Add new comment

I think you're likely correct, Matt, (to a degree), that WAR (and its ilk) are calculated linearly, when in too many cases, Baseball doesn't behave linearly.
That said, I think one of the reasons that any quasi-exponential behavior is going to be hard to track in this arena is that if in MOST cases, the uber-ace PREVENTS you from getting replacement level talent elsewhere, those sacrifices will likely limit overall wins.  Paying to get AROD - who I'm certain would've been a super-marginal SHORTSTOP at the time, hammered Texas so badly economically, they spent the rest of his tenure bailing water from the multitude of submarginal leaks.
This is one of the reasons I flinch at the idea of STARTING rebuilding plans with high dollar payouts. 
But, this, I believe, is the general problem with most of the mass populace studies in baseball.  The center will ALWAYS overwhelm the edges.  And when you're specifically talking once-in-a-generation performances, they are by definition outliers. 
That said, I believe that in baseball, the actual dollars paid out by the market to the uber-kings is very likely MORE than their actual value, (even with regard to their potential quasi-exponential impact).  They get the money, NOT because they improve results that much, (how many rings for the Yanks with AROD?).  But, they do, very measurably, impact attendance.  From a business standpoint, superstars are super.  From a winning games standpoint, I tend to believe their value is overstated by the very nature of baseball - which limits the impact ANY individual can possibly have on the final results.
Granted, SPs are a unique category.