Backup Catcher Conumdrum

[DOUGHBOYS]

An interesting topic came up in draft chat yesterday. We are nearing round 40. A drafter made this remark, "I just looked at all the rosters. Six rosters only have there two catchers. I don't like taking catchers as much as others, but isn't a backup catcher better than being dead at a position?"

Well, is it?
Last year, the most worthy backup catcher was Caleb Joseph. Other backups were used such as the Pena/Barnhart combo for Cincy. Carlos Perez got 260 at bats while filling in for the ever-underperforming Chris Iannetta.
But in those 260 at bats, Perez only had four homers, 20 runs, 21 rbi, and a .250 average.
Some of those home runs, runs, and rbi coming while on the bench of most fantasy owners.

50 round drafts with no FAAB make us coddle our teams. We draft backups to backups to cover ourselves for the injuries that are sure to come.
Catchers are to baseball, as tight ends are to football.
Easily, the most feeble hitting position year after year.
Does a backup catcher, worse than most other feeble hitting catchers worth the pick?

When coming to round 40, and having just your two starting catchers, is it better to backup your catcher or pick a fella like Mike Foltynewicz or Aaron Hill or Ryan Vogelsong?
The reckoning could be that backing up that catcher is most important.
Carlos Ruiz and AJ Ellis do little.
Even when getting playing time.
At the least, Hill and Vogelsong contributed good stats at one point of their careers. The thought in taking them is that they may be able to generate useable stats, if only for a hot month.
Also playing positions that do not take the zip from fingers, feet, and knees like catching does.

Do we take backup catchers, just to backup catchers?
Yes.
Are backup catchers better than being dead at the position?
Still, a good question.
I guess the answer would be determined in how well we drafted around those backup catchers.
If taking Aaron Hill, and Hill had a hot month in which we played him, and benefitted from five homers and 15 rbi, that would match a season's worth of statistics from a backup catcher.
If Hill or other like players drafted comes up a cropper, then maybe the few rbi/runs from a backup catcher would be better.

When we started these 50 round DC's, I convinced myself that covering myself at each position was paramount.
Since, that thinking has changed.
I will take a Folty or Hill over an AJ Ellis, even if having only two catchers.
My thinking being that having backup catchers, to me, looks good on paper.
Last year, my best DC team had a dead catcher for most of the year.
I found that my average stayed a little higher, while not missing the miniscule counting stats.
It changed my thinking coming into this year.

[King Ken]

I have often wondered whether it is better to be 'dead at the position' than to have a second catcher in your lineup that hits .215 and gives you very few counting stats. I suppose it comes down to the issue of whether the few counting stat points gained, offset the points he is costing you in batting average? isn't that the whole crux of the issue?

[DOUGHBOYS]

Essentially, that is it!

A fellow chided me that I only had two catchers on my roster after 40 rounds.
Does having Sucre, Barnes, Lobaton, or others make me feel more secure?
Not really.
The only thing worse than having to draft these players, would be having to play them.
Covering a position for the sake of covering a position is not for me.