cristano1 wrote:...Also, remember that the Jet ratings that Riggio is largely parroting have plenty of flaws too.
There are two factors to consider here:
#1: The rating system upon which salaries are based
#2: Building the salary structure
#1: The rating system upon which salaries are basedcrissi, I have used Jet's ratings, so I'm quite familiar with them. However, the ratings behind these salaries are my own (I have a system I created years ago which I applied to data pulled off the DiamondDope site). Over the years (going back to 2002) I have consistently gotten better results when I use my own ratings. For ATG8, I've had an overall Win% around .590 since switching from Jet's ratings to my own ratings. That said, my ratings are roughly congruent with Jet's ratings.
Would you care to give us a few examples of "Jet Junkers?" Most likely, those represent places where
your ratings are broken!
#2: Building the salary structureTranslating ratings into salaries involves building a curve that optimizes usage of the cards. In my opinion, this is a major issue with ATG8 (apart from the many "mistakes" on individual cards).
- In ATG8, the top cards (say >9.00M) are a bit too cheap.
- Then the broad middle range of salaries (say, down to 3 or 4M) are too expensive.
- Prices drop fast after that, so that cheap cards (i.e., below 3.00M) are almost all great values with certain cards (e.g., '68 Bobby Knoop or '66 Paul Blair) showing up as completely off-the-charts values.
For current ATG8 salaries, the basic formula (at caps of 100M or less) is to capture as many of the extreme value cards as possible, then fill out your roster with cheap players (where values are abundant). While that approach has helped me to dominate league after league, it gets boring. There are many, many players in the broad middle range who I'd like to use, but I never touch because they're just too expensive to use on winning teams.
Pitchers have the same basic issue with salary structure - I.e., too cheap at the top and too expensive in the middle - except (as you,
cristano, have proven)
MUCH WORSE!