What does the card price reflect?

If I remember right there were discussions before over the years regarding card pricing. Below is a summary of what I remember from discussions over the years. You will probably find more discussion on pricing in the ATG forums as I think there were more discussions over the years there than in the 200x forums. But that is a subjective opinion not based on any search stats I have conducted.

The formula is based on the cards themselves. Each component being assigned a value. I think for purposes of pricing ballpark effects were either considered neutral (1-8 or so) or ignored. Not sure that was ever determined conclusively. Once calculated the pricing was reviewed by beta testers who drafted a few teams and reviewed the prices and if they thought any specific card was over or under priced they made adjustment suggestions which strato may or may not have paid attention to.

I think for purposes of pricing ballpark effects were either considered neutral (1-8 or so) or ignored. Not sure that was ever determined conclusively.

In fact, SOM dealt with this issue differently over the years. At the beginning, SOM based its ratings on neutral ballparks (1-8 or 1-9), but I believe that in the last few years, SOM changed it and now based the pricetags on the "fittiest" stadium of each individual cards. For example, relatively speaking, Altuve is a much better value in a low-hitting ballpark. So his pricetag will reflect his (relative) greating value in low-hitting ballparks. The consequence is that Altuve now becomes overpriced in "neutral stadiums" (and badly overpriced in Coors-like Stadiums). For some reasons, though, it seems that this measure affects more (negatively) the Altuve and the Yellich than the sluggers, although there are a few sluggers with no defense, no running, low on-base who also seem overpriced in neutral parks (Gattis, José Abreu, to name a few)

In fact, SOM dealt with this issue differently over the years. At the beginning, SOM based its ratings on neutral ballparks (1-8 or 1-9), but I believe that in the last few years, SOM changed it and now based the pricetags on the "fittiest" stadium of each individual cards.

I'm sure they do this to a degree. And if they don't, they should. But don't you think they might also factor in those special cards that play well in most all ballparks and price accordingly for them, as well?

I think it's probably a simple "point count" system. A single is worth so much, a # is worth so much, gba subtract so much, clutch add or subtract, range and errors so much adjusted for positional chances, etc. All figured for an "average" ballpark.

I think it's probably a simple "point count" system. A single is worth so much, a # is worth so much, gba subtract so much, clutch add or subtract, range and errors so much adjusted for positional chances, etc. All figured for an "average" ballpark.

Yes, but not just average ballpark. SOM does it also in low-hitting Ballparks, and in Coors-like, and the pricetag is fixed in accordance to where the player is relatively best ( where he fits best). I am confident in my call because the folks who established the pricetag for SOM publicly said so.

like strether said, they might do this to a certain degree, and not fully, that I am not sure. For players who have good onbase and some pop, say Harrison, his pricetag is relatively the same across ballparks, and so his pricetag probably reflects his value in neutral parks.

Interesting replies.Wasn't sure how to phrase it, but what prompted my question is that I was mocked on another forum for stating that despite BP chances having the same result, there is a difference in value between a # on a basic homerun reading and a # on a basic flyball out reading. For example against RHP both Encarn and SRod have 8 BP HR chances.

Encarnacion - of the 8 chances 4.9 fall on HRs, 3.1 on outs
Sean Rodriguez 2.9 fall on HRs, 5.1 on outs

Despite the basic result being irrelevant to the outcome I believe compared to Encarn, SRod's value rises as the BP Homerun rating goes up and conversely Encarn's value declines as the BP effect gets lower. Bottom line I stand by my claim there is a difference.

scumby,

I see where you're getting at, and the truth is probably in the middle ground.

Yes, your arguers are right that 8 BP are worth 8 BP no matter what---and what's on the basic cards are irrevelant to this. This is true on absolute terms. 20 lost runs are 20 lost runs.

But your perception is right that it might not affect Rodriguez and Encarnation the same way, because establishing values are relative thing. To use a metaphor, losing 20 runs will have a greater relative effect for a low-scoring team (20% of a team which has scored 100 runs) vs a high-scoring team (only 15% of a team that has scored 150 runs). In fact, in my example, the impact is not only relative, the chance to win a ball game is more affected in the low-scoring team by losing the 20 runs. Similarly, Loosing 8 BP by playing in, say, Marlins stadium, will affect more the low-costing player than the high-costing player.

This said, while What I said is true in principles, in reality, there is many things in play. Rodriguez, vs Encarnation, has more value coming from the defense, and even from the running game, both of which benefit in relative terms slighty more in low-hitting ballpark, so the overall impact is almost the same---encarnation loses 533k in my ratings by going from a neutral park to a low-hitting bballpark while Rodriguez loses 620k----a difference you wouldn't see with a naked eye. But still 620 k on 2.38m is almost 25%, and that's relatively more than Encarnation.

Final word---the reason why so little homeruns are found on Rodriguez'basic card vs Encarnation is mainly because of homefield stadiums---Tampa instead of Rogers Centre--- in basic, SOM assumes the homefield of the player. sometimes it's not as easy to see because SOM takes in consideration whether the player have hit his homeruns at home, or on the road, but anyway that' the main reason.

This said, while What I said is true in principles, in reality, there is many things in play. Rodriguez, vs Encarnation, has more value coming from the defense, and even from the running game, both of which benefit in relative terms slighty more in low-hitting ballpark, so the overall impact is almost the same---encarnation loses 533k in my ratings by going from a neutral park to a low-hitting bballpark while Rodriguez loses 620k----a difference you wouldn't see with a naked eye. But still 620 k on 2.38m is almost 25%, and that's relatively more than Encarnation.

This thread, and most threads about SOM, has proven there is nothing truer about SOM than the highlighted phrase. One of the difficulties about analyzing any one element or dynamic about SOM is isolating it doesn't truly address its impact. Since all those elements/dynamics are always "in play" with other SOM elements dynamics--as you well show above--it's difficult to determine the actual impact or value of any of them.

I have always thought Chaos Theory could be as applicable to a system like SOM as it is to meteorology. My uncle is a theoretical physicist and could maybe weigh in on that.

scumby,

I see where you're getting at, and the truth is probably in the middle ground.

Yes, your arguers are right that 8 BP are worth 8 BP no matter what---and what's on the basic cards are irrevelant to this. This is true on absolute terms. 20 lost runs are 20 lost runs.

But your perception is right that it might not affect Rodriguez and Encarnation the same way, because establishing values are relative thing. To use a metaphor, losing 20 runs will have a greater relative effect for a low-scoring team (20% of a team which has scored 100 runs) vs a high-scoring team (only 15% of a team that has scored 150 runs). In fact, in my example, the impact is not only relative, the chance to win a ball game is more affected in the low-scoring team by losing the 20 runs. Similarly, Loosing 8 BP by playing in, say, Marlins stadium, will affect more the low-costing player than the high-costing player.

This said, while What I said is true in principles, in reality, there is many things in play. Rodriguez, vs Encarnation, has more value coming from the defense, and even from the running game, both of which benefit in relative terms slighty more in low-hitting ballpark, so the overall impact is almost the same---encarnation loses 533k in my ratings by going from a neutral park to a low-hitting bballpark while Rodriguez loses 620k----a difference you wouldn't see with a naked eye. But still 620 k on 2.38m is almost 25%, and that's relatively more than Encarnation.

Final word---the reason why so little homeruns are found on Rodriguez'basic card vs Encarnation is mainly because of homefield stadiums---Tampa instead of Rogers Centre--- in basic, SOM assumes the homefield of the player. sometimes it's not as easy to see because SOM takes in consideration whether the player have hit his homeruns at home, or on the road, but anyway that' the main reason.

The missing variable is the value of the 2 .64M in payroll difference (5.02-2.38 ) which is gained. So I stick by my assertion SRod is a better choice. There is more upside to using in in a homerun park than Encarn. (Although perhaps Carter is the better comparison for SRod -I have gotten Carter like numbers using SRod in hr parks)