Why is it that there is a MI position but not a corner infield position? I feel like this increases the value of 2B/SS while decreasing 1B/3B value. It usually puts me in a position of having to play a 1B or 3B in the utility spot which makes it less fun. I know a few others in my league have expressed a similar opinion, so I wanted to know if it would be possible to add a corner infield spot at some point. Or to remove the MI spot and make it a second utility?
I wonder if w/ 5 OF spots and no MI or CI, the UTIL spot normally gets used by first basemen and third basemen anyway. That’d be my guess – In my 3 OF leagues, corner infielders are often a good UTIL choice. I imagine they’d be the best UTIL choices w/ 5 OF leagues.
If that’s the case, the MI position forces people to use another MI in their lineups rather than just leaving a ton of MI players on the bench or waivers.
1 Like
I can understand that they make people pick up middle infielders and that corner infielders are more valuable, but what is the reasoning between forcing us to use middle infielders everyday, and limiting our use of corner infielders by forcing us to use them in a slot where we could play any position.
To get a better idea, I compared points per game by MI vs CI. I took the p/g data of all 2B/SS and 1B/3B, excluding any players that overlap (ie play either 2B/SS and 1B/3B). Doing this I got the following results:
1B/3B 2B/SS
Q3 6.22 5.82 (75th percentile)
Mean: 5.58 5.10 (50th percentile)
Q1 4.85 4.38 (25th percentile)
Why should I be forced to play a worse player (on average) everyday and have to use my utility spot to play another CI? It arbitrarily makes MI more valuable because you have to play more of them on a given day, even though they give worse points / game.
I’m sure @nivshah can comment with more depth, but I suspect the reason for MI spot instead of the CI spot is because most MLB teams carry a utility man that can play MI as a priority over a backup 3B or 1B.
2 Likes
Most of you nailed this, but since UTIL tends to be filled by a CI spot, in 12-team leagues with a UTIL and a MI and 5OF, OF and MI and CI are all set up to use about 60%-67% of ML starters.
60 OFs in a 12 team league, 90 starting OF jobs in MLB, 67%
36 MI in a 12 team league, 60 starting MI jobs in MLB, 60%
36-ish CI in a 12 team league, 60 starting CI jobs in MLB, 60%…ish
Comparing P/G at MI to P/G at CI is not the right way to think about it, because real major league teams can’t just not play a SS. Well, I dunno, I’m sure Joe Maddon will find a way.
4 Likes
I look at us being “forced” to play more MI as adding more strategy to the game. Defensive value already is ignored so the positions add at least some of that into consideration.
If there are not enough good MI in the league for 12 teams to play 3, it increases the value of the best. With more offensive value throughout the CI crop, the value is more uniform from top to bottom.
2 Likes
This makes more sense. Thanks for the reply everyone. Definitely made me feel at peace with the MI position now.
1 Like
why does Ottoneu have a middle infield (“MI”) lineup spot but no corner infield (“CI”) lineup spot
I’m expecting a crowdsource reply well before Niv gets to this
ok…additional research seems to suggest the MI is complemented by the UTIL lineup spot
sorry to trouble y’all
2 Likes
Does anyone know why there is no corner infield lineup spot? Since there is a middle infield lineup spot, it would only make sense there should eb a corner infield spot as well.
unless something has changed, i see the answers/replies from a few years back when others posed the same question.
1 Like
I just wanted to raise that I’ve been thinking over this logic and while I think it made sense pre-universal DH, I think it’s now potentially slightly out dated. This logic worked when there were only at most 15 Util only players, but with now many teams having dedicated Util only players, I count 8 Util only players for next season, and that number likely increases further out we get from universal DH being added (detailed below for reference). This is now eating into the use of CI player at Util roster logic and therefore lowering the % utilized of CI player to below the previous threshold you were targeting.
Util Only players this year - 4 - [Stanton(IL), Ozuna, Joc Pederson(listed but won’t count because likely not being started), Yoshida, Ohtani (hitter), JD Martinez (not counted, retired?)]
New Util only players if season ended today - 4 - [Kyle Schwarber, Rafael Devers, Seiya Suzuki, Brent Rooker, Josh Bell(not counted because might not be a starter in 12 team), Kris Bryant(not counted)]
Util only players potentially in future - 7 - [Yordan Alvarez, Christian Yelich, Yandy Diaz, Anthony Santander, Kyle Manzardo, Jorge Soler, Andrew McCutchen)
1 Like
I cannot tell if you are advocating for an additional starting lineup spot (for CI) or if you want the Util spot changed to CI.
I also do not understand the point of identifying Util-only players. “Util” may as well read “DH” - any player can play there, not just those that are Util-only. And that seems to be due to the real-world strategy many teams use: cycle other starters through that spot.
The purpose was that the previous argument for why there was no CI was that essentially CI players would be utilized in the Util spot most likely bringing the total usage of all players to around the same. My counter point was that now with the universal DH, many of those Util spots are being utilized by Util only players, thus lowering the usage % of the CIs as compared to the previous argument.
Overall suggestion was that the inclusion of a CI spot should be reconsidered given the shift in roster usage across MLB and therefore the impact to fantasy baseball positions.
Not sure I agree with this, or that it matters. Even before the universal DH, DH only real-world players existed: see Edgar, David Ortiz, and many other C, 1B, corner OF types that transitioned to mainly DH duties later in their careers; Frank Thomas, Jim Thome.
All that aside, even with the universal DH, there hasn’t been a drastic increase in bat only players. There are not 30 Util-only players because teams are not required to dedicate a DH-only player, and because (I believe) teams value more well-rounded players. Many DHs have other positions they play regularly. That isn’t as true for the other spots, because as Niv said earlier, teams cannot choose to not play a SS (or any fielded position for that matter).
I for one think the current balance around how to use the Util spot is right on: roster another defensively limited 1B, 3B, DH type, or seek out more positional flexibility?