Posted by contrarian23 on 8/31/2015 8:54:00 AM (view original):
I literally never cut a player for perceived underperformance.  

I think hitting .200 is not perception

I think what contrarian is referring to as underperformance is different from others are referring to. It was noted earlier that Davis's average AVG in the performance history is around .340. Based on the binomial distribution, the standard deviation for AVG @ 80 PA for a player whose true talent level for AVG is .340 is .053, meaning one would expect 95% of all times used the player should have an average within 2 SD, which would be between .234 and .446 (simply due to random variation without regard to league environment). So, yes, this is on the low end, but it's still possible. I'd call this the bad luck of random variation. Changing players isn't going to change one's luck. There are (still?) some who assert that each player is coded with a random bump up or down--that not all versions of the same player are created equal. There would be no need for the SIM to code that in due to the already present fluctuations of random variation.

Well, I think certain players will do better in certain leagues, since it's all about matchups. And the old what if factor itself. When we draft someone, we have no idea what pitchers or ballparks the other owners are gonna choose. And when I see what a player's performance history is, I have no idea how many times the guy has been played in what ballpark & by what owner. That affects everything, as different players are going to do better or worse based on what ballpark they're in & how they're used.

True, but all of those factors should be relevant to your decision to draft him. You should have drafted him in a situation that works for him, at least with regards to variables you can control such as your own ballpark and supporting cast.

Well that's true. Based on his attributes being similar here & there with guys I typically draft, I thought he would be a good fit. And he may well be yet.