Without commenting on what John Buck’s future value may be, I’d point out that that graph is totally useless. Or at least the conclusion drawn from it. Sure, he’s had the worst seventh-best season of the four catchers shown. However, he’s only had seven seasons total, compared to 9-12 seasons for the others. Simply based on a normal distribution of seasons, it’s only to be expected that his worst season would be worth less than someone else’s fourth- or fifth-from-worst season.
What if you aligned the graph the other way? Line up their worst seasons together, then their second-worst, third-worst, etc. In that case, Buck would not only have (barely) the best of the worst seasons, but the best second-worst, best sixth-worst and clearly best seventh-worst (that is, his best) season.

Your interpretation of the graph shows a huge non-understanding of the data.

]]>