Player cards after dropped

Question:

Does the mystery card stay the same after a player is dropped? Or is his year re-randomized? In other words, should you PROBABLY stay away from dropped players in mystery card leagues?

PR

Yes. The year is the same. Do your due diligence before picking up a dropped player.

It'd be cool, though, if there was some kind of randomization. Say, a 20% chance of a randomization after a player is waived. Also, it would be neat if there was a downward salary adjustment for any player whose actual SOM performance before being waived was worse than his stated average.

It'd be cool, though, if there was some kind of randomization. Say, a 20% chance of a randomization after a player is waived. Also, it would be neat if there was a downward salary adjustment for any player whose actual SOM performance before being waived was worse than his stated average.

But part of the reason an owner fully scrutinizes his player before he releases him is he doesn't want to make a good player available to the rest of the league. If that player could be randomized regardless of what card he has hit on, then such scrutiny--which is one of the cool challenges of the mystery game--would become less important. Also, other owners wouldn't need to do their due diligence in analyzing released players, since they could just be randomized and their analysis would also be less important. Therefore, the current Mystery league card system should really stay as is; it maintains a strong demand on player analysis from all owners that is vital to the Mystery League's enjoyment, and it prevents a near incessant level of releases and pick-ups that such a randomization would encourage.

It'd be cool, though, if there was some kind of randomization. Say, a 20% chance of a randomization after a player is waived. Also, it would be neat if there was a downward salary adjustment for any player whose actual SOM performance before being waived was worse than his stated average.

But part of the reason an owner fully scrutinizes his player before he releases him is he doesn't want to make a good player available to the rest of the league. If that player could be randomized regardless of what card he has hit on, then such scrutiny--which is one of the cool challenges of the mystery game--would become less important. Also, other owners wouldn't need to do their due diligence in analyzing released players, since they could just be randomized and their analysis would also be less important. Therefore, the current Mystery league card system should really stay as is; it maintains a strong demand on player analysis from all owners that is vital to the Mystery League's enjoyment, and it prevents a near incessant level of releases and pick-ups that such a randomization would encourage.

I agree with the card year remaining the same. I have thought that making the players value the same as the cut team received would make retreads more attractive, add more strategy to drop/adds.

The problem with that would be that it would give an inordinate advantage to the owners picking up released players, and that would seriously discourage an owner from almost ever releasing a player, which would put a significant hamper on Mystery League gameplay. There already is considerable strategy in the current drop/add system. So, your proposal would just change that level of strategy without necessarily enhancing it, although it would (as I said above) give considerable and detrimental advantage to owners picking up released players over owners releasing them.

Interesting points of view....

I like Joe's idea. If Carl Yastrzemski is a $10 million player and is waived because he is hitting .214, two things come to mind:

1) Nobody wants to spend $10 million on his worst mystery card.
2) A change in scenery occasionally, but, not usually, invigorates a player.

So, if I could get Yastrzemski for $9 million instead of $10 million and if, as I suggested in my previous post, there was a 20% probability of his mystery card getting re-randomized (e.g. 80% chance nothing will change and it will still be his worst mystery card), then, I might take a chance. My proposal would be that the team who waived him cannot reacquire him.

If this is perceived as an advantage to other managers and discourages the manager from waiving Yastrzemski, then, that is good, too, since the opposing managers will likely benefit from the not-so-superstar's subpar season if he remains with the original team. As it is now, there are too many waived players, anyway.

So, in summary, I do think the strategy would be enhanced if it weren't so obvious that a waived player is often not worth the money.

Interesting points of view....

I like Joe's idea. If Carl Yastrzemski is a $10 million player and is waived because he is hitting .214, two things come to mind:

1) Nobody wants to spend $10 million on his worst mystery card.
2) A change in scenery occasionally, but, not usually, invigorates a player.

So, if I could get Yastrzemski for $9 million instead of $10 million and if, as I suggested in my previous post, there was a 20% probability of his mystery card getting re-randomized (e.g. 80% chance nothing will change and it will still be his worst mystery card), then, I might take a chance. My proposal would be that the team who waived him cannot reacquire him.

If this is perceived as an advantage to other managers and discourages the manager from waiving Yastrzemski, then, that is good, too, since the opposing managers will likely benefit from the not-so-superstar's subpar season if he remains with the original team. As it is now, there are too many waived players, anyway.

So, in summary, I do think the strategy would be enhanced if it weren't so obvious that a waived player is often not worth the money.

First of all, your proposal is not "perceived" as an advantage to managers picking up released players, it would be a significant advantage to managers picking up released players over the managers releasing them. The manager releasing the player would not benefit from being stuck with a player on a subpar season; he would suffer for having to stick with that player out of fear that an opposing manager could pick up that player in his "randomized" mode and for 90% of his salary.

Therefore, your "randomization/salary reduction" proposal would not enhance the strategy of the mystery game, but it would, instead, create a clear advantage for managers picking up released players over managers releasing their players, which would be detrimental to both the strategy and the equity of the current Mystery Game. And, as I mentioned in my post above, if managers know players could be "randomized" then both releasing managers and managers picking up players would feel less need to analyze players since "randomization" could nullify that analysis. And as we all know, player analysis is one of the most important and enjoyable aspects of the Mystery Game, an aspect your "randomization" proposal would severely diminish....and that's just not worth mollifying managers who "don't want to spend 10 million on Yastrzemski's worst mystery card."

Interesting points of view....

I like Joe's idea. If Carl Yastrzemski is a $10 million player and is waived because he is hitting .214, two things come to mind:

1) Nobody wants to spend $10 million on his worst mystery card.
2) A change in scenery occasionally, but, not usually, invigorates a player.

So, if I could get Yastrzemski for $9 million instead of $10 million and if, as I suggested in my previous post, there was a 20% probability of his mystery card getting re-randomized (e.g. 80% chance nothing will change and it will still be his worst mystery card), then, I might take a chance. My proposal would be that the team who waived him cannot reacquire him.

If this is perceived as an advantage to other managers and discourages the manager from waiving Yastrzemski, then, that is good, too, since the opposing managers will likely benefit from the not-so-superstar's subpar season if he remains with the original team. As it is now, there are too many waived players, anyway.

So, in summary, I do think the strategy would be enhanced if it weren't so obvious that a waived player is often not worth the money.

First of all, your proposal is not "perceived" as an advantage to managers picking up released players, it would be a significant advantage to managers picking up released players over the managers releasing them. The manager releasing the player would not benefit from being stuck with a player on a subpar season; he would suffer for having to stick with that player out of fear that an opposing manager could pick up that player in his "randomized" mode and for 90% of his salary.

Therefore, your "randomization/salary reduction" proposal would not enhance the strategy of the mystery game, but it would, instead, create a clear advantage for managers picking up released players over managers releasing their players, which would be detrimental to both the strategy and the equity of the current Mystery Game. And, as I mentioned in my post above, if managers know players could be "randomized" then both releasing managers and managers picking up players would feel less need to analyze players since "randomization" could nullify that analysis. And as we all know, player analysis is one of the most important and enjoyable aspects of the Mystery Game, an aspect your "randomization" proposal would severely diminish....and that's just not worth mollifying managers who "don't want to spend 10 million on Yastrzemski's worst mystery card."

1. I never stated that the manager releasing the underachieving player would benefit from being stuck with a player. I said the opposite.

2. There would not be a significant advantage to managers picking up a released player at 80-90 % of their value because my proposal would only re-randomize the mystery card 20% of the time. In other words, If I spend $9m on a .214 hitting Yastrzemski who was waived, instead of 10M, there is at least an 80% probability I will be stuck with the same subpar mystery card of the superstar the rest of the way. But, the small probability that a change of scenery could spark Yaz into turning his season around makes my proposal intriguing (at least to me, anyway).

3.Player analysis would still be as important because "re-randomization" of a waived player's mystery card would only occur a small percentage of the time. Even if re-randomized, the player could still end up being the same poor mystery card.

In summary, my proposal preserves the integrity of the current thought process of whether to waive a player because it would only "re-randomize" the mystery card a small percentage of the time, while adding a new spectrum of realism by introducing a small probability that a player could turn his dismal season around with another team. This would enhance the strategy of the mystery game and make it more fun without being unfair to a manager.

Interesting points of view....

I like Joe's idea. If Carl Yastrzemski is a $10 million player and is waived because he is hitting .214, two things come to mind:

1) Nobody wants to spend $10 million on his worst mystery card.
2) A change in scenery occasionally, but, not usually, invigorates a player.

So, if I could get Yastrzemski for $9 million instead of $10 million and if, as I suggested in my previous post, there was a 20% probability of his mystery card getting re-randomized (e.g. 80% chance nothing will change and it will still be his worst mystery card), then, I might take a chance. My proposal would be that the team who waived him cannot reacquire him.

If this is perceived as an advantage to other managers and discourages the manager from waiving Yastrzemski, then, that is good, too, since the opposing managers will likely benefit from the not-so-superstar's subpar season if he remains with the original team. As it is now, there are too many waived players, anyway.

So, in summary, I do think the strategy would be enhanced if it weren't so obvious that a waived player is often not worth the money.

First of all, your proposal is not "perceived" as an advantage to managers picking up released players, it would be a significant advantage to managers picking up released players over the managers releasing them. The manager releasing the player would not benefit from being stuck with a player on a subpar season; he would suffer for having to stick with that player out of fear that an opposing manager could pick up that player in his "randomized" mode and for 90% of his salary.

Therefore, your "randomization/salary reduction" proposal would not enhance the strategy of the mystery game, but it would, instead, create a clear advantage for managers picking up released players over managers releasing their players, which would be detrimental to both the strategy and the equity of the current Mystery Game. And, as I mentioned in my post above, if managers know players could be "randomized" then both releasing managers and managers picking up players would feel less need to analyze players since "randomization" could nullify that analysis. And as we all know, player analysis is one of the most important and enjoyable aspects of the Mystery Game, an aspect your "randomization" proposal would severely diminish....and that's just not worth mollifying managers who "don't want to spend 10 million on Yastrzemski's worst mystery card."

1. I never stated that the manager releasing the underachieving player would benefit from being stuck with a player. I said the opposite.

2. There would not be a significant advantage to managers picking up a released player at 80-90 % of their value because my proposal would only re-randomize the mystery card 20% of the time. In other words, If I spend $9m on a .214 hitting Yastrzemski who was waived, instead of 10M, there is at least an 80% probability I will be stuck with the same subpar mystery card of the superstar the rest of the way. But, the small probability that a change of scenery could spark Yaz into turning his season around makes my proposal intriguing (at least to me, anyway).

3.Player analysis would still be as important because "re-randomization" of a waived player's mystery card would only occur a small percentage of the time. Even if re-randomized, the player could still end up being the same poor mystery card.

In summary, my proposal preserves the integrity of the current thought process of whether to waive a player because it would only "re-randomize" the mystery card a small percentage of the time, while adding a new spectrum of realism by introducing a small probability that a player could turn his dismal season around with another team. This would enhance the strategy of the mystery game and make it more fun without being unfair to a manager.

1. If you actually said that that the manager releasing the player would not benefit from being stuck with a subpar player, then why do you think this is a good thing? It is not a good thing that an owner is stuck with an underachieving player out of fear that player would randomize. You would have leagues full of paralyzed managers stuck with players they know are crap. That inequity favoring managers picking up released players over managers scared of releasing them would be detrimental to the mystery game.

2. A 20% chance of randomization is a significant chance, not a minimal one. It Is more than enough of a chance for randomization to prevent managers with subpar player cards from releasing those players. It is also more than enough chance (as you yourself acknowledge) for randomization to encourage opposing managers to take a chance on released high-quality players. Therefore, your randomization proposal would still screw over managers stuck with crap subpar players and favor opposing players who might pick them up.

3. Player analysis would not still be important since a 20% chance of randomization is still a significant chance of randomization...if you want an insignificant chance, try 5%. Since, as I mentioned in point number 2 above, a 20% chance of randomization would still prevent managers from releasing subpar players, it would severely diminish (if not negate) their need to do player analysis on that player. It would do the same for the player analysis of the opposing players since they wouldn't need to do analysis on a player whose acquisition is justified by randomization. This is particularly seen in your Yastrzemski example where you yourself claim opposing managers would want to pick up a player they already know is subpar.

In summary, your proposal would severely damage the integrity of the current thought process on whether to waive a player, as it would randomize a subpar card a significant percentage of the time. This would severely damage game play itself, as it would force managers to keep players they know to be subpar while giving unfair advantages to managers who might very well pick them up. This would also reduce managers' need for--and participation in-- player analysis, one of the most (if not the most) important and enjoyable aspects of the Mystery Game.