My complaint is that some people who aren't actually in baseball front offices look at things like war and surplus value and act as though they are very precise measurements that no one would deviate from much.
I don't think that is true at all.
The value of having an ace or a elite hitter is much greater to a team's winning chances than the surplus value of having a reasonably price mid rotation piece or slightly above average hitter for an extended period of time.
Sure this figures help visualize long term roster management a little bit better perhaps but ultimately the game is at some point more about winning and the beat players than it is maximizing value over an extended period of time.
Rosters are going to fluctuate and values will be recalculated and redistribute bytes over time. And sometimes sacrificing a year or two is the move.
I just think there is a false sense of certainty about the accuracy of numbers at times as well as a lack of vision as to what the actual game requires.
Particularly projects of minor league players. Don't tell me about Abies surplus MLB value before he's completely mastered AA. For example.
