In fantasy baseball,Which is better the 1st or the last pick?

Question

i'm currently the commish of a league (MLB Fantasy Champs League) and i was wondering would you rather have the first, last pick, or right in between.

Answer 1

Really it doesnt matter where you pick in the draft. In the top 5 or 6 rounds you are virtually gauranteed to get quality players and barring injuries these guys will give you pretty much the numbers you would expect. It is the middle and late rounds of the draft where the good fantasy players seperate themselves from the rest. The ability to assess your roster and what your statisical needs are after the early part of the draft will allow the better players to draft according to their particular needs. This is when doing your homework will pay off...is it better to pick a young kid with rising potential or the veteran who has seen his numbers slide the past couple of seasons? Does an individual player get a better opportunity to do well because of the team around him (I drafted Robinson Cano last year using that theory, he was bound to at least score a lot of runs being in the Yankee lineup). So where you pick in the draft wont have as big an impact as how well you draft later and how much you pay attention to the early games to see who may be an up and comer, making the right free agent moves is also key to doing well.

Answer 2

I agree with Icy Hot. The first round picks never live up to the expectations that are expected of them. For example, Albert Pujols did not deliver up to expectations this previous year and he is now the 1st/2nd pick, depending on which Fantasy website you go to. (Johan Santana is the other one.) The middle ones are usually clutch players and deliver a nice 30 HR's which is all and more of what is expected of them. The first rounders are expected like 50 homers which is a difficult thing to do and Albert Pujols did not even make 50, just 49. Sure Johan Santana delivered as a AL Cy Younger, but that is still very rare. It is easy for middle rounders to make 30 homers and that is above their expectations. Great, huh?

Answer 3

I would always to prefer to have the first pick. The difference in value between the first pick of the first round and the last pick of the first round is always greater than the first pick of the second round and the last pick of the second round. If I had to choose between a middle of the first round pick and last of the first round pick, I would rather have the last pick since you can control things a little better (like starting positional runs) when you get two consecutive picks.

Answer 4

1st pick. Even though later in the last round you get a higher pick the all-stars are gone by then. If you get the 1st overall pick then you can choose for the best player out of all.

Answer 5

I would rather have the last pick in the first round and the first pick in the second round. Then your guaranteed 2 top players because usually someone will go off the norm and pick someone they could have waited on to draft.

Answer 6

As with most drafts, my personal opinion is that the middle picks are the most important. Too often the first picks are used to pick a "hot" player or prospect that cannot live up to expectation. Middle picks are where the surprises come from. That's where drafts are "won".

Answer 7

the second pick is usually the best. By then the overrated stars are gone and the ones that are team players are left. Players that can contribute to all categories, not just one.

Answer 8

I would have to agree that the last pick is probably the best cause you get back to back picks.

Answer 9

i think last is better. you get consecutive 1st round types.

i won last year and i picked soriano and cabrera....and the rest was history...

Answer 10

i like the middle pick.