New Pricing Committee

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, as FUDU said above, 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.

What would make more sense to me is the tweak idea, and have an open window for that period. EG: over the course of say 60 days the community creates a list of their top ten cards that need tweaking. Review it, rank them, and then decide on the % of tweaking. Divide the process by cards that are over priced and cards under priced. People get a chance to speak up, if they don't speak up oh well, they can't say they didn't have the opportunity.

Also, IMO, this entire concept does require the acknowledgement that the ATG set is ruled by offense, to what degree can be argued but offense rules the day in most leagues, from what I've seen and heard from others. Meaning pitchers in general will probably not replicate their cards nearly as well as hitters.

For me an Edmunds isn't attractive b/c of injury and his play at even 1b is putrid. If he at least played first at like a 3e6 I'd consider him more often. Just FWIW. But the card doesn't equate to that, so I put more value in the cards being true to form/integrity than I do the slight over or under pricing at the end of the day.

My sentiments can be summed up by saying that between Andy's and Valen's comments they cover my objections to tweaking prices comprehensively.

I'm guessing perhaps the ideas listed here - re-pricing based on usage and the utilization of a committee to effect these changes - are at least in part driven by the apparent dearth of growth in the SOM community, the difficulty in filling leagues and the decline of energy on the message boards. These ideas, then, are a good faith effort to re-energize the game.

My sense is that the game would get a tremendous boost with the introduction of long-promised/requested improvements such as the live draft, fresh players et al. A little corporate TLC extended to a loyal and passionate community would not be unwelcome either. Absent these, however, I believe small changes will not have the desired effect IMHO.

"My sense is that the game would get a tremendous boost with the introduction of long-promised/requested improvements such as the live draft, fresh players et al. A little corporate TLC extended to a loyal and passionate community would not be unwelcome either. Absent these, however, I believe small changes will not have the desired effect IMHO."

Well said...

My sense is that the game would get a tremendous boost with the introduction of long-promised/requested improvements such as the live draft, fresh players et al

Agreed.

With over 4,200 ATG players in the free agent pool, it's not unexpected to have salary anomalies. Frankly, I'm surprised we don't have more than are regularly reported given the industrial size formula created for this game. To those who put the pricing formula together - I'd say "great job, and thanks!".

Further, I'm not so sure the "Jim Edmonds" of the game go unused.

While we lack the CD-ROM game's encyclopedia feature, I scanned my completed teams and observed only a handful of players that constantly find their way onto my rosters. I attribute this player diversity to both playing in the ATG Barnstormer's tourney which forces me to use different parks and joining the mostly themed leagues (e.g., All Busted Up).

As the earlier posters remarked, if SOM's staff could only focus on a handful of strategic ATG upgrades, then I'd place a player pricing formula revision lower on the list.

I'd be happy if we just got manager ratings back to be honest. While it's just a game, we all want and try to win, and those ratings are motivators so to speak. Especially when you start competing well with long time good managers, it's nice to see how you stack up over the course of 20-30 different leagues.

I'd be happy if we just got manager ratings back to be honest.

I'm shooting a tad lower and will be tickled enough to buy a 5 pack if SOM addresses this improvement:

(This pitchers section is under construction; pardon our dust while we figure out the best to present the relatively few fielding stats we have for pitchers...)

I ain't asking for much.