Re-pricng of players

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.

Now, your statement above is weird. Of course objective criteria are involved in what people are willing to pay for Apple computers. What the computers can objectively do, as opposed to what their competitors can objectively do, does factor into what people are willing to pay. So, the value of Apple computers is not just based on its aggregate demand, which is a theoretical concept to begin with. So, not only can we not actually establish the aggregated demand for a particular player, since not all players will be voting, the aggregate demand is not the only factor determining a SOM card's value. Objective criteria do apply.

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.

My statement was absolutely correct; so your statement must be wrong and is. First of all, if you read my earlier posts, you would know I wasn't talking about players like Briggs and Singleton when I said "over-used" players. So, try to read better. Over-used players are those who are only used because of their particularly low price. Thus, their over-use will lead to over-pricing, which will lead to under-usage. So we will be right back where we were before, and your Briggs anecdote is irrelevant and doesn't apply.

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.

My above statement was clear and sound. You just didn't read it well...again. I said clearly that the pricings were based on both subjective opinion and objective statistics. Therefore the players weren't just subjectively underpriced and subjectively overpriced as you said. I didn't have to replace any words. If you can't grasp that clear syllogistic logic and grammar, you have my sympathies.

You also need to amend your erroneous notions of "objective" and "subjective." Since objective facts and statistics were involved in SOM's pricings, they weren't just subjective and your claim they were was incorrect. You made the same error in your Apple Computer argument and need to realize full objectivity and full subjectivity rarely occur.

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.

Yes, you do "think that at all." Your notion of an inevitable movement towards an "equal aggregate demand" does presume everyone will think and value in a particular way. You affirm that with your own paragraph above, assuming everybody will re-evaluate Briggs in a similar way. Yes "equal aggregate demand" refers to the equal demand for two players, but you are still erroneously assuming they will move towards it.

Also, you can't use the same economic theories referring to ever-fluctuating price structures with static price structures. Even if SOM re-prices yearly, it's prices will still remain static for a year, so your usage of those theories isn't applicable.

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.

I'm a baseball fan, too, as are many others who don't want their leagues to be full of super-teams. That's why we have 100,000 and above leagues that aren't normal. So, your desire is a particularly subjective one that most don't want. And most of the 70's stars are not priced ridiculously low. Even if it was, it wouldn't add any logic to your desire.

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.

As I showed above, I don't misunderstand the term at all. You just misunderstood my statement. Even if "aggregate demand" refers to a particular demand, you still erroneously assume all the players are going to move towards the particular "aggregate demand" you claim. That was what I was correctly criticizing.

The point I was making about Apple (now called Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) is that we know its value ($700 billion) because that is how much people are willing to pay to own it. Similarly, we know the value of an SOM card by how much people are willing to pay for it. I suppose I should have used gold since that cannot be obtusely interpreted. The monetary value of gold is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it.

you wrote:

First of all, if you read my earlier posts, you would know I wasn't talking about players like Briggs and Singleton when I said "over-used" players. So, try to read better. Over-used players are those who are only used because of their particularly low price. Thus, their over-use will lead to over-pricing, which will lead to under-usage. So we will be right back where we were before, and your Briggs anecdote is irrelevant and doesn't apply.

OK, so if you don't like Singleton use any player you would like would like to name. If Player X is used in 98% of leagues and his price is raised by 0.5 mil, then he will be used in fewer leagues. Perhaps his use will go down to 70%, then that price is better, or if his use decreases to 2% then we'll know that he is overpriced and his price will need to be adjusted to a value that is between his old price and his old price + 0.5 mil. In any case, we know to increase his current price because 98% is too high. So if you don't like Singleton and Briggs, then pick any pair of players that you think qualifies as overused and underused and increase the overused player salary by 10% and decrease the underused player salary by 10%. Then, do a thought experiment, what would a reasonable person expect to happen? (you'll have to ask somebody because you don't have the capacity to view events as a reasonable person).

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.

You are wrong in your assumptions, but I understand that looking for contrived controversy is the goal.

The two game engines that I mentioned (SOM and STATS) were alike in pricing nature. STATS also provided multiple salary caps and pricing was very similar to the model used by SOM. Rosters were set to between 24-26 players as I remember and the game's pre-season draft, game schedule (162 games: 18 games per week times 9 weeks - 3 games per night with no games played on Sundays), standings and post-season models were very similar to that used by SOM.

One different option available in STATS that I liked was the ability to set your lineup every day for each of the three games, rather than the method used by SOM. It was useful in navigating through short-term injuries.

Re-pricing on an annual basis was great for that (STATS) game and it would be equally ideal for this (SOM) game in my opinion, especially for individual seasons.

The point I was making about Apple (now called Apple, Inc., formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) is that we know its value ($700 billion) because that is how much people are willing to pay to own it. Similarly, we know the value of an SOM card by how much people are willing to pay for it. I suppose I should have used gold since that cannot be obtusely interpreted. The monetary value of gold is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it.

This was the actual point you were making about Apple, which I addressed perfectly:

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 tried to erroneously claim that objective criteria had no place in Apple Computer, inc.'s value, and I correctly showed you you were wrong. The objective realities of what Apple computers can do, the objective realities of what their opponents' computers can do, and the objective realities of why people need and use computers all factor into an Apple Computer's value. So it's value is both dependent on subjective opinions and objective realities/criteria. That applies to all values, including gold whose value is partially dependent on the objective reality of its high malleability.

OK, so if you don't like Singleton use any player you would like would like to name. If Player X is used in 98% of leagues and his price is raised by 0.5 mil, then he will be used in fewer leagues. Perhaps his use will go down to 70%, then that price is better, or if his use decreases to 2% then we'll know that he is overpriced and his price will need to be adjusted to a value that is between his old price and his old price + 0.5 mil. In any case, we know to increase his current price because 98% is too high. So if you don't like Singleton and Briggs, then pick any pair of players that you think qualifies as overused and underused and increase the overused player salary by 10% and decrease the underused player salary by 10%. Then, do a thought experiment, what would a reasonable person expect to happen? (you'll have to ask somebody because you don't have the capacity to view events as a reasonable person).

Nice try, Franky. You have been the only unreasonable person on this thread. You make bad arguments, and when I debunk them, you get frustrated and lash out...just as you did above. It's not my fault you can't do better.

Secondly, you clearly don't grasp that the prices are going to remain static, so your garbled anecdote above doesn't apply. Also, as further proof you didn't read my definition of "over-used player" well, you get it wrong again. I wasn't speaking comparatively. The players I'm talking about are those who are only bought because of their low price. Once they are over-priced because of over-usage, they will become under-used, and we will again have the current problem of under-used players. I hope I don't have to explain that to you again.

You are wrong in your assumptions, but I understand that looking for contrived controversy is the goal.

The two game engines that I mentioned (SOM and STATS) were alike in pricing nature. STATS also provided multiple salary caps and pricing was very similar to the model used by SOM. Rosters were set to between 24-26 players as I remember and the game's pre-season draft, game schedule (162 games: 18 games per week times 9 weeks - 3 games per night with no games played on Sundays), standings and post-season models were very similar to that used by SOM.
Re-pricing on an annual basis was great for that (STATS) game and it would be equally ideal for this (SOM) game in my opinion, especially for individual seasons.

Risden, I made a perfectly rational and exceedingly polite post and made no assumptions. The only one who is being contentious is you with your rude comment. However, I forgive you, and I will address your post.

Nothing you said shows that STATs pricing is similar to SOM's. You need to show that SOM prices its cards for a similar holistic system, and that It ascribes the save value system to its individual pricing as STATS has. You have yet to do so.
It's a given that team size and season schedule will be similar, so that doesn't make your argument either.

As to re-pricing, you're not alone. Many others want it, too. The discussion is whether it would be a good thing, how it should be done, and how often. I've brought up many of the possible problems with it in general, and particularly the problems with re-pricing on demand/usage. If you actually want to show how STATS' re-pricing would be similar to a successful SOM re-pricing, you really need to show how STATS's pricing is actually similar to SOM's and how STATs' mode of re-pricing bodes well for a possible SOM re-pricing. That would substantially help your argument.

You are wrong in your assumptions, but I understand that looking for contrived controversy is the goal.

"LIKE"!

Yes, this was my post. It was really looking for "contrived controversy"... :

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 was going to leave the last comment to L Strether just to see if he was able to keep from disagreeing with himself if non- one posted again but I didn't want his head to explode.

1. L Strether doesn't understand what feasible means. It means what is possible, not his opinion of whether or not it will occur. When I say that it is feasible for L Strether to win the Mystery Championship I'm using the word correctly even though In my opinion there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it ever occurring. L. Strether responds, "I know everything so you can't have an opinion."

2. I think we can all agree that SOM will not come up with a program to change pricing unless they want to do it for ATG because for the most part that's all they care about, but if did it would easily be adapted to all the games and in my opinion they would then port that to the mystery game. L. Strether responds, "no way in hell blah blah." There I saved you some more time by replying to myself again.

3. This is my idea for the program. It is very simple (like me) and doesn't take into account stadiums, manager's preferences for favorite players, and things only L Strether's mind can hatch. Also it may not work. Before reading it L Strether responds, "that's not how I would do it if I consented to let SOM change pricing. So it's crap."

There aren't tons of mystery leagues so the changes would be monthly.

Take a snapshot of every team in each league just before it starts, at 41 games, 81 games, and at 141 games; whatever the changes for 95-90-80% are plus the day where rosters are set. That's 4 checkpoints for each league. If there are 5 leagues that month there are 20 checkpoints. If at the end of the month a player is rostered at 81-100% of the checkpoints add 5 % to his salary. If a player is rostered in 61-80% then add 2 1/2%. If a player is used in 41-60% of the checkpoints his salary stays the same. If a player is used 21-40% of the time subtract 2 1/2% from his salary. If a player is used at 0-20% of the Checkpoints subtract 5% from his salary. Obviously nothing goes below .75 million.

The parameters and +/- percentages could be changed. There may be much better ideas and in the short time of writing this I probably didn't think of any glitches that could happen. I'll leave that up to L Strether because I need some sleep before I drop Ed Halicki tomorrow. It'll be restless because I don't know how to break it to him. I'm sure L. will have his usual constructive criticism.

I was going to leave the last comment to L Strether just to see if he was able to keep from disagreeing with himself if non- one posted again but I didn't want his head to explode...
1. L Strether doesn't understand what feasible means. It means what is possible, not his opinion of whether or not it will occur.

Firstly, Splits, you haven't been able to keep from disagreeing with me, so your head must be ready to burst. I've just responded to other posters addressing my arguments. I'm sorry my debunking yours has led you to obvious anxiety about my responses.

Secondly, I know perfectly well what "feasible" means, and I made that clear on two posts. You have just had trouble reading them. This is what I said; try to read it this time:

Feasible doesn't just mean "capable of being done." It also means "capable of being used or dealt with successfully" and "likely."...

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

So, it's not really feasible you could one day show some brains and maturity in your arguments, but it's possible. Your "argument" below will prove that.

2. L. Strether responds, "no way in hell blah blah." There I saved you some more time by replying to myself again.

I rest my case...

Finally, your plan for the program isn't simple at all, although it is simplistic. Firstly, there is no way SOM is going to make monthly changes. So, you're already in Fantasyland. Secondly, there's no way they're going to go through your convoluted "snapshot" plan, even if it did make sense. Considering you give no justification for any of your percentages or proffered calculations, I wouldn't blame them. That is constructive criticism. I'm sorry all my previous constructive criticism has caused you to fret so.


P.s. I'm still looking forward to that Rigged Splits dictionary, by the way. I could use a laugh on Thursday, too...

Stretcher says:

So, whether or not we could handle a new price structure is not the point; I'm sure we can. The point is re-pricing will just give us a new set of the same problems that caused people to want re-pricing. It won't solve those problems.

First of all, it doesn't matter how the cards are repriced, it just matters that they are repriced better than they currently are priced. The pricing problem has nothing to do with usage or non-usage, the problem is that some cards are not priced correctly as to their actual value and repricing, if done well, will solve that problem. The more cards that are priced correctly, the more level the playing field will be for all players and the better the game is. As I've said a number of times, the 70's and especially the 80's games go back a ways. The SOMO pricing on the initial 200X and ATG games was full of pricing inequities similar to the 70's and especially the 80's. I rang up a .540+ winning percentage in ATG I because I combed thru all the posts on bargain players before drafting my first team. Orlando Cepeda cost around $4.50 in ATG I and was acknowledged as the supreme bargain. Now he costs over $6.50 in ATG 8. Why, because he was incorrectly priced in the first attempt at pricing SOMO ATG, which is understandable. The pricing error was corrected in future versions of the game as SOMO became more experienced at pricing the card sets. Prices in 200X and ATG have evolved to the point where they do a pretty good job creating a level playing field as they have priced 200X cards more than a dozen times and they have probably priced the ATG cards close to the same number of times. Whoever gets drafted gets drafted and whoever doesn't get drafted, doesn't get drafted, but at least the vast majority of the cards are priced fairly. The 70's and especially the 80's game have a pricing system that has never evolved from the initial attempt at getting it right, not to mention the 80's game was the first ever mystery card game pricing attempt. The 70's and 80's still have all the initial pricing inequities of someone taking their first or second crack at something and the pricing has not been revised at all since then to account for the inevitable human error. For example, Don Buford in the 70's game should cost closer to $7.00 than $5.00 IMO. To me, it's tough to argue against that point. If Don Buford doesn't get drafted at $6.40, it's not a problem, he's just not the tremendous bargain he used to be at $5.51. I welcome not drafting Don Buford, I have drafted him 100 times. I think anyone who has played the 70's or 80's could EASILY come up with a list of a dozen guys in each game who are obviously under or over priced. Getting the card price as close to it's relative value is always a good thing, not a problem, regardless of whether or not the guy ends up in the FA pool or gets drafted by someone. I sympathize with any long-time playing vets who are against revamping pricing. The same arguments were made by 2001 and ATG I vets. I can at least respect their positions as they are arguing with their hearts and not their head. To me, there is no intelligent or logical argument against repricing. It's a NO BRAINER-just like drafting Don Buford will always be at the current $5.51 price tag.