There’s no need to be an absolutist when it comes to position scarcity in fantasy baseball. We should all be able to agree that it matters, the question is just how much it matters.

Nail your draft with our award-winning fantasy baseball tools

In the grand scheme of things, I’d say I value position scarcity a bit more than most people. I often find myself drafting top closers in innings-capped leagues (for their dominant ratios as much as saves), and I try never to get stuck with a terrible option at catcher or either middle infield spot, even if I don’t necessarily spend a first- or second-round pick on players at those positions.

But the best advice I can give about position scarcity isn’t to value it a little or a lot; it’s to consider a process for measuring its importance and then reaching your own conclusions. If you were offered a catcher who hit .300 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs or an outfielder who put up an identical stat line, you’d obviously take the catcher. But at the same time, you probably wouldn’t want to draft Gary Sanchez ahead of Mike Trout just because Sanchez is the top-ranked player at a more scarce position.

Things like league format and scoring settings certainly matter, too. In a 20-team, 5×5 AL-only league, you may want to target a catcher or closer relatively early because the alternative is taking a zero at a position or category. That’s not a concern in a 10-team mixed roto league — or in a head-to-head categories league or points league where punting saves could be a viable strategy.

Still, some overriding principles apply regardless of the league setup. So how should you approach position scarcity in your draft(s) this spring? Here’s how I do it.

First, rank the players at every position into tiers based on your league settings. This is the most critical aspect of successful drafting because it is key to maximizing value. Tiered drafting allows you to prioritize players who provide unique production at their respective positions while passing over “brand name” players at positions where you can find a nearly-equivalent “off-brand” option later in the draft. 

Next — and this part is essential when it comes to evaluating position scarcity — think about how steep the cliff is between the tiers at each position. In other words, what’s the difference in production you can expect from your first- and 10th-ranked catcher, as compared to your first- and 10th-ranked outfielder? Evaluating this “cliff” is critical because the top players at typically non-scarce positions (1B, 3B, OF, SP) often put up such elite production that they are worth drafting ahead of less elite players who are high-end options at more scarce positions (C, 2B, SS, RP).

Finally, factor in average draft position data and pre-draft rankings. The most important part of drafting is using tiered rankings to think on your feet as the draft takes shape, but I still like to go into a draft with a few different scenarios in mind for how the early rounds might go. 

If I draft infielders with my early-round picks, what kind of outfielders and pitchers can I expect to get in the middle rounds (and vice versa)? Then I look at the projected stat lines for a few of these pairings and decide which ones will give me the best total production — with the understanding that drafts rarely go exactly as planned.

To illustrate how this process can play out, let’s return to the assumption that Mike Trout should be drafted ahead of Gary Sanchez. Trout and Sanchez are sure to be almost universally ranked in the top tier at their respective positions, and many people will likely place each of them in a tier of their own. But how steep is the cliff between Trout/Sanchez and other options at their respective positions?

Here, Baseball Monster helpfully provides a metric for measuring the relative value of players in standard 5×5 roto/categories leagues compared to the rest of the league. A value of zero is league average from a fantasy perspective, while a value above 1.0 is elite.

In his breakout rookie 2017 season, Sanchez’s production in the five standard offensive categories had a relative value of 0.22, according to Baseball Monster. That was 0.55 points higher than Yadier Molina and Buster Posey, who tied for next-best at catcher, and 0.78 points higher than Brian McCann, who ranked 10th at the position. The fact that Sanchez was the only catcher with a positive (above league average) value is statistical proof that catcher was indeed a very scarce position in 2017.

Trout, meanwhile, played just 114 games in 2017 due to a thumb injury, but his average production over the previous three seasons had a Baseball Monster value of 1.49. Three outfielders actually outscored that figure in 2017 with monster seasons (Charlie Blackmon, Giancarlo Stanton, and Aaron Judge), but only one OF produced a value above 1.49 in 2016 (Mookie Betts) and 2015 (Bryce Harper). Trout’s three-year average value was also 0.87 points higher than the 10th-ranked OF in 2017, Tommy Pham.

Making these comparisons is more straightforward in points leagues. In CBS points leagues, Sanchez scored 412 points last season, which was eight more than the second-best catcher (Posey) and 140 more than tenth-best catcher (Jonathan Lucroy).

Meanwhile, Trout averaged 601 points from 2014-2016, which trailed only Blackmon, Stanton, and Judge in 2017, Betts in 2016, and Harper in 2015. Trout’s three-year average was 109 points more than the 10th-ranked OF in 2017, Christian Yelich.

So, what does all of this tell us? It shows that although Trout’s fantasy production is far more valuable than Sanchez’s in a vacuum, it’s much closer when you factor in position scarcity. 

In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that Sanchez’s production has been more elite than Trout’s relative to their positional peers. Still, there are a couple other factors that swing the matchup more decisively in Trout’s favor.

One is track record — Steamer projects a little bit of regression for Sanchez in 2018, but not for Trout. The other, more important factor is what kind of player you can reasonably expect to pair Trout or Sanchez with.

It’s early February, so we don’t have meaningful average draft position data to go on yet. However, it is safe to assume that it will require a much higher draft pick to get last year’s 10th-ranked OF (Pham or Yelich) than to get last year’s 10th-ranked C (McCann or Lucroy). 

So if, say, you want to devote a first and 10th round pick to a catcher and an outfielder in a 12-team mixed league, the choice isn’t likely to be between Trout and McCann/Lucroy on one hand and Sanchez and Pham/Yelich on the other. It’s much more likely to be between Trout and Yadier Molina or J.T. Realmuto versus Sanchez and Will Myers or Miguel Sano. Perhaps you’re expecting Myers or Sano to take another big step forward this year, but based on last season’s production, those pairings would heavily swing the matchup in Trout’s favor.

The same principle more or less applies in an auction draft. You’re just replacing first- and 10th-round picks with the auction budget equivalent.

It’s also worth mentioning that Sanchez’s impressive 2017 season was a significant outlier at the catcher position, at least in roto leagues. The gap in 5×5 value largely widens when you compare excellent outfielders not named Trout to the unimpressive second-tier options available at catcher.

In the end, a good fantasy manager won’t simply go with the player with the best overall stats or the best player at the most scarce position. S/he will consider both factors and take a close look at the numbers to determine how big an emphasis to put on position scarcity at which points of the draft/auction. Hopefully the process I’ve outlined can help you do that.

Complete a mock draft in minutes with our free Draft Simulator

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher | SoundCloud | TuneIn | Google Play

Andrew Seifter is a featured writer at FantasyPros. For more from Andrew, check out his archive and follow him @andrew_seifter.