The first one didn't work so well, after I realized that penalizing walks was illogical. So here's the new formula:

{[(PA - K - GIDP) / GP] x [(XBH + SF + BB) / H]} / OBP

I will also be using the Rotochamp projected lineups for each team, rather than MLB.com depth charts.

The inclusion of on-base percentage helps in determining productivity, as well as the positive weighting of walks and sacrifice flies, in addition to the negative weighting of double plays grounded into. Because of the new formula, results will look much different; the results now vary much higher and lower, and because of the small samples I ran, I have no clue whatsoever what a plausible average will be.

So, let's begin with our Angels!

1) Erick Aybar (SS): {[(590 - 73 - 9) / 162] x [(34 + 30 + 3) / 148]} / .318 = 4.47

2) Bobby Abreu (DH): {[(699 - 127 - 11) / 162] x [(65 + 103 + 6) / 174]} / .400 = 8.65

3) Kendry Morales (1B): {[(601 - 100 - 19) / 162] x [(63 + 42 + 5) / 159]} / .336 = 6.12

4) Vernon Wells (LF): {[(693 - 89 - 17) / 162] x [(68 + 47 + 7) / 178]} / .329 = 7.54

5) Torii Hunter (RF): {[(653 - 115 - 18) / 162] x [(63 + 47 + 4) / 164]} / .332 = 6.72

6) Howie Kendrick (2B): {[(646 - 103 - 16) / 162] x [(56 + 25 + 4) / 179]} / .327 = 4.72

7) Alberto Callaspo (3B): {[(597 - 45 - 18) / 162] x [(42 + 41 + 5) / 153]} / .327 = 5.80

8) Peter Bourjos (CF): {[(613 - 127 - 6) / 162] x [(51 + 19 + 3) / 118]} / .237 = 7.73

9) Jeff Mathis (C): {[(525 - 139 - 4) / 162] x [(29 + 39 + 6) / 92]} / .265 = 7.13
STARTING LINEUP AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY RATE: {[(624 - 102 - 13) / 162] x [(52 + 44 + 5) / 152]} / .319 = 6.54

Something tells me there is either something severely wrong with my math, or Erick Aybar is worth less than we take him for. Please, correct me if I did something wrong, because I ran Mathis' stuff four different times, and the same dreadful result came up. There's no way Mathis is more "productive" than Callaspo, Kendrick, Torii, Aybar AND Kendry. Not a chance. So please, someone tell me that my math is wrong here. I expected Jeff to be somewhere in the threes. But, aside from that little debacle there, next year looks decently productive.

If I don't have to revise this formula again (which I think I will eventually do, until I can finally reveal Mathis' hideousness), I'll do future installments on Texas and Oakland, and where the Angels would rank amongst them. Until then...someone please prove to me my math on Mathis was wrong.