The NFBC Zone

[Tom Kessenich]

Todd Zola takes a look at this year's ADP and examines who's providing value and who isn't.



http://www.mastersball.com/index.php?op ... le&id=1353

[Spyhunter]

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Todd Zola takes a look at this year's ADP and examines who's providing value and who isn't.



http://www.mastersball.com/index.php?op ... le&id=1353 Interesting, but Todd, I have to disagree that you don't adjust at all for position scarcity. Getting $27 out of your 2b is worth more than $27 out of your OF...

[ToddZ]

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

quote:Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:

Todd Zola takes a look at this year's ADP and examines who's providing value and who isn't.



http://www.mastersball.com/index.php?op ... le&id=1353 Interesting, but Todd, I have to disagree that you don't adjust at all for position scarcity. Getting $27 out of your 2b is worth more than $27 out of your OF... [/QUOTE]Intuitively, yes,. But it really depends on your definition of scarcity.



With the caveat that we really cannot do this analysis until the end of the season...



Here is my "definition" of scarcity. Given that we move guys in and out of roster spots all season which skews this analysis, I look at the top 210 hitters, without adjusting for positions. This is 15 teams times 14 roster spots. I then look to see if these top 210 players can fill 15 "legal" rosters.



When the NFBC first started, if you did this exercise, you would indeed be short some middle infielders, hence these were "scarce" positions.



But for the past two or three seasons, if you did this, you found ample players AT EVERY POSITION except catcher. I am not talking about the total of production at each position or the drop-off of talent in tiers. All I am saying is using the MI, CI and UT positions along with having a bunch of players with multiple eligibility, you could fill 15 legal rosters expect catcher.



Here is the breakdown at the halfway point this season, without adjusting for position:



C - 21

1B -30

3B - 20

2B - 25

SS - 26

OF -85

UT - 3



So we are short 9 catchers, as expected. Catcher is still scarce.



To adjust, we knock out the 9 lowest valued players and add 9 catchers, making the list:





C - 30

1B -30

3B - 20

2B - 22

SS - 24

OF -81

UT - 3



There are ample 1B/3B to fill 15 rosters, with 5 playing UT.



There are ample 2B/SS to fill 15 rosters, with 1 playing UT.



There are ample OF to fill 15 rosters, with 6 playing UT.



So by this definition, NO POSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT IS NECESSARY AGAIN, at least so far.



I know it is against one's intuition, but in terms of RAW VALUE, the same stat line from a 2B is worth the same if it came from an outfielder or 1B, etc.



This does not mean you do not adjust BID values, or draft rankings. There are strategic reasons to do that. but in terms of converting current production into a dollar value, no positional adjustment is necessary.