New Prices

An easy way to change the player prices every year is to take the 288 drafted players of the Barnstormer finals teams and add $500,000-! million to their salaries. This would create a revolving pool every year with new challenges and new bargains.

An easy way to change the player prices every year is to take the 288 drafted players of the Barnstormer finals teams and add $500,000-! million to their salaries. This would create a revolving pool every year with new challenges and new bargains.

Don't think this is a good idea for a number of reasons, including that Im not sure what the barnstormers finals measures.

I suppose one could argue that it measures who the winning managers valued. But not sure I want to pay an extra half mil just because someone had a player on their bench.

I suppose one could argue that it measures who the winning managers valued. But not sure I want to pay an extra half mil just because someone had a player on their bench.

It would eliminate all the nickel players, eventually.

"It would eliminate all the nickel players, eventually."

just add more Cubs... when the nickels are empty. i could post a list of them...


but seriously, a formula that took into account how many teams had the player relative to the number of leagues should be possible, but just not for one 'arbitrary' set of leagues


i guess i thought that was done version over version anyway

Tale of Pete Fox
Back in ATG 1 +2 he was about .9 and was used as a bench player in just about every league.
They raised him to 1.34 and now he is never used.

Tale of Bill Abstein
Back in ATG 1 +2 he was about .6 and was used as a bench player in a lot of leagues.
They raised him to 1.33 and now he is never used.

Don't want to kill all the bench players who can contribute unless you eliminate injuries.

Meanwhile they should reduce the prices of guys like Harry Hooper and Ed Roush. Decent players but no one ever uses them because they are 15 game injury risks.

Just a note on the new prices, we shouldn't have to bother with changing prices if we got additional players every month as advertised. Even if we got some 70-80 cent bench-players, speedsters, or fielders, that would be at least something to look forward to. Is it to much to ask???

Sincerely,
Delivery Boy...

A long time ago I suggested that they keep records of who gets put on draft cards for every league. Every time a guy gets put on a draft card, he gets a point. Quarterly, they add up all the points, divide by the number of players, then adjust every player's salary by $0.01 million upward for every (point - average of all the points). They should limit the salary changes to 5% of the card, and of course never adjust anyone below $0.50 million.

I fear the original idea behind this post is, at best, ill considered.

Assuming one agrees with rburgh on a usage based pricing model, which Nev, Bill Janssen (haven't heard from him for a while, myself and Adrian Gabriel (who also appears to have given up playing, but continues with the occasional post) debated extensively when the four of us repriced ATGIII which became ATGIII R. Of the four of us, only AG was in favor of a usage based pricing model, Jannsen and I favored a hybrid usage/performance model and Nev seemed to favor a more intuitive pricing model.

The Barnstormers, as it has devolved under the "leadership" of the Mighty Moose, or whatever he may be calling himself these days, is by no means an accurate reflection of the types of ATG leagues that actually get played. For example, random shuffle leagues are notoriously unpopular, yet are now a key feature of the current tour, while 200M leagues, currently the fastest to fill, are studiously ignored by Moose et al. So whatever skills the Barnstormer's purports to measure, do not necessarily reflect what it takes to win in ATG as it is played day in and day out.

I could hardly imagine a more primitive or idiosyncratic approach to repricing then that advocated by the author of this thread. First, our hosts have been unable to restore two huge functionalities going on two years now. To do a repricing properly it should be done based on overall usage and player performance. Our esteemed hosts clearly have no interest in that or even keeping their promises to add new players every month. But the utterly arbitrary approach cited in this thread is just ridiculous. Nev was the first player to recognize and regularly use Shano Collins. i was the first, and the only one for years, to regularly use Gene Clines. Because they are now also favorites of Mr. Foster, a scrupulous adherent to Joe the Jets value ratings with platoons, Clines' price would increase by more than 50% when Mr. Foster drafts him, as he undoubtedly will unless someone beats him to it.

Episodic repricing of the cards is a good idea, but given SOM's not so benign neglect of ATG, it is unrealistic. Hell, Richman doesn't even know what ATG is. Just ask Nev, if you don't believe me. But approaching repricing based on one league's drafting is little more than a short-sighted, hubristic joke.