Actually, I can see some possible validity to your point.

If we have 6 people in the league, and the difference in point toals between the 5th and 6th best RPs is 100 points, while the difference between the 1st and 6th best position players is only 20 points, you could be right.

But that's not the fault of the scoring system.

That's the fault of the close equality between position players and the huge gap in quality among RPs.

Any reasonable scoring system that we devised would more or less produce the same results, wouldn't it?

If there's a position where the best guy is worth, say 400 points (where an A rod or Pujols is worth, say 700) and the second thru 6th best are worth only 200-300, you'd be better off with that 400 point guy than a Pujols who may be worth 700 if the 6th best first baseman is, say, Delgado and he's worth 650.

But I guess we'll leave everyone's draft strategy to themselves.

The scoring system that I came up with values the players in their correct place on the "spectrum" (IMO), so to speak, and if you want to talk about the valisitiy of that, I'll be happy to.

The very best offensive players are worth the most, then come the best SPs, then come the best RPs.

The best SPs are more valuable then the "second tier" offensive players, the seond tier offensive guys are better than the second tier SPs, and so on.