His equally ridiculous KBO stats:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=kim---001ha-

Fixed. Thanks.

Pete Fairbanks. Peter Fairchild's wife is Morgan Fairchild. Yeah, that's the ticket!

$6.

The other component of wins is good teams. Go an extra dollar or two for Dodgers, of course, and then figure out the traditional starters on other teams who will still usually go six innings for top offenses.

PK5 $5

AP4 $5

2020 5x5 $5

2021 5x5 $5

CBS $5

$1 in CBS.

(CBS + AP4) / 2 = PK5

Good job, Peter.

Which is to say my price is totally unnecessary, so I will knock it down in the March 4 update.

If they had a mulligan, CBS would reconsider.

$8 in CBS.

Great question!  Each win will become more valuable to each fantasy team as the "captured wins" decline for entire fantasy leagues.  But you will face longer odds fishing for wins. I plan to spend more of my budget on hitters and less on pitchers especially in 4 x 4.

I drafted him as a cornerstone in 2019 and as I remember he was pitiful through the first half before rallying to salvage a mediocre (for him) season.  I read much speculation as to the cause during his struggles.  I've never read the real underlying causes not the fixes he initiated to restore him to his current lofty perch atop most 2021 rankings.  Is it just "one of those things" we accept as part of the game?  Did he make technical swing changes away from his pull tendencies?  Is he a reliable cornerstone now?

$20 in CBS.

I'm guessing that this is a case where a player that two teams targeted was nominated early, most likely by another team that was hoping there would be a bidding war.

The team that nominated him had to be very pleased.

Scott White, who won the bidding war, might end up being pleased. Edman is fully capable of meeting Peter's projection and then some. But I doubt he was happy about Edman's price.

If I'm right, the team that nominated him was quite happy. So were most of the others in the zoom room. Every dollar that Edman went past their own bid limits meant a dollar less to spend on players they wanted.

$3 in CBS.

Every year the CBS leagues act as if they have keepers, even though they don't. By spending so lavishly for the best players, they run out of money long before the end game. Foot soldiers like Adam Eaton inevitably cost less than they do in more disciplined leagues.

With that warning, the CBS prices definitely tell us something. If Adam Eaton seems like a great bargain in CBS at $3, he's likely be a medium bargain in other leagues. I doubt you'll have to pay the $9 or $10 that Peter and I have as our stopping points.

Only in leagues with extensive freeze lists (that is, extreme inflation) will you have to pay what Peter's projection is worth in my formulas, and the projection almost predicts injury.

Barring a really bad injury, Eaton bring a profit.

Note the plans for the minor leagues.  AAA will start the first week of April, all the others not until May.  That's an indication of the importance teams will place on the Majors-AAA shuttle.  The Gammons piece points out the increased value that pitchers with options remaining (which you can see on the Roster Resource depth charts) will have.  As far as valuing wins, I think you add dollars to the top, older starters, subtract some from the younger and lesser starters, and instead of just filling out your staff with closing prospects, speculate on a middle reliever or two from the better teams.  

Glad you didn't!

As I just posted under an obscure Tampa middle reliever (Cody Reed), we have no idea where wins will be coming from if the game keeps moving in the direction it's going.

I think I'm fine with that. If the best way to maximize run prevention is to have many more pitchers pitching many fewer innings, that's what teams will do and should do.

I'm fine with it, I really am. But I never thought I'd agree with Ron Shandler that wins shouldn't be a category.  

I hadn't (and haven't) read the Gammons piece, but that's enough to give Reed a $2 bid for AP4 in the first update.

I wouldn't put it past the Rays to be plotting a total revolution in the way the team navigates through nine innings. Maybe eight pitchers who alternate between the first three innings and the next three innings -- it really doesn't matter who goes first on a given day, what matters is that the tandem gets at least three days of rest after that -- with another five or even six pitchers responsible for the last three innings in every game.

Yesterday I speculated in Notes for Masochists that starting pitchers this season won't even face 50 percent of the total batters faced. That might be too much of a jump from one season to the next. But it could easily be the case in 2022. Taken to it's logical conclusion, starters will account for roughly a third of the innings each year.

Agree with the doctor. Wins are more valuable, but the projector less reliable. If you as the final authority aim for accuracy, then you may have to reduce the price for each win that is projected. However, in the SGP method, everyone is in the same boat. So, perhaps you leave the value alone. And perhaps I should have killed this post, but I decided what the hell. 

My first thought is that wins would have the same value.  But with them being harder to find the predictability of wins is obviously even less accurate than usual and thus the error bars or confidence intervals (if we used such things) of predicted earnings this year for pitchers would be larger. 

Then I thought if a greater % of wins comes from non-rostered pitchers, or pitchers on fantasy benches, there could indeed be less wins in the fantasy standings which should make them more valuable, because in that sense they could be more scarce.

So, more valuable but harder to predict is my initial take on it.  As for the formulas, no idea. 

Gammons latest piece in the Athletic has Tampa thinking this guy can go 2 innings three times a week.  That's basically starters innings, with potential for double digit earnings.

That projected batting average is what my formula spit out, I think based on his career expected batting average and his BABIP regressing to the mean. But looking at it more closely I'd say the BABIP correction is a little overzealous. He should be more a .260 type hitter going forward.

My comment about him mentions age and slowing hands leading to more strikeouts, more homers and fewer hits. That too is a possibility. His projected BA last year was .242 and his strikeouts went up, but so did his walks and his launch angle got lower, not higher, so for now I'd look for a return to normal.

Both Peter and Alex similar bids for Moustakas.....Peter is the significant spike in projected BA ( .273 )  due to maybe a full season in Great American Ballpark ?....Alex your comment in the mag last year was " He will be a great American "....I am banking on that and the Batting Average for this year ?