I don't have time to look through all the teams in my leagues but the highest PB value for any one of my teams is 115.164.

I also have teams with

113.841
109.617
77.150
71.368


I think this is an appropriate time to (again) bring up the limitations of PB values.

As an example using some players I own on various teams....

Mark Loretta, 0.844 LOPS, 0.799 ROPS, 653 PA, ODR 6.9, 7.842 PB value.

Jeremy Affeldt, 6.4 Grade, 6.5 Clutch, 126 IP, 1.719 PB value.

According to PB value Mark Loretta is worth about 4.5 times what Affeldt is worth. But in reality I think the difference is much smaller than a factor of 4.5.

If you could have 3 pitchers that gave a combined 300 IP of 6.4 Grade, 6.5 Clutch.... or one 2B with an OPS around 0.800 which would you take? I submit that the 2B is above average and quite useful but 300 innings of 6.5 / 6.4 helps more.

.... and to make it worse.... if the PB value limit is adjusted downward to around 105 I may be forced to CUT Loretta because his PB value is too high relative to what he gives me.... I've been trying to trade him for months but noone is beating down my door.

So... if you follow the argument.... Affeldt X 3 should give a much larger contribution than Loretta. But because the PB value system is biased towards Loretta so high I may have to cut Loretta.... but I would have room for Affeldt x 2 (or 3).

Examples like this .... and I could come up with tons of them if I compared pitchers with similar grade ratings... are why I get upset when people talk of lowering PB value limits in the interest of more parity.

In a nutshell.... I believe that before we can implement a metric that constrains PB value of the top teams to 20% higher than the average we need to take a close look at making sure the metric evaluates players consistently.