Planning a 9-cat auction drafts? Looks like premium forwards are a scarcity
For fantasy managers planning an auction around position depth, I mapped where there are lots of alternatives and where the player pool gets thin.
Setup: 12-team H2H 9-cat, no punts, 13 roster spots, $200 budget, top 180 players by projected full-season Rank. The auction values are based on our own projections + auction pricing models, which aim to produce "how much a player is worth based on his production relative to the rest of the fantasy pool"
Core findings (G = guards, F = forwards, C = centers):
| Modeled value | Guard | Forward | Center | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $70+ | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| $60–69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| $50–59 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| $40–49 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| $30–39 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 19 |
| $20–29 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 |
| $10–19 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 24 |
| $6–9 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 9 |
| $2–5 | 15 | 8 | 9 | 32 |
| $1 | 28 | 24 | 17 | 69 |
| Total | 76 | 53 | 51 | 180 |
Main takeaways:
- The $30+ pool has only 7 primary forwards, compared with 19 guards and 10 centers.
- The $10–29 bands have 13 forwards and 12 centers, alongside 9 guards.
- The $1 band holds 69 of 180 players (about 38%): 28 G, 24 F and 17 C.
How I’d use this: Plan on your spending - stars and scrubs, balanced mid-tier build or something else? Build backup lists by both position and value tier. A large lower-value pool gives you more room to pass on a player early on, but those players may not replace the categories or production of a missed premium target.
These are modeled values, not expected auction prices or suggested bids. Your category build and your room’s prices still matter.
Full chart: https://imgur.com/a/41Xmudv
When a position looks thin in your preferred tier, do you prioritize it early or stay flexible and work through your backups?
