It shows which guys were full time starters (Hudson, Lopez, Polanco), which guys had significant backup roles (Kennedy, Belliard, Counsell), and which guys play multiple positions with below-replacement-level value and the Royals are currently targeting for acquisition (Rodriquez, Cora, etc).

It’s hard not to notice that Lopez has the most value. And he’s THIRTY.

There is certainly some aspect of projection that these need to include. I think I should do something that resembles a career ‘arc’ for the ones that look like decent-to-good signings, but I think there is some value in using actual production rather than projected production. Probably just another chart that shows the past 3-4-5 years along with James’ number in front.

Also a factor is the observation that all of these FAs, and probably most of them, are all over 30. James has almost all of them* declinining next season and it was my impression that this decline would be somewhat assumed.

*feel free to check my data on that one.

1. I love you.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylfaen_(typeface)
3. I like it because it gives charts a magazine look to them. If you go back and look at the Washington Nationals 100-loss/losses history chart, you can see a good example of the effect.

However, I agree that the current form of this visual isn’t the best way to look at same-positioned players. It’s confusing and, as noted by your post, easy to mistake the larger circles to mean greater range. I would love to hear feedback on how we can visualize the aspects of UZR (range, errors, etc) if you have them.

I think the best application of the visual is probably from a team perspective to show ‘holes’ in said team’s defense.

I do take exception to the idea that it is “wildly misleading” and “completely useless,” though, unless you’re just being hyperbolic. Confusing and little-added value? Maybe. Pushing mistruths with zero benefit at all? A little far.

If you just want to look at tables, there are plenty of existing outlets that do that.