's someone who could compliment them as a split then I'd consider it, but as a weekly league the advantage of that really goes out the window.

Rockies? Even worse.

The only, I repeat only, non-platoon players available on the waiver wire are low OPS middle infielders and catchers (who get frequent rest anyway). The rosters are ESPN standard (with LF/CF/RF + 2 OF instead of 5 OF), and 3 bench slots, so given 16 teams in the NL and 8 teams in the league, essentially every starting player in the NL is rostered except for the above mentioned and some rookie OFs whose roles are unclear (ie possible platoon). Frankly, anyone who has decent OPS, platoon or not, is rostered in the league.

Why all the hate for Rockies? Assuming you don't pass on superior players solely to roster them (I mean, did you read the thread? You realize I'm not talking about starting Rockies that are bench players, or having an only-Rockie team, right?). Baseball Prospectus predicts the Rockies to score 2nd most runs in the NL this year.

Anyway, thanks for the replies, but the condescending attitude in some of them is internet-lame.

We're just telling you that if you go with this strategy, you won't win. By spreading your starters out among many teams you diversify and limit your risk. Especially in H2H, this strategy is just not logical. You can get lucky some weeks when the Rockies are hot, or at home, and other weeks you're going to get demolished. Anyway, go with what you want to, we're just pointing out the (obvious) flaws in your strategy. Don't take it personally.

[DaShiz23]

It isnt a bad strategy if your team name is 'Colorado Rockies', and every other team has a real team name and drafts their whole team.