As I understand it, a baseball player who performs <i>at</i> the average level is already close to being a superstar; most players are below. This is the reason baseball statistics assess players in terms of &quot;wins above replacement&quot; rather than comparison to the average -- it would be very difficult, if you fired a player, to get an average player to fill your vacancy. (You may wonder how this could be, if baseball ability is normally distributed. Baseball ability is normally distributed in the general population, but not among professional baseball players.)<p>The comment you responded to was making the point that it&#x27;s massively unrealistic to expect a team to have a win rate too far from 50% because the absolute difference in skill among all players is small (which means that the skill differences are easily overcome by random variation). Relative differences <i>between players</i> aren&#x27;t relevant to that argument; you&#x27;d need to be talking about the relative difference between the size of the absolute skill gap and the effect of day-to-day variation.