ATG Powercreep

rburgh,

To me, you illustrate very well that players have different relative value in different contexts, but to me, this adds fun to to playing strat, there are always a better player in a different context, so it's a challenge to win in such different contexts (like you did last year).

I think the best way to price the card set is to generate 7 sets of card NERP values for these ballparks. (all zeroes, all 20's, all 10's, 0/0 & 20/20 (Polo), 20/20 and 0/0 (Forbes more or less), 0/20 & 0/20, and 20/0 & 20/0.) Then average the top 3 NERPs for every card and use that for the final card NERP

This is more or less what's done in 20XX since the last four/five years, perhpas a bit less complex than you suggest, but within similar lines. And this info was confirmed by brool himself, the guy responsible of pricing players in both ATG and 20XX. And the net result is that it made small ball players like 2015's Dee Gordon actually MORE expansive than what they used to be priced. If you think through, your proposition really helps guys with 3/4 Ballpark homeruns, guys like Nap Lajoie. The more extreme players, be it players with 8/8 BP homeruns or players who are weak on both sides have seen their prices relatively increased.

Since we are on this topic, and given that we know that prices in 20XX are fixed for the players' fittiest stadium, are we sure that neutral stadium is assumed in ATG? Even for the newest players?

On another note, you used NERP (which was adjusted to defense, running, and clutch, from what I can guess) to compare Ruth vs Harper vs Baines. But the most important adjustment you have to do is the team offensive adjustment--the fact that Ruth gets so much on base that his team, over the course of a season, will have more at-bats and generate more runs because of it. Doing so is crucial to have NERP get more in line with salaries.

To illustrate, before doing this adjustment, my ratings have Ruth's best card way overpriced, by almost 2.5M. After doing the adjustment, he seems just fairly priced (I have him at 16.23M for a neutral ballpark). With the same formula, I have Baines priced at 6.08M (a bit below pricetag). Harper appears a bit off, but well within 1M. In that formula, the linear relationship is that 1M is worth 9.5 NERP. And looking at the whole range of players, the formula seems to work fine for players above 4M, but perhaps needs to be adjusted for cheaper players.

Thanks for the input guys. My original and or non-concise question was: do we think players are better for the saame amount than they used to be? Which guys or playstyles? I think it's a big result of superior cards that are whether realized or not, competing against the meta for playing time. 6.55 Wagner is a good example, though, perhaps he's just wickedly bad priced or THE example of the 2 regimes pricing disparities. I think #HR hitters and OPS in general is waaaay underpriced. Perhaps not and it's just or significantly a function of the huuuuuge supply that can now equip a dedicated bomber team with 9 40 HR hitters at about any price, causing an obvious warp on the meta of a game that has always been 50/50 dominance. Same goes for Smallball greats #1-9. 4 *studs, or no* 5man guys with the addition of Chris Sale, Piniero, Jose Fernandez, JR. I think undoubtedly though, the hitters being empowered like this leaves the pitchers with less recourse than the hitters have against stud pitching. Stud pitching still wins, but our number art gets muddled out and elevated.

Should strat have a desired league ERA? I think obv not for ATG as that would to far stiffle the enourmous set and manager's creativity to a detriment. This is kinda why I always blab about shuffled sets or something. Promoted ones. There needs to a ATG format with a more manicured meta. I outed my nerdness earlier (but I'm indulging thanks to the robustness of other managers thanks!!!) but I've always like trading cards games or anything where there's an evolving meta or even financial market to go along with it. Magic the Gathering many of you have likely heard of is the flagship card game many not so wrongfully compared to chess. Ramble, but elephant in the room, I've always felt like Strat needs to develop this incredible game more to be something like that----with many formats to play (it already has alot of great dispirate formats) , something to spur along their sales and our fun (not to go full booster lottery, but I've always dreamed of a stratosphere that integrates different formats, has WAAAAAy more users and encourages the growing of a collection that can maybe be used in live play or competitive leagues blalalalalalal).



Strat's impression of an evolving meta is .....paltry. Obviously the game players sculpt this, but there are no standardized or regulatory elements to keep the game (*****mostly advertising****) healthy and exciting. Gates Brown should be banned----strat has a lovely mechanic called PRICE though that could fix this...... Stupid card set thats both 1. played by too few players to breathe and be predicted and 2. too big esp. for the tiny amount of gameplay it gets. Idk, apples and oranges but back to your stuff.



I've always kind of had a different approach to pricing. I remember when bprool somewhat publicly spearheaded a repricing, some players made an interesting observation that we likely don't want a "perfectly priced set" because that takes the magic out of it, the quirks/bargains and is in the end judged by one supreme and inevitably opinionated person. or system. or it just takes away the concept of a "bargain". When I first started thinking about this, I was waaaay behind the math calcs you guys so amazingly churn out, still waaay behind but I've always kind of thought add a dime here. lower this guy by .42 because C > B yet B outpirces C by some change. Gotta tinker back and forth, but a sound enought logic and informed ATG mind(s) should be able to do this to great positive effect to the format.

Thanks guys, still hope to burn credits in leagues with some of you great managers on some 40/40 teams, TRIPLE CROWN LEAGUEs (If i ever get the guys again) or small ball apocalypses!

So many things to talk about and I just add spew to the good thoughts.

"And the net result is that it made small ball players like 2015's Dee Gordon actually MORE expansive than what they used to be priced. If you think through, your proposition really helps guys with 3/4 Ballpark homeruns, guys like Nap Lajoie. The more extreme players, be it players with 8/8 BP homeruns or players who are weak on both sides have seen their prices relatively increased."

Marc, I've been chewing on that, and don't really get or agree? I like the avering (math or conceptually) of dif. parks archtypes by rgburgh, but averaging the top 3????? wouldn't that just give em a 20 - 20 , 20 - 20 and a 10 - 10 or at least some booooomber places? How can Cobb really compare? not that he should, and maybe I'm being lazy and not doping, but I think those high HR ratings would outclass the BP SI? And to Marcpelltier, why would this benefit the 4/4 Lajoie's? I kinda agree but don't understand why? In the rburgh example, I don't quite agree because of my thoughts/confusion earlier in this paragraph.
-----Dahlen, Trout, W. Brown and of course supLajoie are great examples of these Yellowstone hitters.

Ballparks are huge and underrealized in the pricing. The cards are fair and then there's BP effects.




I totally agree with the feedback loop or circular lineup potential of high OBP supernovas like Ruth, but I think they're quite rare and can be handled? every card has OBP though and I think this is exactly what causes the ERA increase I moan about. Not so much HRs, OPS and Wagner has about as much to do with that as Eddie Mathews. Gates Brown should be fixed.

An example, with three left-handed left-fielders in 2015.

What you see below is how my ratings would set each player's salary based on different stadium parameters.

First column is the pricetag set by SOM
Next-to-last column is the player salary based on my ratings, adjusted for stadium.
Last column is the difference between these two values.

Rosario's price doesn't change much with the stadiums (he has 5 BP vs lhp and 2 BP vs rhp). Holt (weak on both side) fluctuates highly, his salary would be 3.49M in a pitcher's park, but goes down as low as 2.03M in a power stadium. Rasmus goes the other way, not surprisingly.

In this example, it's pretty clear that SOM fixes a player salary roughly at mid-point between his value in a neutral stadium and his value in the fittiest stadium. For Rosario, the mid-point is between 3.32M (neutral) and 3.43M (power). For Holt, the mid-point is between 2.71M (neutral) and 3.49M (pitcher's park), and for Rasmus, the mid-point is between 3.49M (neutral) and 4.30M (power park).

So it doesn't come as a surprise that, based on a neutral stadium, Rosario is the best buy of the three and that my ratings have Rasmus and Holt as overpriced.


SOM Salary..NAME……BAT…PR….POS…….MySal………..Diff
PITCHER’S PARK
3,36 Rosario L 2L lf $3,31 -0,05 $
3,86 Rasmus L 1L lf $2,58 --1,28 $
2,89 Holt,B L 2L lf $3,49 0.60 $

NEUTRAL STADIUM
3,36 Rosario L 2L lf $3,32 -0,04 $
3,86 Rasmus L 1L lf $3,49 -0,37 $
2,89 Holt,B L 2L lf 2,71 -0,18 $

POWER PARK

3,36 Rosario L 2L lf $3,43 0,07 $
3,86 Rasmus L 1L lf $4,30 0,44 $
2,89 Holt,B L 2L lf $2,03 -0,86 $


(NOTE: in my ratings, players in the 3M range are usually better buys than players in other range price, but I made an adjustment here for this post so that factor doesn't come in the analysis).

Thanks for the input guys. My original and or non-concise question was: do we think players are better for the saame amount than they used to be? Which guys or playstyles? I think it's a big result of superior cards that are whether realized or not, competing against the meta for playing time. 6.55 Wagner is a good example, though, perhaps he's just wickedly bad priced or THE example of the 2 regimes pricing disparities. I think #HR hitters and OPS in general is waaaay underpriced. Perhaps not and it's just or significantly a function of the huuuuuge supply that can now equip a dedicated bomber team with 9 40 HR hitters at about any price, causing an obvious warp on the meta of a game that has always been 50/50 dominance. Same goes for Smallball greats #1-9. 4 *studs, or no* 5man guys with the addition of Chris Sale, Piniero, Jose Fernandez, JR. I think undoubtedly though, the hitters being empowered like this leaves the pitchers with less recourse than the hitters have against stud pitching. Stud pitching still wins, but our number art gets muddled out and elevated.

To me, playstyles have also seen a great change due to the humongous player pool. I know I played a ton of bomber teams back in ATG2 or 3 or even 4. Back then, with a small pool, it was a great strategy because if you got those fewer power guys and fewer strong RPs, not only were they on YOUR roster and playing in YOUR bomber park, but they also weren't on SOMEBODY else's team beating up on YOU. And if you missed on those fewer good bomber cards, you were gonna have a long season. Now, every team in a league could conceivably field a solid bomber team.
Same concept with regards to Small Ball and the effects of the larger player pool.

See, so the SUPPLY of players has hit a point where it's irrelevant. I tried giving credence to pitchers and non* guys, but this irrelevant supply (12+ great hitters/values at every position/playstyle) has lead to a "bats-race" that has pushed more and more managers to low WHIP guys, whose supply has grown.

This means lower %s and higher counting number totals. ..... now i'm at an impasse though. What should be the ideal mix of offense vs defense in lets say 80 or 100 mil be? I don't want to restrict freedom or the "fantasy" aspect of this game, but it seems teams can get too much for too little. Dale Murray----->Gates Brown----->injury risks (another new "supply)

You no longer need to spend 11 mil for a slugger. There's Dave Henderson and soooo much money to invest all around. Perhaps it most centrally is a problem of outliers.

However, I'm not advocating cutting the size of the pool. For my Franchise Leagues, I want those options.

Strat does provide 3 ways to decrease the player pool:
1--Shuffle Leagues
2--AL/NL, Postwar/Prewar
3--Custom Player Pools

So it can be done in the current framework.

I agree the larger player pool brings things closer. But everything is relative.

There are 12+ great left fielders but there are not 12 Barry Bonds level left fielders. Around ATG2 you might be able to build a bomber team and if you were lucky to get everyone you got be dominant but flip side that if you were not lucky to get them it might be a long season to me was undesirable. Luck often trumped skill.To the extent luck can be eliminated I am happier.

The fact that the larger pool means everyone can build a bomber team who wants to for me simply means that the guy who can build the best overall team around big boppers is going to win. If there are enough small ball cards available everyone can build a decent one the one who does it best and makes the most of it will win. Skill trumps luck.

Final outcome is still going to be who can make the most of what they end up with. The larger player pool in my opinion provides more options and shifts the driving force behind success from luck in the direction of skill and knowledge. While that may put me at a disadvantage with some managers like rburgh I prefer what we now have over what we had a few years back. Give me more cards.

"If Eric Gagne were an S9* he'd be worth what, 13, 14 million? I haven't looked exactly, but that seems right. He'd be throwing 330, 340 innings a season. As an R1 closer, it's hard to get him to 80 if you try, although I saw a guy get him to 130 or so a while back."

Well here's a team where he pitched 145 innings. This is in Mark's proof of concept league. Interestingly my opponent in the upcoming finals is a Dale Murray concept team http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/sim/1441161

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/sim/1441156

I also agree that repricing would be great, is long overdue, and if done right should revitalize the game.

BTW, Last-Druid little ball team (over 300 SB!!!) managed to dominate the league in a sea of Bombers teams...a proof to me that prices for small ball players aren't that bad.

I see a lot of guys speak of a need to overhaul the pricing system, but I don't see many propositions, besides increasing Dave Henderson and Gates Brown salaries.

Dave Henderson, in my ratings does appear roughly 1.2M underpriced---that's only a 1-2 win edge in a 80M league. But he does have 25-ish gbA, and thus often is a leader in double-plays, an information sometimes overseen by owners who think he is 2-3M valued over his pricetag, and he has no gbC and just a few flyB, so very few productive outs, and he is one of the few runners who will never be held, inducing again more double-plays. To repeat, he's a great bargain, one of the biggest positive outlier in my ratings, but not by as much as people feel.

As for Gates Brown, first he is a bargain in a dh league, as a dh, like all bad fielders who play dh, like Doc Prothro, a great bargain at dh even though I never saw him used, like any Dick Allen bad defensive card, like Sano in 2015. That's simply because SOM adopted the policy of valuing defense in the pricetag, even for obvious case of dh-ing. Second, he's a bargain, because owners like to have S8-S9 starters pitch complete games, and so Brown gets sometimes 94-95% at-bats on his good side-but in leagues where owners rely on S6-S7 starters, Brown gets 12-15% at-bats vs lhp, against whom he is just awful. As a lf in a 80M league with plenty of short stamina and lefty pitching, his value is in the 4M.

The biggest outliers are to be found among pitchers--Pretty much every unbalanced pitcher of the 1994 Expos and 2001 Mariners---remember, they were introduced together---are offset--Pineiro, Butch Henry, Heredia, Tim Scott--as if something went wrong in that particular moment. Then you have a bunch of non-*SP in the 2.3-2.6M range who seem quite underpriced---Klippstein, Atley, Houttman are a few names that come to mind.

Last Druid dominated the league thanks to this set of underpriced pitchers, and we were a bunch of owners in this year's Barnstour--- including myself, labratoryand sociophil---who thrieve on this strategy to finish in the top 10 and push BruceF, and his 4-ace strategy, out of the 9 sweet spots.