i honestly would have been more than happy with 40/20/.300 (which is quite a bit to ask, i suppose), but considering how ecstatic i was to get him at like 7 or 8 overall (as opposed to number 3 where he went in my other league), i was due for some disappointment.
But i was really looking for some power out of that position, and my later picks of ichiro and crawford refelcted that. i guess 24's not bad
and he'll still might get to 30...
but what lofunzo said is true. the guys who have made up for this have been later-round picks like peavy and crawford, and my entire saves category is from WW scrubs, but i've still managed to scrape out 4th best, vying for 3rd. and similarly, my higher picks like teix have been productive to where i was hoping they would be, which helps keep your team on an even keel even when you get some later-round picks that just turn out to stink. (reyes, koskie)
I think a very good study (and one that i would consider doing) would be to test consistency between years for different players. this way, you can see just how useful the previous years are as predictors for future success. naturally, there will be more reliable guys and less reliable over their careers. I'm of the opinion that consistancy should be rated higher than it is. for instance, i'd be willing to take a guy that was guaranteed to put up 2nd-round pick numbers in the first round rather than a guy i thought
would put up 1st round numbers. naturally, this player doesn't exist and there is risk inherent in every selection, but if you can minimize risk, you can maximize the return on your team.
hmm. i think some one should give me money to do this.