It's more a case of "I won't play in leagues where you can end up with different salaries for the same player."

That is to say, if that's the only way to implement it, DON'T DO IT.

     It seems to me that after "X" period of time, salaries will reach some relatively high degree of stasis,

hacker7, you may have figured some mathematical inevitability out here before most of the rest of us, but could you explain why you think there would be such an equilibrium or stasis point? 

It seems to me that even if that were reached, the next day people would find some good buys and draft different teams, some overpriced players would see their price sink, some used would rise, and the cycle would continue. Why should it stop re-calculating player values ad infinitum ?

Market equilibrium is a market state where the supply in the market is equal to the demand in the market. The equilibrium price is the price of a good or service when the supply of it is equal to the demand for it in the market. If a market is at equilibrium, the price will not change unless an external factor changes the supply or demand, which results in a disruption of the equilibrium. At some point the WIS market will decide how much Addie Joss, for example, is worth.  The WIS market not being perfect, that price will fluctuate, but only marginally and not to the point that an adjustment is needed every two weeks.  I think five years of data would produce a really good price.  I think an adjustment every year would be adequate.

hacker7's point is sound, but that does not mean that it would work if you ignored real time.

Equilibrium would be reached as overpriced players would be bought less and underpriced players would be bought more -- eventually, you will reach a point where all players are more or less bought at the same rates, because they provide equal value per performance. But this takes many cycles while a player oscillates between under- and over- priced.

However, this is not the case immediately. Addie Joss is consistently underpriced and thus will go up -- but we can't say at what point he would stop getting overused, just from the percentage of overuse now. So no, we do need to run the market, and let it fluctuate, and it will eventually settle. 

That's why I suggest a five year historical data run by  WIS.  We will start with a settled market after the run.

WIS doesn't crunch numbers. They derive their salary formula by throwing out in a forum "how should we price guys?" and offering prizes for what sounds good.

They have all the data. They choose not to use it

It's a damn shame

it cracks me up when i hear on a radio show or see in print Fox Sports thinks so-and-so will win some bracket series or playoff--and then they cite 10,000 WIS-simulated games between so-and-so and loser-guy

have you seen the different iterations of the football sim? it's a John Cage Rube Goldberg MC Escher hole to nowhere

Posted by tzentmeyer on 11/19/2015 9:19:00 AM (view original):
All,

Thank you for all the great discussion points.

We'll be taking it all in and evaluating tomorrow.  Expect an updated response next week. 

Any updated response coming so we can know where things stand right now?

All,

We've digested the 10 pages of feedback. We'll be spending this week and next researching various topics brought up in this thread.  Then, we'll share our thoughts on next steps.

bagchucker - our current formula for SimLeague Baseball was based on heavy statistical research combining actual stats and stats from the game. It's not perfect, or else this thread wouldn't exist. Once upon a time, however, you are right that the salary formula used in the game was rather simple and resulted from forum discussions. But that was during the product's infancy over 12 years ago.

Thanks to all for the thoughtful posts.

heavy. actual. infancy.

With dynamic pricing you're going to see the same players on teams even more so than you are seeing that now. Everyone will jump on the latest cheap deal. Those players' salaries will rise and will be replaced by the latest cheap deal. I played a fantasy baseball league with pricing like this...was like the stock market. I grew tired of it rather quickly. It was less about the game and more about rising and falling stock market prices. We need less capitalism in this world. But that's a different discussion entirely.

Yeah, let's all have central planning... that works out so well, as history has shown, French Revolution through North Korea.

Some study history to learn its lessons; others, to imagine how to avoid them.

Capitalism is central planning - for profit - by banks and corporate CEOs instead of in the public interest. A free market is only possible if no organized firms or agents exist in a market economy, and then that would last for exactly one generation since the winners of the competition then grow bigger and start to plan (vertical integration) the economy. In their interests, instead of in everyone's. 

So a planned economy is the only kind that really exists. The only issue is who gets to do the planning and in whose interests. I prefer planning that is "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Take the recent issue over Yahoo. Marissa Mayer, one of the most brilliant scientists in the world, ground floor at the start of Google, expert on Artificial Intelligence, becomes CEO of Yahoo 3 years ago. She buys 25 other companies in acquisitions (central planning). Why? She wants to have a long-range strategy, something that Google and Amazon are also successful with (central planning), developing long-term technological breakthroughs, innovations of engineering (self-driving cars, robots, AI, rockets to space, etc.) that can revolutionize life on earth, while making profits, NOT now, but in the future (central planning). 
All of the acquired companies were "brain" - they were companies of software writers, engineers, technicians, biotech experts, etc. that she is hoping over the long-haul will work together to innovate in ways they could not have in their individual firms that were specialized on just one or another technology (central planning by Yahoo). 

BUT, a hedge fund called Starboard has purchased a large amount of Yahoo shares (central planning) and demands, in the business press and at shareholders' meetings that since profits (1.2 billion) are the same as 3 years ago, that Yahoo instead sell off its entire core business (central planning) and instead increase its large share (20 or 30% I can't remember which) (central planning) of Alibaba, which is the giant Chinese retailer - larger than Amazon - by using the revenue from selling Yahoo itself (central planning) to buy more shares in Alibaba which it thinks will increase the stock price more than what Mayer is doing (central planning). 

So, we have three options here - not let's even say four: 1) central planning by finance on Wall St. in this case hedge funds, but also banks, pension funds, investment banks, central banks like the Fed; 2) central planning through vertical integration by industrial or high tech corporations - in this case by CEO Mayer; 3) central planning by a democratic public or by stakeholders - recognizing that corporations are social, not private, entities, collective, not private property, and so democratizing the companies and having planning be made democratically by employees, managers (elected), consumers, government, communities, shareholders, suppliers, and others effected by the company's activities) or by public ownership and democratic control by employees, stakeholders and government; or 4) central planning by a Chinese bureaucracy - the Communist Party and Chinese company management. 

Before you answer that 4) above is incapable of competing, or is inefficient, consider that 100 of the Fortune 500 companies are Chinese State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). So they must be doing something right. Yet that is my least favorite of the four options, with finance tied with it for first. So that leaves central planning by industrial managers of firms or by public officials with mandates from democratic stakeholders. I prefer the latter to the former, but both to the first two. 

Central planning is ubiquitous dude. There is no market anything in any of the example above of Starboard and Yahoo and Alibaba, except for the stock price, itself open to manipulation since most purchasers of stock and of bonds are institutional (hedge funds, central banks etc., investment firms) anyway and not individuals. The market is a myth, it does not exist. Get over it. Maybe it existed briefly between 1776 and 1840, but it hasn't existed since and that was in a pioneer, underdeveloped country and did not end well (Civil War). Since the first railroads got built, there has been no market. 

So who do you want to plan? For what and in whose interests? That is the only question. 

The people that favor pure capitalism are mystifying.  Pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism has never existed. The closest we've had in history is 19th century America. A time of slavery, robber barons and the subordination of women.....we've evolved.