ATG Powercreep

Ah the Barnstormers...I didn't play this year. My first year, 2006 ,I lost in game 7 of the finals championship, won it all (as Petrosian) two years later then finished first in the standings the year DonFESQ won it, and if I recall had the best record in finals regular season. I stopped playing after the 2015 Barnstormers. I had the most wins of any manager during the regular season that year but got eliminated in the playoffs each time so I finished only 17th. Meanwhile, Mr. Foster won the playoffs five times which gave him a 75 point edge over me. I didn't play this year because it seems to me that a tournament designed to determine who is the best manager over the course of the tournament rewards luck in the playoffs at the expense of the regular season. I would argue that season point totals should be simply the number of games won in the regular season plus the playoffs. Giving the winner of the playoffs a 20 point bonus, when the playoffs are largely a crapshoot, significantly negates the skill involved in acquiring the best record over 162 games. We live in a society where playoffs are big business but in a game like this should not carry such inflated bonuses, IMHO. Finally, I wouldn't worry about keeping BruceF out of the top nine. His teams are highly formulaic and therefore predictable, and if you just grab some of his favorite platoon guys, Shano, Phillips, Clines etc, that is generally sufficient to take the wind out of his sails. Also having a pen that turns around his platoon based lineups usually messes him up further. Just some observations there, I've been quite pleased with the results of most of the leagues that we competed against each other in.

Well done with the tournaments, I know many of you are the cream of the crop when it comes to ATG Leagues.

As well as reading these posts with your thoughts I have noticed many players who I have deemed too pricey, or a great value (for any stadium) .

Besides the starting pitchers mentioned and the problem with super relievers there are several newer hitters that are incredible values... My first thought is, don't mention names dummy, but of course you guys know the same players I know and probably many (and much) more.

These players (in particular) seem ridiculously inexpensive compared to others at the same position. So much so it is another reason I would really prefer to play more Post War ATG8 leagues.

1. Bobby Dahlen 6.66
2. Honus Wagner 6.55
3. Richie Ashburn 4.86
4. Earle Combs 4.70

But there are a couple of problems with the Post War subset, most notably being the NeL. players who should have been included in the Pre War set. It also really bothers me that the "DEFAULT" for Post War Leagues is "No DH" and for Pre War Leagues the default is," DH". Tell me that wasn't a mistake that they just never bothered to fix. .... Because of this stupidity of the very few POST WAR ATG8 leagues created, four in five (at least) are no DH leagues. It bums me out.

(Also, remember when you could adjust the settings when searching for leagues to join, you could put in DH or no DH, you could set it to search for only the set you wanted, or adjust by salary cap, or both. I really miss that function.

But back to the topic at hand, I obviously agree that the larger the player pool the better, to please everyone. And what they have done to allow us to create subsets is very smart and customer friendly. Which brings me to my next (rambling) point.....;

SOM is not some giant corporation, they are a really tiny, family run (until recently maybe) business that has been lucky to survive this long. They are also lucky to have such dedicated on-line fans willing to spend lots of money, like you guys...

Can you imagine if they went out of business tomorrow, how would we feel then? All our complaing would seem petty. It reminds me of seeing The Grateful Dead numerous times BEFORE Jerry Garcia died. I felt lucky he did not die in the mid 1980s, which very nearly happened. So I guess it is a fine line between being grateful for what we have, but also wanting to improve upon it.

If SOM were a huge company with millions in revenues they could probably do things like change the salaries weekly based on player usage. In other words, use the market to help adjust some of the pricing, some of the time.

Of course I agree a new pricing system with new prices would be great, but it is not a deal breaker. I am going to keep playing this game for a while no matter what.

LastDruid:

I didn't play this year because it seems to me that a tournament designed to determine who is the best manager over the course of the tournament rewards luck in the playoffs at the expense of the regular season.

I like the tournament. It's work to qualify. Just like real sports, the best team on paper doesn't always win.

there are a couple of problems with the Post War subset, most notably being the NeL. players who should have been included in the Pre War set. It also really bothers me that the "DEFAULT" for Post War Leagues is "No DH" and for Pre War Leagues the default is," DH". Tell me that wasn't a mistake that they just never bothered to fix. .... Because of this stupidity of the very few POST WAR ATG8 leagues created, four in five (at least) are no DH leagues. It bums me out.

Does this DH no dh impact on the salary structure?

I agree with your list of nice values, but any explanations why these players are such nice values.

Nel52, great post here; your share a very thoughtful overview of the pricing situations and I love some of those recommendations.

I wonder if a pricing model tied to usage would be better for this game. Every time a player is used on a roster, his price creeps up. When players are not used, their price ticks down.

Obviously from a developer perspective, it would change the pre-draft player pool format. Currently, we pick a team based on the pricing and wait for a league to fill. This would have to change to accommodate drafting a player pool with the adjusted pricing. Maybe when a league fills, then you fill out your draft card.

Right now we all have our guys that we consider exceptional values in certain circumstances. As their price ticks up, they become less valuable. If Shano Collins cost $1.95, would as many people use him as a small ball platoon guy? As his price climbs his usage would drop. When his usage drops, his price starts to click back down.

We also have players that we considered to be too expensive for what they offer. If 1986 Don Mattingly cost $5.25, he would start to look like a great value. The more he gets used, the more his price ticks up, eventually it becomes too expensive again and their are new bargains to play.

I think this model would create a new efficiency based on usage and each time we pick a team we are reacting to new pricing and have to find the new bargains. We dont keep picking the same guys at the same price. Our old favorites will have their price ticked up until they're too expensive, and the guys that are too expensive will start to get more play.

This regular fluctuation would lead to a greater usage of the entire player pool. It will also end the over-usage of the Dale Murray types -- who is currently always my number one pre-draft waiver slot, regardless of ballpark. It's crazy, but in my model, he is too good a value.

You know what would be interesting but likely impossible to program? Make not only usage a factor, but # of times a player appears on an autodraft card. Therefore, when Murray shows up on 8 draft cards in a league, there is more weight to his usage than just the 1 usage for the season.

One of the many problems with roster based values is that all the 50 cent guys creep upward over time.

Another is the timing issue - how often are the price updates implemented?

A third is that guys who are great fits for lopsided parks (Musial, Stearnes, Dickey, Vaughan, etc. for LH parks and the big RH bats for Minute Maid and the like) will get their prices jacked to the point where simply playing in those parks will become difficult.

A fourth is that certain theme leagues should be excluded from the pricing, otherwise the popular franchise leagues, alphabet leagues, and others will further distort the prices of all the players for some franchises.

Finally, it will increase the advantage for math guys (like me) and therefore penalize guys who build teams around certain sets of core players. In fact, for this latter group of guys their best strategy would be to play less often.

I don't think we want to go there.

One of the many problems with roster based values is that all the 50 cent guys creep upward over time.
Not true in my example. if players aren't picked, they stay at 50 cents. The price only rises the more a player is picked

Another is the timing issue - how often are the price updates implemented?
Good Question. Weekly? Or maybe it's not based on time, but on every 10 (or other number of) leagues that are formed.

A third is that guys who are great fits for lopsided parks (Musial, Stearnes, Dickey, Vaughan, etc. for LH parks and the big RH bats for Minute Maid and the like) will get their prices jacked to the point where simply playing in those parks will become difficult.
Not sure how this would play out. As players get picked less and less, more new values are uncovered. If the same old guys that are great fits for extreme parks keep getting picked at high volume, their price rises. Would you pay 6.5 ml for Kal Daniels? Or would you rather try Lance Berkman now that he is 5.5 mil?

A fourth is that certain theme leagues should be excluded from the pricing, otherwise the popular franchise leagues, alphabet leagues, and others will further distort the prices of all the players for some franchises.
Great point. I think there should be some baseline price that leagues have an option of choosing from -- play the usage affected pricing or the untouched baseline pricing -- and this baseline pricing should be updated from what it is now, implementing a lot of the items from this thread's first post.

Finally, it will increase the advantage for math guys (like me) and therefore penalize guys who build teams around certain sets of core players. In fact, for this latter group of guys their best strategy would be to play less often.
Agreed, you'll have an advantage. But you have an advantage already. But somehow, guys like me that merely eyeball cards still win a lot.

I don't think we want to go there.
I would.

Also, I wonder how much fluctuation in price would be enough. Maybe it's only a maximum move of a penny a week. There is some baseline usage number where the price doesnt move, but under that number the price goes down a penny, over that number and the price moves up a penny.

I know I don't want to be updating spreadsheets every other week.

I'm not for fluctuating prices based on usage.