How is it that a $40 player earning $40 will contribute more stats?He cites the example of Ryan Howard versus Casey Blake, which you can read more about by clicking the link.
Blair's comment is based on a very poorly worded sentence in my last post, where I wrote "Getting $40 of stats from a $40 player is better than getting $20 of stats from a $20 player; you're buying more stats."
Blair's point is absolutely fair, and I should have been much clearer. If you're using the Alex Patton $ valuation system, there isn't a reward for being at the top of the pricing food chain. Some pricing systems actually do reward players at the top of the food chain by making each quantitative stat within the top 10-15% worth more. But I don't advocate this method.
What I was attempting to say is that when you lock $40 worth of stats in to your team, you're locking in a much higher percentage of the statistics you need to win in one player. If the top players were as reliable or less reliable than everyone else, this wouldn't matter so much, but historically the most expensive players generally return more money on the dollar than almost everyone else until you get down to the $1-3 players at the bottom of the heap.
So that's what I was trying - and failing - to say. The "Cadillac" players don't magically earn more with every home run they hit after their 30th, run they score or drive in after their 100th, or bag they steal after their 20th. But there is an advantage to locking in $30+ into one player on your team if you can do so based on historical trends of reliability in these types of players.
I hope this clears things up for you, Blair...and to anyone else I confused with my poor word choices last time out.
No comments:
Post a Comment