Positional Scarcity in 2018 does it exist

[Redbirds Fan]

Okay, my two cents.

Historically, position scarcity is a concept which arose in connection with play in deep "only" leagues. When you are playing in a 12-team AL-only league, there aren't going to be quite enough starters to go around at every position, but it will be generally close. There will be enough such that everyone can get one decent starter and either a scrub or a decent part-timer.

Sometimes, though, the player pool is such that for whatever reason there just aren't enough decent players to go around. We talk about that as being position scarcity, when there aren't enough decent players to fill out the rosters at the given positions. It's never really an issue in shallow or mixed leagues, where there are always plenty of players who will get playing time, even if they are not as desirable.

Looking forward to 2018, one place I think there will actually be true position scarcity is the outfield. Twelve fantasy teams take 60 outfielders, but fifteen AL teams only have 45 starters. There used to be plenty of bench players and OF-qualified DHs to make up the difference, but now that MLB teams carry at least one extra pitcher, that last hitting spot on many rosters tends to go to a utility infieilder.

This is a brief treatment, but you get the idea. I think position scarcity is a concept that is often misunderstood and misapplied, similar to the way "draft inflation" is misunderstood and misapplied. But it is a real issue in some leagues and can bite you if you aren't prepared for it. JMO.

[cavebird]

I do not think I agree. While you explain a form of positional scarcity, I do not think that it necessarily has to involve a lack of starters. Say you have a relatively deep 16-team mixed league with standard positions. That leaves enough starters for everyone, but just because a player is starting does not mean that he has fantasy value. The question posited, I believe, is whether there really is any positional scarcity now in those types of situations given the recent explosion of middle infielders who are good hitters, rather than useless fantasy players who bat .260 without power or speed (the Jose Lind's of the world). In part of the discussion that was lost to the server issues, it got involved to the point where maybe there is only positional scarcity among catchers now since so few can hit.

The type of positional scarcity you describe will always exist---any time there is a league that is deep enough that you have to roster guys who barely play, there will be a scarcity at that position. The question really is whether there is significantly more depth at the traditional good hitting positions (corners, OF) than there is at the traditionally bad ones (MI).

[Ken]

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

Among a few others before you, yes.

[Ken]

We talk about that as being position scarcity, when there aren't enough decent players to fill out the rosters at the given positions.

IMO you are hitting on part of the issue. The lack of ABs available to a particular position due to numerous factors, including MLB roster construction strategies, may push down the value of the last player picked at a position. But as cavebird alludes to, ABs aren't everything.

Even in a shallow league though, if the numbers drop off dramatically near the replacement level line for a particular position (even if that replacement level is a GOOD player in MLB terms who gets full playing time), then the marginal utility you gain by drafting a player who is better than that replacement level is different than the marginal utility at another position (assuming that position's replacement level player is... to put it simply... better).

[Ken]

Let me make an extreme example that hopefully explains the point.

Lets say I'm in a league that is a 2 team league with 2 positions and 4 players total.

The 4 players are Bryce Harper, Giancarlo Stanton, Brian Dozier, and Joe Panik. And the requirement is that you play 1 OF and 1 2B

The 1.1 pick, and the highest auction value goes to Dozier.

Not because he's a better fantasy asset than Harper or Stanton in the abstract - no one would argue that. But rather because of his marginal value relative to the alternative.

Dozier + either Harper or Stanton (doesn't matter) would be the odds-on favorite to beat Panik + the other OFer.

That's why positional scarcity matters.

[Ken]

In part of the discussion that was lost to the server issues, it got involved to the point where maybe there is only positional scarcity among catchers now since so few can hit.

Yes, the example was our 17 team mixed mock draft. In that league, 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, and OF had replacement options within $1 of each other. The C had a $4 offset in this 1 catcher league and it went up to $10 in the two catcher format.
Note, this is based on steamer projections, similar analysis can be conducted with any set of projections.

[Gregg]

Among a few others before you, yes.

Thanks for replying. It gives me the opportunity to clarify. I made an off handed remark about Talent Scarcity. I do not confuse that with position scarcity. To my line of thinking Talent Scarcity is generally all about the keeper list. It can in a sense affect an auction the same way as positional scarcity but they are not the same.

[Ken]

Thanks for replying. It gives me the opportunity to clarify. I made an off handed remark about Talent Scarcity. I do not confuse that with position scarcity. To my line of thinking Talent Scarcity is generally all about the keeper list. It can in a sense affect an auction the same way as positional scarcity but they are not the same.

No worries, just wanted to get us back on track and it worked! Lots of good positional scarcity comments followed.

[Ken]

Let me make an extreme example that hopefully explains the point.

Lets say I'm in a league that is a 2 team league with 2 positions and 4 players total.

The 4 players are Bryce Harper, Giancarlo Stanton, Brian Dozier, and Joe Panik. And the requirement is that you play 1 OF and 1 2B

The 1.1 pick, and the highest auction value goes to Dozier.

Not because he's a better fantasy asset than Harper or Stanton in the abstract - no one would argue that. But rather because of his marginal value relative to the alternative.

Dozier + either Harper or Stanton (doesn't matter) would be the odds-on favorite to beat Panik + the other OFer.

That's why positional scarcity matters.

Also, this is an intriguing thought experiment since it forces you to value players outside of their traditional valuations. I wonder if you put out that exact scenario what % of fantasy players would make each choice. I suspect Harper and Stanton would each get significantly more votes than Dozier.