Posted by robe29 on 2/10/2016 7:56:00 AM (view original):

I really don't see one positive from this.  And a lot of negative.  this might be good for the 120 million and the theme leagues.  I assume most people play the 80 million OL if that is the case Whatifsports throwing us out of the bus is not wise. If most people play the 120 million and theme leagues I guess they did the right thing. They need to advertise come play sim leagues but you cant play with Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, George Brett or any other great player. 

Why is the update any different for you than anyone else? Do you think you are the only one affected by it? We are all in the same boat or bus and will have to adjust like you. You can still play with Ruth, Cobb, Brett and other greats, you just won't be able to use all of the same versions as you have in the past. If using different players and trying different strategies isn't your thing then you probably wouldn't have lasted long here anyway.
Watch the ads for $100M, $110M, $120M Theme Leagues in the Theme Forum that say they have the same rules as an open league and play them! The additional cash will allow you to use the same players. And if there isn't any of those leagues advertised, then create one and ask others to join YOUR league.

Posted by cwillis802 on 2/9/2016 6:58:00 PM (view original):
I think Joss is now almost unusable. He is a pricy option in OLs now. But more importantly, he will hardly ever be used in themes. I find that Joss doesn't perform very well at the higher caps and his price at $12 something million seemed to be accurate when you saw his performance in a league say over $130 mil. At $14 mil I'll never be tempted to draft him in anything other than an OL. He's still money in an OL and almost makes working him onto your team more of an advantage than it already was before--especially since there will be less of him in the leagues.

It seems that it really was the OLs that needed an overhaul (or offer a few alternatives for OLs). Simple as that. I agree that pricing should be adjusted, but it made more sense to do so once per year when the new crop of players from the real MLB season just ending show up in Sim.

I'm willing to play and enjoy the pricing experiment...just seems a bit shortsighted to me.

"Working him into your team (in an OL) more of an advantage than it already was before-especially since it will be less of him in the leagues" BINGO cwillis.. Because he doesn't have to face himself as much and will not be facing superior cookie filled lineups Joss, in OL's will now be more of a 'cookie' than he was before. The point that one should "cut back" on best pitching may never be reached. Pitchers that dominate are valuable regardless. In a 3 man rotation, I'd "cut back' on the quality of a third starter that's not needed in the playoffs until it doesn't exist before I'd give up best pitching. The Freak-a-nomics of Addie Joss. 

Joss is, in my opinion, no longer in the top 20 SPs in terms of value-for-money in an OL.

Just received a response from support. Their answer makes sense if they implemented it the way they said they did, it's just not how I think a lot of us expected it to be implemented. Apparently, the total amount of salary dollars for all player salaries (combined) remained the same, and is now just allocated differently. I'll post the full response below...

Hi, I have a question about the pricing update that was put in place today. First off, let me say that I am thrilled to see guys like 1908 Addie Joss, 1925 Max Carey, and 1918 Fred Toney go up in price. This was hugely necessary and it will make drafting more fun again and less formulaic. However, I've done some comparisons between the old and new salaries and have noticed that it doesn't seem like many, if any, players have gone DOWN in price with the exception of guys like 2008 Pablo Sandoval who had their arm rating lowered. Take, for example, 1903 Jimmy Barrett. His Performance History only includes 1 time being used in an OL, and I highly doubt he's been used THAT many times in a theme. Despite this, his salary did not change. Another example is 1918 Bob Bescher. Only 14 times used in OLs but his salary went UP slightly, from 909K to 912K. I can provide other examples as well. The nature of this dynamic pricing update, and future ones, is that some players go up when they are used often while others go down in price when they are not used much at all, thus continually refreshing who the bargains are and making the game "dynamic," correct? If this is the case, then why does it not seem like many, if any, players went down in salary? Was this intentional? An overall price increase of anyone who had been used at all did not seem to be the goal of the update based on what tzentmeyer had posted in the forums previously. Thanks for taking the time to answer and, hopefully, clarify things, Mike
2/10/2016 8:42 AM	Customer Support
Mike, One of the goals of the dynamic pricing update was to maintain balance to the entire system. So, if the entire universe of players went up $100M, for example, the total amount players can go down is also $100M. The percentage of players drafted at a very high rate was rather small (thus, the cookie problem). They saw the greatest salary increase, but spread among a rather small number of players. The number of players that were drafted lower than expected was much, much larger. As a result, the individual drop in price for these players was much smaller. With each subsequent pricing update, the underdrafted players will continue to lower in price but not at the same rate as the top over drafted players. Hope that makes sense.

This makes sense.  There's not a significant difference between a player who was never used (and would never be used) vs. a player used just a few times.  Probably 70-80% of the players fit this category.  So when the cumulative price increase is divided out among these little-used players, there will be very little decrease in their salaries.

Is the new player spreadsheet available yet.  Once it is, I would like to dig into this a lot and ultimately post some analysis.

Yeah, the spreadsheets have been updated.

Can you provide the link?  I can never seem to find it.

Posted by schwarze on 2/10/2016 11:01:00 AM (view original):
Can you provide the link?  I can never seem to find it.

Sure, they are

http://www.whatifsports.com/db/hittersalaries.zip

http://www.whatifsports.com/db/pitchersalaries.zip

Hitters
Pitchers

Can anyone find a player whose price went down without other factors changing like arm rating? I can't find one. But according to admin's answer to ozomatli's ticket..."As a result, the individual drop in price for these players was much smaller"... there should be some, right?

Posted by CarlosVal on 2/10/2016 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Can anyone find a player whose price went down without other factors changing like arm rating? I can't find one. But according to admin's answer to ozomatli's ticket..."As a result, the individual drop in price for these players was much smaller"... there should be some, right?

I'm in the Space Age progressive league that uses WWII-era players as secondary players to fill roster gaps. These players can be kept, using the same season from year to year. Someone wondered if our repeated use of these same (often) useless (outside of our league, anyway) players would cause their salary to go up.

I have 1945 Rene Monteagudo. His salary was $1,176,922 prior to the update and now it shows $1,175,416 in the draft center where I have next season's team loaded.

1942 Babe Phelps is $2,201,778 in our current league, but $2,200,267 in the draft center, so he went down slightly, too.

Granted, these are tiny reductions in salary, but their price did indeed go down.

I actually like that it was implemented this way. In theory, many, many unused or rarely used players will creep downward while the obvious bargains will shoot up and then begin to be used less as they become TOO expensive to be worth it. As they begin to be used less, other players will begin to be used more (or at all). It sounds to me like an equilibrium of sorts is possible, down the line.