The one thing I have to ask about this list, if I understand the formula correctly, the most volatile players seemed like a list of generally not very good players. Could this be because when your season stats are not that high, it's not as hard to eclipse them in smaller samples than it is for players with better overall numbers? Might this skew the results?
They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Originally Posted by Larry Schuler
He has also taught me that even when the Reds win it is important to focus on the fact that they could have lost.