2K19: Catchers in One-Catcher Leagues---Is there any point in spending?

[cavebird]

With Salvador Perez going down, there are barely any catchers worth paying for at all. All I can see is the safe and good production of Realmuto and the upside of Sanchez. Many people, especially Ariel Cohen on FG, seem to think it is very important to give a positional adjustment to catcher values. Other than the top two, in a one-catcher league, I do not see any point in giving one at all. There just isn't much of a difference between the best you can get and the worst.

For example, in my main league, it is one-catcher, 5x5 (standard), and 16-teams (roto). Realmuto and Sanchez are being kept (already under contract). I doubt anyone else is (Mejia is being kept as a rookie, free guy, but he's relatively irrelevant for these purposes anyway). Hitter inflation is 25% based on my keeper guesses for all teams, overall inflation is 16.8% (most of the great pitcher contracts expired last year). According to my program, the remaining catchers who are likely to be taken (14, I assume; I doubt anyone goes for two catchers this year) are valued between $6 (uninflated)/$7 (inflated) (Grandal) and -$3 (both inflated and uninflated) (a group from #11-16; Ramos, Gomes, Flowers, Garver, Suzuki, Barnhardt; Lucroy at -$4 might also be taken). At this point, what is the point in over-paying for Grandal, Molina, Contreras, or Posey (the only ones above $0), when you aren't really getting much more than the guys you can get for $1 at the end? I guess, I could go to $10 for Grandal given that I have to overpay by $4 for the negative three guys, but Grandal will go for far more than that, I am sure. Hell, he could even be kept for $11, although that would mean letting either an $11 Tim Anderson or a $12 Eddie Rosario go, so I am guessing not.

What does the pen think? Is it worth paying for catchers this year outside of Realmuto and Sanchez?

[harmon]

If you fill C with a Grandal then you have a shot to be productive at every hitting spot. Many years when it comes to late summer the biggest trade gains are made by exchanging a dog catcher for a good one. And, there is often an overpay for that type of trade because inevitably there will be a few teams in that boat.

If going the dog C route I think it's best to take a 100 AB guy.

[cavebird]

If you fill C with a Grandal then you have a shot to be productive at every hitting spot. Many years when it comes to late summer the biggest trade gains are made by exchanging a dog catcher for a good one. And, there is often an overpay for that type of trade because inevitably there will be a few teams in that boat.

If going the dog C route I think it's best to take a 100 AB guy.

But in a one catcher league, you can get a decent 300 AB guy like Suzuki or Flowers for $1. In two catcher leagues, it is a totally different equation, I agree---at the end there, your choices are guys who won't play and guys who you wish didn't play, lol.

[Judge Jude]

I have to say that I don't get the "one catcher" idea at all - especially in mixed leagues.

I do go back to the original 1984 Rotisserie book, which basically is the Constitution.

and a fundamental principle is, "this game is supposed to be hard."

the one-catcher mixed league plan seems to go overboard in eliminating that - make it so that other than a few catchers, there's hardly any need to even bid at all.

#tougherthepreythesweeterthekill

#curmudgeon

[cavebird]

I have to say that I don't get the "one catcher" idea at all - especially in mixed leagues.

I do go back to the original 1984 Rotisserie book, which basically is the Constitution.

and a fundamental principle is, "this game is supposed to be hard."

the one-catcher mixed league plan seems to go overboard in eliminating that - make it so that other than a few catchers, there's hardly any need to even bid at all.

#tougherthepreythesweeterthekill

#curmudgeon

I'm a curmudgeon myself these days, but honestly, what is the point, in difficulty or anything else, of having everyone roster one guy (a second catcher) who is going to suck, mostly at the same level. No difficulty is picking one of X-number of flavors of total suck.

[Ken]

I have to say that I don't get the "one catcher" idea at all - especially in mixed leagues.

I do go back to the original 1984 Rotisserie book, which basically is the Constitution.

and a fundamental principle is, "this game is supposed to be hard."

the one-catcher mixed league plan seems to go overboard in eliminating that - make it so that other than a few catchers, there's hardly any need to even bid at all.

#tougherthepreythesweeterthekill

#curmudgeon

I completely agree - if you want an "easy" league just play in a 5 team mixed so everyone can have star players at every position, and we can just go ahead and award everyone a trophy before the season starts.

I don't understand why the 1C trend caught on. I presume it is the influx of fantasy football players who want things simple.

[Ken]

I'm a curmudgeon myself these days, but honestly, what is the point, in difficulty or anything else, of having everyone roster one guy (a second catcher) who is going to suck, mostly at the same level. No difficulty is picking one of X-number of flavors of total suck.

Seems like vast oversimplification. There are multiple teams every year in every league I'm in that take two of the top 12-15 catchers instead. There's strategy involved. Also, while projections make them look all the same, there are breakout catchers annually who start out in that tier of "total suck" as you put it, but end up in the top 10.

[cavebird]

I completely agree - if you want an "easy" league just play in a 5 team mixed so everyone can have star players at every position, and we can just go ahead and award everyone a trophy before the season starts.

I don't understand why the 1C trend caught on. I presume it is the influx of fantasy football players who want things simple.

#threadhijackcomplete

FWIW, in my one catcher league, there are no participation trophies, but last place gets a plunger. Does that count? Hell, if we are going for difficult by big rosters, why not a 15-NL Only with two catchers? Everyone can have a guy who never even thinks about playing. Again, not difficult to pick between different guys who don't play enough to matter at all. Deeper does not always mean more difficult. Don't get me wrong, at a certain level of shallowness, it is just silly. On the other hand, at a certain level of depth, it is just silly, too. If you are deep enough to go into which crappy player will get more playing time because a manager, who may or may not get fired mid-season, plays more because he likes or dislikes veterans, you are just guessing. And then it is all luck and Mith is right. And after typing that, I wonder if I should quit it entirely, lol.

[cavebird]

Seems like vast oversimplification. There are multiple teams every year in every league I'm in that take two of the top 12-15 catchers instead. There's strategy involved. Also, while projections make them look all the same, there are breakout catchers annually who start out in that tier of "total suck" as you put it, but end up in the top 10.

The top 10 of catchers last year included "total suck."

[Ken]

How is it a thread hijack? We're talking about 1 catcher leagues and the viability of the 2nd catcher. My goodness, there's no need to try to censor replies just because you don't like them!

I'd love to join a 15 team NL only league. I'm in a 12 team AL only with 2 catchers, which is the traditional format, so you are only talking about 6 more. I'm not sure why you are stating it as if it were a huge problem, that roster format has been in place for literally decades and 12 team Only leagues are quite popular ( and fun ).

Every year I have a contest the night before our AL only auction with Byron Cox (RJ co-founder) on who can name the most backup AL catchers. The obscure, detailed information is part of what makes this game fun. Extremely deep leagues are a blast I'm not sure why you talk about it as if it is a negative. This game is for "junkies", not casual fans (like fantasy football)

[Erik]

Anyway, back to the original post, I play in a 1-C league and rarely spend more than $2 on my C. This year will especially be no different unless Realmuto is unexpectedly a bargain (Sanchez will be kept).

[cavebird]

The thread was about whether it was worth paying for catchers in one-catcher leagues. At least I thought it was.

That all being said, if we want to discuss it here (and threads have a life of their own, this is true), why should catcher be much deeper in a format than other positions? Let's look at a traditional 12-team only league with traditional positions. There are 24 catchers drafted, and 15 starting jobs, so 37.5% of catchers taken aren't starters. For corners and middle infielders, it is 36 starting, with 30 starting jobs, for 7.16%. For outfielders, there are 60 spots to fill with 45 jobs, for a non-starter ratio of 25%. Is there a reason catcher is special?

[cavebird]

And, fwiw, I love deep leagues, I just don't see why catcher should be deeper than other positions. I love that my main league has 6 SP and 5 RP slots---that goes way deeper than a traditional league, even an only league, in middle relievers.

[Ken]

The thread was about whether it was worth paying for catchers in one-catcher leagues. At least I thought it was.

That all being said, if we want to discuss it here (and threads have a life of their own, this is true), why should catcher be much deeper in a format than other positions? Let's look at a traditional 12-team only league with traditional positions. There are 24 catchers drafted, and 15 starting jobs, so 37.5% of catchers taken aren't starters. For corners and middle infielders, it is 36 starting, with 30 starting jobs, for 7.16%. For outfielders, there are 60 spots to fill with 45 jobs, for a non-starter ratio of 25%. Is there a reason catcher is special?

I think you answered your own question, right? 1 Catcher leagues makes it such that there are less catchers rostered than those that have starting jobs, which isn't true for the other positions. Unless you invent a new mix of positions (like MI/CI, but something including catcher), 2 is the logical choice so that all starters are rostered.

Also all mlb teams carry a minimum of 2 catchers. They do NOT have a minimum of 2 1B/2B/SS/3B, they typically use utility type players to cover those positions such that one bench bat may backup more than 1 starting spot (hence CI/MI)

[Judge Jude]

I'm a curmudgeon myself these days, but honestly, what is the point, in difficulty or anything else, of having everyone roster one guy (a second catcher) who is going to suck, mostly at the same level. No difficulty is picking one of X-number of flavors of total suck.

My NL Cs last year were Realmuto and Molina for 13 units apiece. how did I do there?
which one sucked?