CDG users: Do you use "force positions"?

[Phrim]

Just curious to see which has given people better results: checking "force positions" or not checking it.

[Michael@HQ]

I always check it and have difficulty understanding why others choose to not do so. (The corresponding option in RotoLab is "positional scarcity," so I check that when I use RotoLab.)

[Whistler]

Here we go again! For me, it mainly affects (and considerably) the C valuations the most, as they are the least valuable (negative value, or well below replacement) at the bottom end, especially in 2C leagues. But I know how our league values catchers, and the top hitters and pitchers, so I think adjusting values for what your league pays in general is more sensible than arbitrarily using a button to force positions and determine starting values that way. However, if your league values C like CDG with position scarcity/force positions on does, definitely use it

[Whistler]

Of course the last C in 2C leagues is worth $1, so that I believe is Micheals rationale for using it, as it distributes values according to reality in a draft. I dont use it, because in my opinion, the last catcher really isnt worth $1. At the end of the year when you do retrospective totals, if he lives up to his crappy projections, he will have earned less than $1

[Michael@HQ]

Of course the last C in 2C leagues is worth $1 ...

Glad to see we agree, Whistler. Welcome to the dark side.

At the end of the year when you do retrospective totals, if he lives up to his crappy projections, he will have earned less than $1

At the end of the year, the last C is 2C leagues is worth $1 once again. By definition, any player who should have been rostered must have been worth at least the minimum bid. The valuation situation is no different whether one is using projected statistics in March or final statistics in October.

[Michael@HQ]

Here we go again! For me, it mainly affects (and considerably) the C valuations the most, as they are the least valuable (negative value, or well below replacement) at the bottom end, especially in 2C leagues. But I know how our league values catchers, and the top hitters and pitchers, so I think adjusting values for what your league pays in general is more sensible than arbitrarily using a button to force positions and determine starting values that way. However, if your league values C like CDG with position scarcity/force positions on does, definitely use it

If one wants to use the CDG to roughly mirror the distribution of how one's own league tends to value players, then I agree to check or uncheck forced positions as you see fit. (Also, I do understand the line of thinking that "I've always unchecked force positions, I'm used to mentally adjusting catcher's values on the fly, and I feel I'm successful with it unchecked, so I'll keep doing it that way.)

Telling the CDG that you want the dollar values to be adjusted to reflect your league's positional distribution requirements is no more arbitrary than telling the CDG to adjust the dollar values to reflect an uncommon number of teams in your league or unusual scoring categories. The CDG's function is to allocate dollar values based on each user's league context.

[Whistler]

Glad to see we agree, Whistler. Welcome to the dark side.

At the end of the year, the last C is 2C leagues is worth $1 once again. By definition, any player who should have been rostered must have been worth at least the minimum bid. The valuation situation is no different whether one is using projected statistics in March or final statistics in October.

Of course I said the last C in a 2C league is worth $1. What I meant to say is the last C in a 2C league costs $1. Still requires distribution of total dollar pools as you point out.

Other way to look at it is, for the same stats, is Buster Posey a more valuable (cost more) player when he is a catcher rather than a 1B? I say no. He offers the same stats. Just means you have to, and will, get stats from other positions.

[JonE]

I always check it and have difficulty understanding why others choose to not do so.

I don't always check it, because I usually like to see what players *return* rather than what they will *cost* -- or, rather, what their *value* is versus their *price.* I know that, say, Blake Swihart and Francisco Cervelli will both cost $1 in a 15-team mixed, but it matters to me to know that Swihart is expected to return $-2 and Cervelli $-5 -- and for that matter, that Robinson Chirinos, who will also cost $1, will actually return $1.