This article is part of our The Z Files series.
It's no secret: projections are flawed. Seventy percent accuracy is bandied about, though it's not exactly clear what that means. Regardless, projection theory is not an exact science.
On the other hand, the efficacy of valuation theory isn't challenged, at least nowhere even close to the extent of projection theory. Here's the dirty little secret: it should be.
Valuation theory is very much flawed, yet so many treat projected auction prices, the resultant draft rankings and even end-of-season earnings as gospel, a static number.
The flaws go way beyond the inaccuracy of the projections fueling the algorithm-driven system. Even if projections were magically known, the resultant "value" isn't correct. Allow me to explain…
Value is the most misused term in fantasy baseball, well, all fantasy sports. Value is past tense. We don't know a player's value until after the season. Yet, many will contend a good draft or auction is all about getting value. A perceived good pick or buy is deemed a great value. After an MLB trade, everyone wants to know how a player's value will change.
I get it. I know what everyone means. Once a year I blow off a little steam and make this challenge. When you see or hear "value" in fantasy analysis, substitute "potential". Around 95 percent of the time, the statement makes more sense. The rest of the time replace it with "price". At the end of day, it doesn't matter, people know what you mean when you say "value". My point