Looking at the summary numbers in the story, Barlett’s is roughly 44.5 runs above replacement that are converted after the PT adjustment stated and the x10 factor for wins to a WAR value of 3.8. With the standard conversion of $4+ MM per win we get the “value” of the player.

But wait a minute. 25 of the 44.5 runs in the equation – about 55% of the value – are in fact the constant value of an AL replacement player? Why is this number included, if the goal is to reach the value EXCEEDING that of a replacement player. In real world salary terms, the value of a replacement player likely doesn’t exceed about $750 K – a reasonably typical average salary for FA bench fill. Using 25 from the run value above, a full time replacement level player is thus worth 25 / 10 X $4.75 MM (or thereabouts as the value constant), or $11.875 MM!

Second, there is the positional adjustment, 7.5 of Bartlett’s 44.5 total run value. I understand the premise of the positional adjustment, but the fact is Bartlett isn’t going to replace or be replaced by a guy from another position – say a C or 1B – but by another SS, who also gets the adjustment. This inherently states that any SS is on average worth .75 (7.5 / 10) X $4.75 MM more than the average player, or roughly $3.6 MM. But there should be no premium when replacing a SS with a SS – which to my feeble old school mind is a highly likely occurance.

To me, these adjustments should differ. All players should hav the inherent value of a replacement player, let’s say $750 K. Take that off the current average major league salary of, what, $2.3 MM, and value above replacement should be calculated as the average win value above replacement these surplus dollars share out to.

I’ll readily admit I haven’t gone back to see how these formulas are derived initially – my bad – so Dave Cameron or Tom Tango or some other sabermetric titan can rip me to shreds if they’d like. But there is value at replacement level – the current formula seems to ascribe all value to above replacement runs / wins. I’m leaving aside the actual calculations of replacement levels, or the adjustment factors that seem to comprise a high percentage of the value in the first place.

To at some extent, and on the surface, this reminds an old schooler like myself of voodoo economics. Again, I’m responsible for educating myself on the philosophical / formulaic underpinnings of the whole thing. And I did once review something akin to that by Cameron that made sense to me. But anybody who wants to enlighten me in a positive way have at it. RJ????

All I know is in the real world, Bartlett’s value is what he would be paid as a free agent. And baseball free agents may have about the most free labor market of just about any in capitalism. And Bartlett wouldn’t make no $20 million per.