Re-pricng of players

Can you tell me the difference between a 'much-used card' and an 'over-used card'? It seems to me that both of these result from cards being under priced therefore used often in leagues. Whether it is a $4M card, a $10M card, or a $.75M card one that is used in 99% of leagues would seem to be a card that should be repriced.

By "much-used" cards, I mean cards used because they are good cards usually priced relatively correctly. So, even if these cards are mildly repriced, they will still be used as much as they were before. 90's McGriff would be a good example. An "over-used" card is an under-priced card that is predominantly, if not only, used because it is under-priced. These cards will become over-priced in a re-pricing based on usage. Therefore, they will then become under-used, creating the same problems the re-pricing was supposed to address.

As I stated before, if SOM will reprice the cards every 5 years they may as well not do it as current bargains would disappear and new bargains would appear. I also don't feel I should have to "lose the notion that SOM is going to continually re-price" (your words).

I'm not saying you should lose the notion that SOM is going to continually re-price because I think it's a bad Idea, which I do. I'm saying you should lose the notion because it's most likely not going to happen. SOM has had the Mystery Leagues for ten years without re-pricing; it would be very unlikely for them to suddenly start re-pricing yearly. Yes, a customer should give suggestions for improvement. But if he wants those suggestions to come to fruition, he needs to make feasible suggestions, not ones he knows the business is unlikely to implement.

Since you are in a thread about repricing you must feel there is a need of it. I admit my continual adjustment is not as easy as it sounds in this thread but if SOM came to you and said "How do we fix the pricing" what would put forth as an idea?

No, I'm participating in this thread because I don't think re-pricing is a particularly good idea, and I think re-pricing based on usage would be an even worse one. When ideas are proffered on a thread, they are to elicit posts of agreement, posts of suggestion, and posts of disagreement. That's the way the Forum works. So, if SOM came to me, I would tell them to keep the prices as they are. However, if they were planning to go ahead with re-pricing, I would tell them to base it on a stronger analysis of card value, not on player usage.

Feasible means 'capable of being done'. If Wall Street can do pricing such as this it certainly could work for SOM. We aren't Wall St. and it wouldn't be perfect but I feel it would be better. I do agree with you that the likelihood of it being done is slim to nil and slim is walking out the door. If this was something near and dear to my heart I would keep pushing it because it may not be perfect but it would be better than current pricing, in my opinion. You have a different opinion and that is fine.

I think a better option to push would be the list of players earlier in this thread. I played the Rangers in a theme league and was shocked I couldn't get Ruben Sierra in the '80s. While the list of new players wouldn't solve any pricing issues, and may raise some if SIerra is $10M or $1M, it would make the game better which is what I think we all want.

Feasible means 'capable of being done'. If Wall Street can do pricing such as this it certainly could work for SOM. We aren't Wall St. and it wouldn't be perfect but I feel it would be better. I do agree with you that the likelihood of it being done is slim to nil and slim is walking out the door.

Feasible doesn't just mean "capable of being done." It also means "capable of being used or dealt with successfully" and "likely." As you yourself note, SOM isn't Wall St., not even close, so my use of the word was appropriate and accurate, and your assertion SOM can do what Wall St. can do is not. As you, yourself, also note, it is unlikely for SOM to re-price ML leagues yearly. It would probably not be cost-productive for their small company to do so. So, it is not feasible for SOM to re-price yearly. Also, they would risk losing managers who would have no time or interest in immediately (or ever) learning the new price structure.

I think a better option to push would be the list of players earlier in this thread.

I'm fine with a one-time re-pricing on a voted-on list of players based on superior analysis. As I mentioned earlier on the thread, 80's Molitor is clearly under-priced, managers would gladly pay 6m for him, and I'm sure there are other such players in the Mystery Leagues.


P.s. Here are the Merriam-Webster definitions for "feasible" for affirmation's sake:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feasible

I'll use the definition of capable of being done. Strat-O-Matic could come up with a simple program to monthly change the salaries of all the mystery sets based on usage if they wanted to take time away from developing ATG 25 for a while. They could even say they were working on it it for ATG 100 "pre Civil War Kickball the over-inflated era, 1841-1860" so they wouldn't get in trouble with the bosses, then incorporate the program into the Mystery Games. It might not be done until we're dead but at one time we were clamoring for live draft capability and it wasn't feasible, now we have it. I'll take 2 years after the manager ratings for the upcoming pool.

Now how do I get a copy of the L.Strether Dictionary?

Try to read better, Splits. I took my definitions--"likely" and "capable of being done successfully"--directly from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is legitimate. So the real question is where can I get a copy of the Rigged Splits dictionary? It hasn't quite helped your reasoning or articulation this far...

Your use of "feasible" is irrelevant in this case. SOM can do many things, including things that aren't to their benefit. However, If you think SOM or any business is going to do something just because they can do it, then you don't know how businesses really work. SOM doesn't even presently re-price ATG every year. If you think they're going to start paying to re-price Mystery Leagues every year when it wouldn't substantially increase their business, and even possibly harm it, then you're kidding yourself.


P.s. Send me a copy of that Rigged Splits dictionary any time. I could use a good laugh this hump day.

I'm not smart enough for the direction that this thread has taken, but I used to play the STATS game, which was similar to SOM's All-Time Greats game. Two exceptions: (1) the players statistics were based upon the player's career (not single seasons or mystery seasons) and (2) they would re-price the players annually based partially upon the demand of the player from previous season(s). From my memory, the prices would never change more than +/- 10% or so, but it still added a certain spice to the catalog.

I think that the second exception (re-pricing annually or at some other determined point) would greatly add to the variety and enjoyment of the game. Just a thought.

Thanks for the contribution, but you're talking about two entirely different systems here. If you can show significant similarities in the game cost, player pricing, season lengths, and other elements between STATS and SOM, then STATS' repricing policy would apply. Until you do, however, it doesn't. It would be like comparing pricing policies of a Grocery chain to the pricing policies of Amazon.

If you can do so, however, though, it would be a significant contribution.

I think that repricing players based on demand would be the fairest system that would make the most players think that the game is fair and no one lucked out in the autodraft. I briefly looked into this question and it might be a good subject for a paper in economics. The nearest I found was a wikipedia entry on "fair distribution," portions of which are copied below (I think that an envy-free division sounds best):
According to the Subjective theory of value, there cannot be an objective measure of the value of each item. Therefore, objective fairness is not possible, as different people may assign different values to each item.

For example, consider a set of indivisible items {piano, car, apartment}, then Alice may assign a value of 1/3 to each item, which means that each item is important to her just the same as any other item. Bob may assign the value of 1 to the set {car, apartment}, and the value 0 to all other sets except X; this means that he wants to get only the car and the apartment together; the car alone or the apartment alone, or each of them together with the piano, is worthless to him.
If X is a long narrow cake, then, Alice may assign each subset a value proportional to its length, which means that she wants as much cake as possible, regardless of the icings. Bob may assign value only to subsets of [0.4, 0.6], for example, because this part of the cake contains cherries and Bob only cares about cherries.
Based on these subjective value functions, there are a number of widely used criteria for a fair division. Some of these conflict with each other but often they can be combined. The criteria described here are only for when each player is entitled to the same amount:

A proportional division, also called simple fair division, means that every person gets at least his due share according to his own value function. For instance if three people divide up a cake each gets at least a third by their own valuation,
An envy-free division guarantees that no-one will want somebody else's share more than their own, i.e. every person gets a share that he values at least as much as all other shares:
An exact division is one where every player thinks everyone received exactly their fair share, no more and no less:
An equitable division means every person feels exactly the same happiness, i.e. the proportion of the cake a player receives by their own valuation is the same for every player. This is a difficult aim as players need not be truthful if asked their valuation.
When the recipients have different measures of value of the parts of the resource, it is possible to have super fair divisions - divisions in which each person receives strictly more than his due share. For example, in the "cake cutting" version, one recipient may like marzipan, another prefers cherries, and so on. Then, and only then, the n recipients may get even more than what would be one n-th of the value of the "cake" for each of them. On the other hand, the presence of different measures opens a vast potential for many challenging questions and directions of further research.

Procedures
A fair division procedure lists actions to be performed by the players in terms of the visible data and their valuations. A valid procedure is one that guarantees a fair division for every player who acts rationally according to their valuation. Where an action depends on a player's valuation the procedure is describing the strategy a rational player will follow. A player may act as if a piece had a different value but must be consistent. For instance if a procedure says the first player cuts the cake in two equal parts then the second player chooses a piece, then the first player cannot claim that the second player got more.

For two people there is a simple solution which is commonly employed. This is the so-called divide and choose method. One person divides the resource into what they believe are equal halves, and the other person chooses the "half" they prefer. Thus, the person making the division has an incentive to divide as fairly as possible: for if they do not, they will likely receive an undesirable portion. This solution guarantees an envy-free division. If the valuations of the players are sigma additive, then an envy-free division is also proportional. The article on divide and choose describes why the procedure is not equitable.

Austin's moving-knife procedure gives an exact division for two players. The first player positions a knife over the left side of the cake. He moves the knife to the right and when either player says to stop, they receive the left piece of cake. This produces an envy-free division.

Fair division with three or more players is considerably more complex than the two player case.

There are no discrete algorithms for an exact division even for two players, a moving knife procedure is the best that can be done. There are no exact division algorithms for 3 or more players but there are 'near exact' algorithms which are also envy-free and can achieve any desired degree of accuracy."

IMO, if owners continually compete over certain players and ignore other players, then it must be that certain players are subjectively underpriced and others are subjectively overpriced. If prices are adjusted by demand, then we will trend toward a system where all players have an equal aggregate demand and owners will feel less envy toward other teams and will feel that they got more of the players that they wanted. Let's take an example, in the 70s game Singleton is picked in nearly every league and Briggs is almost never selected. With pricing adjusted for demand, we will eventually reach a situation where there is equal demand for Singleton and Briggs.

On the other hand, since many people prefer to select their favorite stars even with somewhat lower performance, perhaps demand-based pricing should be used only for the regular players, and the salaries for the favorite stars should be kept artificially low so we can enjoy playing our favorite star players without being at a competitive disadvantage.

I think that repricing players based on demand would be the fairest system that would make the most players think that the game is fair and no one lucked out in the autodraft.

Wow, that was a lot of theories on distribution, many of them cancelling out the other. As to your opinions, If value systems are "subjective," as you claim, then there is no "fairest" system. So your seeing repricing based on demand as "fairest" would just be a subjective opinion. Also, re-pricing based on demand is not only not the "fairest" system, it would do nothing to change supposed "problems" of the auto-draft or players' opinions about it. It would just provide a new set of players for managers to compete over.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, re-pricing based on demand/usage will just replicate current problems. Since many overused players are only used because of their low price. Once their prices are raised, they will go unused, need to be re-priced, and we'll be right back where we were before.

IMO, if owners continually compete over certain players and ignore other players, then it must be that certain players are subjectively underpriced and others are subjectively overpriced.

This isn't true. You neglect the fact the pricings were based on objective statistics. So, while subjective opinions were a factor in them, they were not entirely subjective pricings. The same goes for each players' evaluations of the cards. While subjective opinion was again a factor, every player somewhat bases his evaluations on objective statistics, the objective parameters of specific salary structure, and the objective rules and values of MLB. So, no players are fully subjectively under-priced or over-priced. Full objectivity and full subjectivity are theoretical concepts rarely (if ever) manifested in the real world.

If prices are adjusted by demand, then we will trend toward a system where all players have an equal aggregate demand and owners will feel less envy toward other teams and will feel that they got more of the players that they wanted.

This is unfounded speculation that tries to be too objective without acknowledging each player's subjectively different preference for specific players, different preference for different players, and different subjective value systems. Your prediction all players will move toward a system where all players have an "equal aggregate demand" incorrectly presumes all players will think in the same way and move in the same direction. They don't do so now, and they won't in the future. That applies to your Briggs analogy. Since all players still won't view Briggs in the same way--we do think differently--what you describe won't occur.

On the other hand, since many people prefer to select their favorite stars even with somewhat lower performance, perhaps demand-based pricing should be used only for the regular players, and the salaries for the favorite stars should be kept artificially low so we can enjoy playing our favorite star players without being at a competitive disadvantage.

This would just cause another problem. Why would we want a system where the star players are priced artificially low? Most players do want some semblance of realism in player value, including those calling for re-pricing. Keeping them artificially low would just lead to leagues full of super-teams whose managers didn't have to proportionally spend for their stars. However, your subjective preference--which wouldn't be shared by all--does affirm my previous assertion that all managers don't think alike and will not move towards the collective of "aggregate demand" you said they would.

In general, I am arguing for free market principles. We know how much Apple Computer is worth not because of any objective criteria but because of what people are willing to pay to own Apple Computer. That is, the value of Apple computer is based on it's aggregate demand. Likewise, we can measure the value of strat players based on the aggregate demand for a given card.

You wrote:

Also, as I pointed out earlier, re-pricing based on demand/usage will just replicate current problems. Since many overused players are only used because of their low price. Once their prices are raised, they will go unused, need to be re-priced, and we'll be right back where we were before.

This statement must be wrong. If Singleton's price were raised by 0.5 mil, he would still be used but he would be used less often. If the price of Ken Singleton were raised and the price of Briggs were lowered, the demand for Singleton would decrease and the demand for Briggs would increase. When the prices are set such that the demand for Singleton = the demand for Briggs, then the price is set fairly according to the market. Since we know that, at the current prices, there is more demand for Singleton than Briggs, we know that repricing will not result in getting back to the current prices but will result in the price for Singleton going up relative to the current price for Briggs.

IMO, if owners continually compete over certain players and ignore other players, then it must be that certain players are subjectively underpriced and others are subjectively overpriced.
This isn't true. You neglect the fact the pricings were based on objective statistics. So, while subjective opinions were a factor in them, they were not entirely subjective pricings.

The above statement is just weird. I argued that certain players are subjectively underpriced and you responded that wasn't true because the pricings were based on objective statistics. Your statement only makes sense if you replace the word "subjectively" with the word "objectively", and that is such a weird way of arguing that I can't grasp it.

Your prediction all players will move toward a system where all players have an "equal aggregate demand" incorrectly presumes all players will think in the same way and move in the same direction. They don't do so now, and they won't in the future. That applies to your Briggs analogy. Since all players still won't view Briggs in the same way--we do think differently--what you describe won't occur.

Actually, I don't think that at all. I think that since Briggs is almost never selected, he has an overpriced card. As the cost of his card is reduced, the demand for his card will increase. This correlation is true for almost all products and services except for the class of products and services that are termed "inelastic" (an example of an inelastic good is cancer treatment - healthy people won't take it for free but people who need it will pay almost any price). It is true that different owners think differently. If Briggs' cost were cut in half, I would not select him, but I think such a price cut would make him attractive to other owners. The concept of "equal aggregate demand" does not mean that all owners think identically but it means that the total demand summed over all owners is equal between any two selected players.

Why would we want a system where the star players are priced artificially low?

To stick with the 70s, this describes our current system. At least on the hitter's side, most of the fan favorites are priced artificially low. In every single league, Stargell, Schmidt, Brett, Bench, are on somebody's team at the start of the season. If these stars were priced according to demand, they would cost more until they would be equally attractive (in the aggregate) to Andre Thornton (or Thornton would cost less). But I'm ok with this pricing because I'm a baseball fan and it is more fun for me to manage Pops instead of Thornton.

all managers don't think alike and will not move towards the collective of "aggregate demand" you said they would.

Again, here you misunderstand the term "aggregate demand." This term means the total demand summed over all individuals and does not mean that all individuals have the same preferences.