Add new comment

And its not just 'one' of the most advanced metrics but one whose results are somehow shoehorned into an equally shaky run value, win value, and phony baloney $20 mil. worth of value by very good, but still young Cf.  
Why is it that the basis for many new stats was to question old school descriptions of events but they are so dogmatically defended and taken for truth when the reality may be far different?  Why can't these metrics be questioned?  And especially when you have steady input data by players ( and guys rarely just fall off a cliff defensively) yet wildly different year to year results?  Why should I take three years worth of inaccurate season numbers and assign relevance to them in aggregate? 
I'll answer my own question:  biggest contract players by a group are plodding, slugging, LF's.  Carlos Lee, Soriano, Ibanez, Bay, Ramirez, Dunn etc.  Mostly or all poor fielders that can be replaced at 70% offensive production with better fielders for peanuts, right? Wrong, that 30% production is the premium for winning at that position.