So it looks like the reality is we don't get to see any of the inner workings of the math on this one. If it doesn't come from an outside resource it's not worked out anywhere else. And "based on league-adjusted variance" is a bit cryptic to me. Are they just assuming that the relative importance of each participant is directly proportional to the variance across the league? That seems like it would be a huge mistake, since there are a larger number of batters who are valued for a larger variety of things. This suggests that batters should always have a greater degree of variance in performance, but that doesn't necessarily imply at all that batters play the bigger role in determining outcomes of plate appearances.