ATG 9 Too Flawed?

I think you guys are trying to create a Utopian league in which all 12 teams go 92-70. I think you'll be disappointed.

I think you guys are trying to create a Utopian league in which all 12 teams go 92-70. I think you'll be disappointed.

Just trying to have fun! I think it's very cool that this is even possible

Okay, whew. Have enjoyed the thread. Opinions from Backfire+FrankieT have been coherent, along with other posters. Thanks. I agree with sentiments on alot of sides and love me some SOM, like you all.

FrankieT, you are spot on and just provided cool insight in a post about Passed Balls---Backfire I kinda agree with the allure of platoons through the versions. I don't wanna take a side via association. I've played less and less but platoon competitiveness is a general trend (style-thing) I more agree with Backfire than disagree with. FrankieT I didn't really see blasphemy from Backfire and visa versa. Be nice. Both are just talking about "formats".

Hahah Backfire your "learning" about custom-pools etc is about your worst offense and then 8-paragraph posts. And FrankieT, I don't know of the "legacy" you describe but they're just talking strat! (I think)

Actual Thoughts:

Price and value are not the same and the object is to exploit the first to get the latter.
I would much prefer devising pricing that makes a larger pool of the exisiting cards more usable than adding more cards. The only solution that I can think of is to to introduce some sort of dynamic pricing where peridiocally the prices are adjusted, not based on some formula, but actual usage.

Yes about price/value. That's always been this game. Price is the most important "stat" on a card in extracting value often. The larger the player pool, the truer this probably is. In ATG2, supply was so low that your demand for the skill was blatant, whereas now with 3500+ hitter cards, it's value. There are many Ernie Banks etc.

The debate always falls back to these big ideas of dynamic pricing, "formats" to play the game in etc. It all runs through the same player pool (which can be spliced 100 ways which is great---very similar to MTG card games etc.) and then the big one: the community we get to play with, AKA what leagues have demand to fill etc.

I don't think dynamic pricing is viable considering A). the # of cards we'd need to have usage data on B). the low number of teams being played. Plus, what's the format we're considering? 80mil? 140mil? Live Draft? DH? Not hating on Strat, but what kind of sample size would we need for usage with a pool of 500 cards? 5000 cards? How many 80mil DH leagues fire a month? Not enough for dynamic pricing by an order of magnitude. I mean it could. But not the biggest fan. Plus, Tris Speaker's 12.45, Cobb's 12.11 (prices in past versions or whatever version) can have cache.

So Pool size. SUPPLY and Demand. I was very excited for "Shuffle the Deck" leagues years back and they fell a little flat and I imagine have gone about extinct by now.

That leads to how many players are filling leagues. It affect Call of Duty so should certainly affect Strat. How many "formats" does this flagship product allow, and how does that player-base fracture affect how leagues/lobbies fill? It felt like Strat lost the balance on that necessary-evil quite a while ago.

I think ATGX or the "Stratosphere" of integrated card-collecting, HTH online play, Sim leagues with caps GOTTA happen for Strat. It's kinda my dream. This post brings up and increasingly good point: what's next for ATG? The player pricing model used to literally be fractured between SportingNews and player adds etc, but I think it's still plagued by literal different pricing models, weight of so many cards, or just TOO MUCH inefficiency. But the debate gets long. Thanks all!

I like Kearns revised option. I'll test drive it. question. is it 5-9L and 5-9R r eliminated. E-4L and E-4R r left in the set? but I think all reverse splits should be left in the set. their aren't that many exaggerated RS hitters anyway.

My proposal was to eliminate 4 plus players but I didn’t consider reverse. I’ll take a look.
I’m open either way on reverse hitters but my preference would be to eliminate. Look at William Ewing.
Also, I believe it would be way easier and less prone to error to simply delete every 4R/4L and over without worrying about whether reverse or not.

Some comments on some of the points raised here:

Dynamic pricing: when ATG9 was being priced I requested usage data to help inform pricing changes. I received draft card data. What quickly became apparent was that you can’t use this data since people draft the lowest price card and not the year actually used. Why end of season data wasn’t available I don’t know, but for ATG9 there wasn’t relevant available data.

Additionally, updating the entire data set is apparently a significant under taking, so dynamic pricing really isn’t an option

Platoon pricing: within days of release it was obvious platoons and relievers pricing was off, but see the sentence above, so stopping and re-releasing wasn’t an option. However, this is not off by the millions in salary some would suggest and you can viably win without platoons. The reliever issue isn’t really the pricing teams fault because of the underlying usage changes that were made.

Overall pricing model: people take shots all the time at how we must not know what we are doing pricing. A pricing model is never going to accurately price thousands of cards for every park. In fact the cards are priced in multiple park settings and the salaries are based on their max park. On multiple occasions I have posted formulas and process used in pricing and it applies to all cards equally.. it can always be refined but every card is priced using the same linear weights. You may disagree with those rates, but the tester group has some of the best on these boards in terms of modeling, so I will disagree with the sentiment that we don’t know what we are doing.

Be nice. Both are just talking about "formats".

I think if you look at the first few posts I made on this thread, it was a good-faith effort to address the OP's question in line with the title of the thread. Then it went to "I don't like spending time clicking through Mountain Goat Spencer." Oh the horror--really! Bait and switch from the go.
I think you are being genuinely conciliatory and that is great.

But as in the past, the question posed in this thread is not really a question. It is an assertion and intends to bifurcate the players into two camps, then uses emotional appeals to gain agreement on that false bifurcation of a multi-faceted issue instead of a rational discussion of the facts and nuance. And when it is emotional, it gets personal.

Won't re-litigate all of that but it is a tired tactic practiced by one or more SOM365 "whales" and I'll leave it at that. Whether he is an alt carrying an occasional torch for the main...a few of us had our thoughts years ago. Doesn't matter.

But for this case, the entire thread was an open question if whether ATG9 is too flawed. Some answers came in. They were not where the discussion was intened by the OP.
But now it is about creating a custom player set, or starting a league with certain play rules. Great. So why does everyone on these boards have to "join or die" by grabbing pitchforks and trying to change everyone else's playstyle? Play the way you want.

Like I said there is an analogy--that attempt at fixing super relievers gave us BPv3 and many of the effects we have now mentioned in this thread. So let's think this time instead.

As for pricing, the community participates ably, and I have to say, by and large the pricing is 99%+ reasonable. But the ones that aren't get a spotlight because there are only open secrets here, ie Duncan, SCollins, etc.So they get amplified.

But when you understand why some outliers are to be expected, it is clear for two reasons:
1. There was a loud demand for pricing that made more players viable to use--this created some unxepected opportunities.
2. But the root cause is it is impossible to have an objectively perfect price system--it is a holy grail that doesn't exist. Why? For the 100th time--because to do pricing you have to make assumptions in order to create a convergent solution. Those assumptions include many things that are only applicable "on average". Whether it is L/R balance, salary cap, park, whatever. But rather than get educated, it is much easier to grab pitchforks, draw battle lines, and create a line in the sand of with us or against us. Decades old tactic here.

Not me--thanks.

Some comments on some of the points raised here:

Dynamic pricing: when ATG9 was being priced I requested usage data to help inform pricing changes. I received draft card data. What quickly became apparent was that you can’t use this data since people draft the lowest price card and not the year actually used. Why end of season data wasn’t available I don’t know, but for ATG9 there wasn’t relevant available data.

Additionally, updating the entire data set is apparently a significant under taking, so dynamic pricing really isn’t an option

Platoon pricing: within days of release it was obvious platoons and relievers pricing was off, but see the sentence above, so stopping and re-releasing wasn’t an option. However, this is not off by the millions in salary some would suggest and you can viably win without platoons. The reliever issue isn’t really the pricing teams fault because of the underlying usage changes that were made.

Overall pricing model: people take shots all the time at how we must not know what we are doing pricing. A pricing model is never going to accurately price thousands of cards for every park. In fact the cards are priced in multiple park settings and the salaries are based on their max park. On multiple occasions I have posted formulas and process used in pricing and it applies to all cards equally.. it can always be refined but every card is priced using the same linear weights. You may disagree with those rates, but the tester group has some of the best on these boards in terms of modeling, so I will disagree with the sentiment that we don’t know what we are doing.

Sorry I typed and didn't see this--100% agree with all of it. And 100% appreciate the work of the pricing team. I think ATG9 was the most comprehensively "correct" pricing update we have ever had.

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful response, nels.

@childsmwc: I am not sure what weights you use but I can say that the majority of cards in AT9 I think are notably weaker than the top cards. I don't know the exact nuances but I assume some of the cards were/are originally balanced for other sets and then added to ATG 9 (at least initially). These hundreds of new card I am not sure if they're intended to go into other sets or are exclusive to ATG 9. With all that said, how do you justify Two Sides Wesley vs other cards of his price? I would be shocked if you could provide a good argument for that card being balanced. To me, this is not just a slip-up, it is indicative of a flawed pricing model or some kind of bias, etc. Then Molina (who does have massive double plays) seems to be HIGHLY desired. I don't know why his price is not higher than it is.

In my company, we have analytics for everything. How many units of iron exist in the game world, for example. I think you should have analytics that shows card usage once seasons begin (or something similar). Then if you notice cards being played in 90%+ leagues they should be open for nerfs. Buffs should be given for cards that are rarely/never used. In pretty much all games a meta will develop and the top players will largely gravitate toward that meta (to varying extents). This is not universally true as some people like to deviate or greatly prefer "original" strategies but many players will simply do what they feel will get the best results.

Back to Wesley and Molina, I don't understand why you gave them the absolute lowest possible prices when other cards in the 550k to 600k range are significantly worse and seldom played. I'm not sure your system of using weights is consistently effective across all salaries. Perhaps a tiered approach would be better, such as different weights for sub 1 mil cards vs 5 mil+ cards.

To clarify, I don't use many platoons and sometimes use zero. I feel my results are often good and when they're not I can usually pinpoint why and adapt. I do not think platoons are mandatory, I just think they're a very easy way to build powerful teams. I do agree with relievers being off. Personally I would like to see ATG 10 with more regular balancing to the best and worst cards vs large drops of new cards. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the efforts and it's fun to look at the new cards but I think it's better to brush up the old cards first.

Since this is a long post (as mine often are, sorry), I would like to remind you that I'd like to see your reasoning for Wesley and Molina.

Honestly, the posts are too long -- for your own branding purposes, if I were advising you, make your point short and sweet, laser-focused on your key point. Not that I disagree, or agree, with you. That doesn't matter. But I do know no one wants to read a very long post. Just saying my friend ...

Hack, surely you are not suggesting that weighty topics such as the correct pricing of Molina and Wesley can be fully articluated in a few sentences?

Well, that, and of course the aforementioned extreme displeasure (maybe even injury) caused by having to scroll through mountain goat spencer and his ilk.

In fact, I heard from many people that with every additional moment until childsmwc responds, another SOM365 player loses their will to play.

The suspense is killing me. Maybe literally.