not a fan of the 9 prices

I thought that there was a consensus to give the killer RPs a raise, but I just don't recall anyone clammering for, as has been done, making almost everyone else more expensive also

I am just not smart enough to understand how raising the price of hitters doesn't water-down, even defeat the purpose of raising the price on RPs

Making Ruth virtually unusable in the 'flagship' $80m cap leagues seems a little bit of a mistake - we probably need

please don't try to explain it to me - I won't be smart enough to understand that either, I am sure I won't understand that, either

(throat clearing noises all day)

I recall a few of us saying that the pricing on the RPs was not good for multiple reasons

1. It came in conjunction with less usage
2. the prices are so heavily weighted to proportional amount of innings they can go
3. the prices are geared entirely for 80 mil cap leagues

I do think pricing is a little high for 80mil leagues...it would be more fun to be able to afford using more popular and better players than having to fill put your roster with weak talent to be able to afford 2 or 3 great players..I wouldnt want to turn 80mil leagues inio softball leagues but pricing out the best players at the expense of having to have 1/3 of your lineup with srubs is a little extreme to me especially when the underpriced pitchers used by longtime managers get scooped up in the draft early....not complainig...this is better than softball

My first take was that the set was overall more expensive. Fellow players who were involved in the repricing assure us that that is not the case. I believe them.

What I know for sure is that about 90% of my 200 most frequently used players became more expensive (but not Sutton, the cheap Carew, Collins...). That makes me FEEL as if the whole set is more expensive, but it is a trick the mind plays on us.

There are new bargains in ATG-9. We are in the process of discovering them as a collective. And there are many cards that are at least playable now.

Although I can tell myself that my mind plays tricks on me, I still have a knot in my stomach when I see the price of Heredia, Atley Donald, Luis Arroyo, Frank Taveras, Dave Henderson, and of course, my beloved Bruce Sutter.

It takes some getting used to.

I do think pricing is a little high for 80mil leagues...I wouldnt want to turn 80mil leagues inio softball leagues but pricing out the best players at the expense of having to have 1/3 of your lineup with srubs is a little extreme to me especially when the underpriced pitchers used by longtime managers get scooped up in the draft early....not complainig...this is better than softball

A couple of points here:

#1 - Have you tried created, say an 85M or 90M cap league. If you think salaries were inflated, then use the Variable cap to create a little more cap space to build your team.

#2 - You are right that there were "under-priced" pitchers in ATG8. ATG9, however, changed that. Overall, (a) pitcher salaries are now much more even and (b) pitcher salaries dropped across the board for all starters < 9.00M.

FWIW, here's an example of an 80M team with two superstuds - Speaker (12.36M) and Sisler (11.20M). They hit .378 and .395 respectively.

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1572171

I used starting pitchers that I never would have touched in ATG8. All of those starters have a bunch of ballpark homers on their cards, but my home park, Griffith '24 (9-7-0-0), "protected" them. Comparison of ATG9 & ATG8 for starting pitchers...

Starter	ATG9	ATG8
McNally ‘68	8.73M	9.03M
Kremer ‘27	6.18M	6.66M
Messersmith ‘74	5.22M	7.32M
Byrne ‘50	1.61M	1.65M

My first take was that the set was overall more expensive. Fellow players who were involved in the repricing assure us that that is not the case. I believe them.

What I know for sure is that about 90% of my 200 most frequently used players became more expensive (but not Sutton, the cheap Carew, Collins...). That makes me FEEL as if the whole set is more expensive, but it is a trick the mind plays on us.

Chompsky, that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

Technically, overall salaries are the same - i.e., some went up, some went down, but average salary was unchanged. As a practical matter, however, the ATG9 "plays" more expensive.

One of the big problems with ATG8, however, was a "sub-set" of ludicrously under-priced players. Experienced managers would cherry-pick these "salary mistakes" to build super-high-value teams. You can't really do that in ATG9. The payoff is a much broader range of usable players and a game that is fairer to newer managers who are just learning the salary/value dynamics that drive the game.

Newbies are faced with a steep learning curve. Full. Stop.

In the know vets have many more advantages than just cherry picking value players.

Probably the biggest skill top vets have mastered and most influential to winning and losing is the intricacies of bullpen usage. In my opinion, the since eliminated, Super Reliever was fairly simple and fairly effective strategy that leveled the playing field for newbies. Maybe not so realistic, but it "uncomplicated" what I've read, newbies found most frustrating about playing..So, again my opinion it was good for the game...it cured much more than it broke.

So reprice the players, change the bullpen logic, add lots more stadiums and any cap you want. and see how much Riggo struggles and newbies improve.
Not to pick on Riggo, he seems like a good guy, and same can be said for Bruce, NomadBrad and a bunch more top managers, dare I include myself too, but truthfully, these changes, change nothing.

being a newbie ive spent hours on strategy for this and the main thing ive noticed is how many 1 run games that are decided by 1 inning where everything seems to go the other guys way...I have a team right now after 81 gms is -125 rolls my hitters to opposition pitchers..dont care what your lineup is your not going to win games..team record 35W 46L

Not sure who the pricing committee was, but hats off, I think they did a great job.