I'm not really sure what benefit there is in your methodology in using comparative distributions for the players. Fantasy baseball is purely about stat accumulation, so it might be more prudent to value players based on how much they will contribute to your overall bottom line (based on projections in this case). Assume we have sufficient data to suggest the average 10 team league will have totals of 930 R, 235 HR, 900 RBI, 125 SB, .285 BA, arbitrarily. This is a simplification of what I've seen in various places. Wouldn't it make the most sense to equate everything in terms of scarcity, relational to runs for instance. So, every HR is worth 3.96 pts, a RBI virtually = 1, SBs 7.44 pts, etc. Avg is a different story, but it could still be worked out similarly. Wouldn't that give you the best indicator of true value for a player's production? How much of your team's final totals they'll accrue. That at least seemed to me to be the logical way of ranking players, but steals specialists came out with exaggerated values. I haven't had much time to think about it more, but I figured that the most sensible way to go.