Positional Scarcity in 2018 does it exist

[Ken]

I'm willing to do some of the research myself but thought I'd outsource some if anyone has already looked into it.

Question is, in what cases does position matter? For example, historically if you were near the top of a draft and looking at 3 players and one of them was a middle infielder then, even if they had the same exact stats, you'd boost that player up in relative value.

But should we still do that? With the influx of fantasy relevant middle infielders in recent years is it still appropriate? What does the data say?

[mjl]

iirc Zola or Fangraphs (I forget which but they're the only two non-RJ fantasy sites I read these days) thinks that the only position scarcity is at catcher now.

[Hornsby]

I've never cared about positional scarcity, a stat is a stat is a stat. If I have a weak 2nd baseman, I'll try to make the numbers up somewhere else.

If 3 players had nearly identical stats, I WOULD take the one where those stats might be a little scarcer, but I wouldn't be religious about it. A potential growth spurt or a mino red flag would be a greater determining factor for me.

[Judge Jude]

we have a lot of owners who are content to go with two 1-unit catchers, so I have owned guys like Posey and Molina numerous times.

it depends on league depth, to an extent. with this deep NL league, a star C injury leaves me with maybe 4 or 5 terrible backups as replacements - so it's a gamble. on the other hand, it's nice to see rivals with two negative-value Cs dragging down their AVG and helping little in counting stats.

at the risk of a thread hijack, I would say scarcity comes now at AVG. our worst AVG in 1994 was .265. in 1999, it was .270. even in 2009, it was .260.
but five of our 10 worst-ever AVGs (.250 or worse) have come in the last 5 years.

Posey's .320 in 568 PA last year compares to your rival Cs maybe combining for .220 or .240. that allows you to trade away AVG with the cushion you build up, and mold the standings (this is classic Standings Gains Points work).

on the other end, a 2000 team hit .299, and a dozen other teams have hit .287+. but the last team to hit .280 in this league was in 2009. now, .275 can and often does win it.

also, go the extra buck for flexibility if your league allows for eligibility after 1 G at C (ours does). Schwarber isn't really a C anymore, but one 16-inning game in early May and you can sub out a bum C for a far more effective 4th/5th OF.

[Erik]

at the risk of a thread hijack, I would say scarcity comes now at AVG. our worst AVG in 1994 was .265. in 1999, it was .270. even in 2009, it was .260.
but five of our 10 worst-ever AVGs (.250 or worse) have come in the last 5 years.

Players are now trained that walks are great and strikeouts aren't that terrible. So it's no surprise that AVG has dropped. I bet the same trend is not true for OBP.

[Redbirds Fan]

I think there is position scarcity this year, but I would be much more interested in reading what Ken thinks about it.

[Judge Jude]

Players are now trained that walks are great and strikeouts aren't that terrible. So it's no surprise that AVG has dropped. I bet the same trend is not true for OBP.

I think that's true - good point. I should stress that my "market imbalance" observation is for leagues that still use AVG instead of OBP. A modest bid for a guy who may hit .275 again used to be just ok. that player is worth more now. Prado and Kendrick have paid off nicely for me (Ethier, too) by this measure as underpriced - but they are nearing the end, alas.

[revo]

Riffing along the same topic, yes, there is position scarcity if you're using OBP instead of BA, primarily at catcher and shortstop. Second base is an issue as well, but not nearly as bad as SS. There's a major drop from the small group
of shortstops with a projected OBP over .360 to shortstops in the .310 range.

[The Dane]

I've long asserted that in leagues that allow trading (especially keeper leagues with dumping) there is absolutely no such thing as positional scarcity. In leagues with no trading (and even more so if there's no FAAB), it's a real thing, because if you're stuck with a catcher all year, it's MUCH better to have Buster Posey than Martin Maldonado.

But, since most of us have leagues with trading, it's a non-issue. If I draft two cheap catchers, I am not expecting to have them all year. Truth is, I probably end up trading away some cheap OF flier that had a hot April and May for a catcher stud. By the end of the year, I may have two great catchers.

In leagues with trading, the owners that buy into positional scarcity put themselves at a disadvantage. This isn't to say that they can't win, just that they are disadvantaged a few dollars because they are paying more for fewer stats and that is how you lose this game: paying for players that don't produce what you pay for. Planning for positional scarcity is just you accepting inefficiency in those positions, and someone who accepts none and drafts as well as you and has the same skills in foresight as you will beat you. In a game that prizes efficiency, willingly accepting inefficiency is willingly accepting some amount of defeat.

That said, in a draft scenario, if I'm getting to the bottom of a tier in a particular position, I may pay a few extra bucks to get someone I like. This is part of draft strategy and not draft preparation.

[chancellor]

Outfield. 12 to 15 team mixed league - I'm going Patel Plan this year. There's a gaping rift after the top roughly 20 OFs, IMO.

[Gregg]

I've never cared about positional scarcity, a stat is a stat is a stat. If I have a weak 2nd baseman, I'll try to make the numbers up somewhere else.

If 3 players had nearly identical stats, I WOULD take the one where those stats might be a little scarcer, but I wouldn't be religious about it. A potential growth spurt or a mino red flag would be a greater determining factor for me.

I agree with this.

I recognize that positional scarcity exists, but I try to capitalize on it rather than fight it.

[Gregg]

We may be experiencing Talent Scarcity in our NL only 5x5. There is plenty of money and a good amount of pitching at the auction. But offense is another story. There are only 9 players available in the top 50 as of today.

Blackmon, Votto, Harper, Murphy, Braun, Rendon, Cespedes, Hamilton, and Posey. They are going to be expensive.

[Ken]

Ack, I don't want to get off track. tier dropoffs are not related to positional scarcity calculations. That is certainly a topic to discuss and there are several big tier dropoffs this year in numerous categories and positions but positional scarcity is based on the additional price you should pay due to the relative value of the replacement level options available.

[Fresno Bob]

Ack, I don't want to get off track. tier dropoffs are not related to positional scarcity calculations. That is certainly a topic to discuss and there are several big tier dropoffs this year in numerous categories and positions but positional scarcity is based on the additional price you should pay due to the relative value of the replacement level options available.

this....

[Gregg]

Ack, I don't want to get off track. tier dropoffs are not related to positional scarcity calculations. That is certainly a topic to discuss and there are several big tier dropoffs this year in numerous categories and positions but positional scarcity is based on the additional price you should pay due to the relative value of the replacement level options available.

Was this a response to my Talent Scarcity post? I can't tell as it was the next one after mine.