Qualitative Category Value

Last week, I wrote about how most free agents are weak options, particularly in the early going. Someone wondered how Kory Casto could be on that list.

Wait, Casto was triple A in 2007, only up and played ten games?

The Patton software says he played 14 games, but 10 could be correct. He went 7-for-54 (.130) with three RBI.

And, in 4x4, that made Casto worth ($2) in 2007.

The qualitative categories are different than the quantitative categories. In the Patton formulas, you can't move below $0 in HR, RBI, or SB, but you most definitely can in BA. A hitter who goes 0-for-1 loses four cents. That sounds like nothing, but if you have a hitter go into an 0-for-20 slide, he has lost you 85 cents.

Not everyone agrees with Patton's theory on batting average. Patton takes the Rotisserie League average (for the N.L. last year it was .275) and sets that as the baseline. Any batting average above this makes money while any batting average below that loses money. Other touts disagree, saying that a Rotisserie League's poorest team average should be the baseline, since you are gaining points in your league for every notch you finish ahead of the poorest team.

I take Alex's side in this argument. In his formulas, when you factor in the average leagues, batting average is worth $0. If you use the other method, a dollar value must be assigned to the batting average. I don't know how to compute that, and I'm not about to do the math to espouse another tout's viewpoint.

There's a third theory that grades hitters on all categories on the curve. A hitter with no stats is worth a negative amount of money, and must put up a certain amount of stats to even be worth $0. Rototimes' player evaluator operates using this methodology. Enrique Cruz's 0-for-1 was worth ($0.04) in Alex Patton's formula. Rototimes says he lost $2.62. That's a significant difference, but it's not tied so much into Cruz's batting average as it is into the fact that he simply didn't play and is getting dinged for that.

Whether you believe in Rototimes' theory or not, it is true that a hitter who sits on your active roster and doesn't play is most likely going to hurt your efforts to win. The argument, then, is less about a Kory Casto or an Enrique Cruz and more about someone who contributes something in one category and hurts you in batting average.

Ramon Martinez earned $0 last year according to Patton. His 27 RBI and his .194 batting average pretty much canceled each other out. Rototimes doesn't agree. They say Martinez lost $4. Four dollars doesn't sound like a lot, but that's a huge difference of opinion when it comes to pricing, particularly for a scrub like Martinez.

In both cases, you really don't want Martinez. But using Rototimes' values, you want him much, much less.