Repricing Players Cards v2

I have to agree with Salty here. Give us a Draft App, new cards and better game/team control before any possible repricing. Adding NEW cars to me looks the easiest and yet it had not been done. SOM is a great game with lots of possibilities but at times our requests go unheard.

Maxie never said he thought this should get priority over everything else. He just presented an idea.

Even if there are other issues I consider more desirable/important that does not make this idea not worth discussing.
So why dismiss this idea just because I think there is something more important?
It would be more productive to discuss the pros and cons of this idea here and if you think other ideas are important start a new thread to discuss those ideas.

That attitude is selfish and self-centered. Essentially when I declare there are other things "we" need more is that I think what I want is more important than what you think and want.

It is unproductive. Consider if we all take this selfish approach. Person A says I have an idea, let's discuss it. Person B dismisses person A's idea because there are other things he considers more important. So when person B has an idea along comes person C who dismisses it because he thinks something else is more important. Then when person C has an idea person A chimes in that he considers what he wants to be more important. End result Strat sees everyone as disagreeing that an idea has merit and ignores everyone.

So here is an idea. Why not be respectful of everyone. If someone has an idea speak to the pros and cons of that idea. It will make for more productive and interesting discussions. And even if this idea or any other idea is not the most important issue what difference does it make? Discussing this idea will not keep Strat from doing what you want. Heck, they are not going to read this thread anyway. So how could it?

I support periodic repricing of the cards to inject more variety and strategy into the draft process. I'm fine with it being based on usage (as the market has effectively determined that Kirby Higbe is underpriced and Randy Jones is overpriced). But I would use $100M and below -- not $140M -- as the basis for determining usage for a few reasons:

1. It's often been said that building a $140M team is like having a $200M lineup, and the bench of an $80M team. To that end, the most expensive cards will still be disproportionately used at that level. It's not uncommon for Bonds or Josh Gibson to be unused at $100M -- but at $140M, someone almost always makes room for them.

2. For players with multiple cards, the most expensive ones are disproportionately used at $140M, which would result in skewing that card's price higher, but the others lower, based on usage.

3. There's not really any role for the middle class at $140M - cards priced in the $2- $6M range are almost never used (other than relievers), whereas they're essential at lower caps. Using the $140M usage rates will systematically skew all of these cards downward.

Also, I would prefer to keep the 0.50M price floor for all cards for the reason identified by Valen.

Salty, my thought is that the only cooperation we would need from the Strats folks is to implement the price changes. I'll quote a famous philosopher who once said, "Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

I've been keeping actuals since ATG I except for $200M leagues. I could supply the usage data for ATG VII to anyone interested or I would be willing to do it myself (in cooperation with one or two others just to make sure everything is on the up and up.)

If Strats should not have the time or willingness to make pricing adjustments then that's another matter. My purpose in restarting the idea here was to get opinions from our fellow managers/owners. If they like the idea then we can approach Strats and ask if they would implement it on an agreed upon time frame, not more than annually.

I agree with Dukie98 and would hope that 140M leagues would not be included in the data for the very reasons he mentions.

Maxie

if its something that would only be a minimal requirement from strat- sure go for it-

if we could ever agree on what the model should actually be- fine with me.

Just think same things are true of adding new cards for example- Bill does most of the work (he does a great job imo) in gathering who is requested and compiling a list and choosing hopefully.
Strats only has to input the card data, but that doesn't seem to be happening right now.

RBURGH,I was saying how I pick my teams.I don't use them

Even if there are other issues I consider more desirable/important that does not make this idea not worth discussing.
So why dismiss this idea just because I think there is something more important?
It would be more productive to discuss the pros and cons of this idea here and if you think other ideas are important start a new thread to discuss those ideas.

That attitude is selfish and self-centered. Essentially when I declare there are other things "we" need more is that I think what I want is more important than what you think and want.

It is unproductive. Consider if we all take this selfish approach. Person A says I have an idea, let's discuss it. Person B dismisses person A's idea because there are other things he considers more important. So when person B has an idea along comes person C who dismisses it because he thinks something else is more important. Then when person C has an idea person A chimes in that he considers what he wants to be more important. End result Strat sees everyone as disagreeing that an idea has merit and ignores everyone.

So here is an idea. Why not be respectful of everyone. If someone has an idea speak to the pros and cons of that idea. It will make for more productive and interesting discussions.

actually Valen-

.

It would not hurt for Stratomatic to make this a major priority after the draft. .

This is why Im mentioning that imo its just not a priority-
and BTW, I played the game where they do the repricing thing.
They also happen to have every player ever including Japanese league guys- not saying that's even desirable here, just saying there are differences to take into account.

While I do think re-pricing cards is a good idea, I'd like to see cards added to help out a number of teams.
ie. Arizona/ Colorado etc...

There are great cards out there that would make A LOT of these teams competitive.

Also, I'd like to see a number of players in the set with their BEST cards added.

ie. Caminiti, Brian Roberts, Olerud etc...

I’m not in favor of periodic price changes. However, I’m not vehemently opposed to a one-time tweak if the community overwhelmingly wants one.

The major complaints I hear are:
“Jim Edmonds, Cesar Cedeno, Joe Morgan, Alex Rodriguez, Robbie Alomar etc is not worth his salary.” Most of these type players are excellent defensively and in many cases have a lot of their value tied to OBP. It is harder to casually peruse your team’s stat line and see the benefits these guys provide to your team. We want a guy who costs 9-10m to bat .350 with power like John Beckwith and they don't all do that. Edmonds and others have different values that, totaled against Beckwith's defense and other values, price them in that neighborhood.

“Everybody uses the same players, so make them pay more for those popular players.” I would guess that, with Joe Sewell for example, since his 2.12 card's primary position is SS, his 3e49 SS rating is what his price is based on, when he actually would be used more either at 3b or DH. Sewell's 2.12 or 1.86 card is popular as an offensive value. So, before long, Joe Sewell will have a salary of 6m? Look, the cards are the cards. Is Sewell worth 6m just because he gets used more? I realize that something's value is based on what someone is willing to pay. However, it is incorrect to assume that a good’s market price measures its economic value. Same for Strat cards and trying to price them based on usage.


I’m sure there is a defensive metric in the pricing model that probably weighs defense and possibly OBP a little heavier than some in the community must want it. That’s the reason most of the time Edmonds’ stat line is not what we think a 9m CF should produce. Also, some high $$ SPs that are a little too free with the longball could possibly be downgraded a little, since they don't produce as well in our offense-dominant climate. But then, if you put them in Petco, they are suddenly bargains.

I’m not completely opposed to a tweak, if needed, but I’m not in favor of changing salaries every so often based on usage. Current pricing is based on a model, weighing the various values of speed, defense, power, and many other variables. We could possibly change the way the model weighs some of these attributes, like maybe a slight downgrade of defense, etc, but don’t base it on usage, IMO. Too subjective.