Maxmizing AB vs. Losing BA

I think I missed this question from NSH back in late May because I was on my way to the hospital to meet kid #2. Sorry about that...I'll never have a child again.

Mike, I am seeing something I never would have expected. A 10 team AL only 5x5 where at least three teams (all in some sort maybe money spot or contention) willing to go with pretty much an absolute zero at catcher (one is the first place team and they get a pass since they are running away with this without any catcher to speak of at all). I would have thought that guys like John Buck would have some value. Are you seeing a similar devaluation of second catchers? The thinking appears to be that a catcher hitting .220 with 90 ABs is worse than a catcher hitting .220 with 40 ABs - leaving aside that guys like Buck do get counting stats. The math can't be so, can it? Not a math guy but .220 in 90 ABs vs. 40 can't drop your BA that much, but the RBIs could help, even just by playing more.

NSH's instincts are correct. Right now, there are 27 catchers in the American League who are on pace to earn $1 or more, using my adjusted Alex Patton formulas for 2009. Even a batting average cipher like Taylor Teagarden makes money. Although his .193 BA in 119 AB means he's on pace to lose $4.08 in BA, his 4 HR ($1.73) and 19 RBI ($2.8) make him marginally profitable...albeit at a meager 45 cents.

The calculation changes a little bit for a 10-team league, but you still do want hitters who are going to move the chains.

In dump leagues, this is even more pressing, since you should be trying to have a productive hitter at every position. The first place team in my A.L. has John Buck and this leaves him at a bit of a disadvantage compared to his opponents. Up until our trade deadline, I had Brandon Inge and Miguel Olivo behind the plate. This hurt my batting average, but 37 HR and 101 RBI from my two catchers in a deep A.L.-only league put my in an advantageous position compared to my competitors.