The easy part of average is that we know exactly what that level is: 4.8 runs per game in the recent past.

As I said, you can stick with average and ignore replacement completely. Consider that the average payroll is 90MM of which around 12MM is required minimum payroll, leaving you with 78MM to play with for an average team (.500). Presuming you allocate around 57% of your payroll to nonpitchers, that gives them 45MM to allocate for 9 full-time nonpitchers.

That means the average player will get 5MM per 162 games played. Presume for the moment that each win (free agent, arbitration, pre-arb, on average) is worth $2.2MM per win. (Plus of course every player gets his 400K minimum.)

So, this is what you get for a guy who plays 162 games:
$7.6MM +1 win above average (WAA)
$5.4MM +0 WAA
$3.2MM -1 WAA
$1.0MM -2 WAA
$0.4MM -2.27 WAA

And if he plays 81 games:
$5.1MM +1 win above average per 81 games (WAA)
$2.9MM +0 WAA
$0.7MM -1 WAA
$0.4MM -1.135 WAA

So, roughly speaking, a guy who is an average player for 162 games is equal to a guy who is +1 wins above average over 81 games. How do you equate those two with 1 number, rather than necessitating carrying two numbers (his WAA, and his games played)?

Well, if you add .014 wins per game to each player, this is what you get:
First player: 0 wins above average + .014 * 162 = 2.27 wins
Second player: 1 wins above average + .014 * 81 = 2.13

As you can see, both roughly equal. If you multiply the above numbers by $2.2MM per win, and then add $400K, you get:
2.27 * 2.2 + 0.400 = $5.4MM
2.13 * 2.2 + 0.400 = $5.1MM

And those are the numbers we got when we ONLY talked about average and never brought up replacement level.

So, both sides can go ahead and do what they want to do: use only average or use only replacement. You end up at the exact same spot.

Gooooood points I like that.

And to repeat some things….there are more replacement level players out there. Easier to get a hold of…AND you’re less likely to be distracted by the noise of individual players and easier to get a true picture.

Bullet point one: How are you defining average? Mean? Median? Mode? I don’t see how any of those are of particular value. So what if all the batting averages equal out to .280, what does that have to do with the players that are actually available? I just think the entire concept of there being some non-mythical average players out there is flawed to begin with. (As a side note, if you’re using mode, replacement level might actually be the definition of an average ball player.)

Bullet point two: Using the true baseline of talent makes intrinsic sense. In music theory it’s the bottom note of the triad that gives the chord it’s name, not some bizarre average. That’s just the way it works in nature, even tough it might seem counter intuitive at first.

Bullet point three: If you’re going to be making business decisions you need your data to be practical. Replacement level players will always be a practical option, while, finding a “league average player (again, whatever that means)” might not be realistic.

Maybe this just comes down to people looking at the world through different lenses, but again I just don’t get what the argument is here. Replacement level sets a realistic and authentic baseline… From a scientific perspective, that’s what you want.

BTW: Can we figure out Wins Over “Dude of the Street” (WODotS) next? If we figure the average MLB team wins 81 games, and the dude off the street wins 1 due to a “Bad News Bears” type scenario, we can figure 80/25 is 3.2 wins per player… or 8 wins per starter (80/10)… So is Eric Bedard really only worth 13 wins over me?? I kid… most ridiculous analysis ever.

That’s exactly the position held by Lee Sinins, so you’re not completely out on a limb, here.

I disagree because Replacement level makes more sense to me in terms of roster building, and both replacement level and average are functionally equivalent when comparing teams (though the use of average would mean everything would always add up to zero, making for easier error checking).

I think you’d have to break it up into position. If you look at first base the contributions would be almost entirely offensively (unless you’re the Mariners). If you’re looking at left field it will be heavily somewhat (unless you’re the Mariners).

Most stats that try to evaluate something like WARP or runs created do compare to a positional value, so it’s not just a general comparison.

From this could I conclude the most important (valuable) player is an inexpensive position player who produces wins above replacement level? More so than a RP or SP for that matter?

But..but…but..two Aces! Two Aces!