Posted by cwillis802 on 2/9/2016 12:59:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about the impact on higher cap leagues either.

How much is 99 Vizquel now? I figured he'd go up by a big jump too.

When will the next salary update be? Are they doing every 3 months? I forget.

'98 Vizquel >> '99 Vizquel anyway.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/9/2016 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Looking at the older high-cap teams I have had sitting around for a while.

As I feared, many of these salaries don't make any sense.  Shouldn't be seeing top seasons of Ruth and Mantle dropping substantially in price.  Last thing we needed in high cap leagues is for pitching to get more expensive and hitting to get cheaper.  Offense already dominates the high caps.

Where do you see seasons of Ruth dropping in price?

Best I can tell, every single season of Ruth is more expensive than before.

In fact, I have yet to find a single season of any position player (haven't checked pitchers) that has dropped in price.

			Old	New
1921	Ruth	Babe	$ 17,817,715	$      19,160,938
1923	Ruth	Babe	$ 17,302,114	$      18,575,156
1920	Ruth	Babe	$ 14,840,140	$      15,523,557
1927	Ruth	Babe	$ 12,685,460	$      13,082,506
1924	Ruth	Babe	$ 12,483,253	$      12,635,937
1926	Ruth	Babe	$ 12,187,324	$      12,450,771
1930	Ruth	Babe	$ 10,341,005	$      10,419,784
1931	Ruth	Babe	$   9,805,292	$      10,086,766
1928	Ruth	Babe	$   9,335,368	$        9,439,630
1919	Ruth	Babe	$   8,478,968	$        8,615,361
1932	Ruth	Babe	$   7,324,278	$        7,432,242
1929	Ruth	Babe	$   7,301,053	$        7,527,823
1922	Ruth	Babe	$   6,240,986	$        6,288,666
1933	Ruth	Babe	$   5,433,932	$        5,570,115
1918	Ruth	Babe	$   4,369,343	$        4,407,097
1934	Ruth	Babe	$   3,990,362	$        4,009,705
1925	Ruth	Babe	$   3,536,302	$        3,546,993
1935	Ruth	Babe	$      455,668	$           457,579

You might be right, I saw it wrong.  It's just the balance that changed.

I like what I've seen so far....

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

I agree in general terms with bagchucker (not the Jay Buhner Mexican thing whatever the heck that is about) , and many of my best friends here like the stat-driven game are anything but "maggots"  and I hate triples, but that is another thing. Yes more doubles and base stealing and an occasional home run. 

But whether the WIS database kept player salaries as they were or changed them today, the stats are driving the game right now - which I don't like. I am not sure why you did not back me up in my long discourses explaining why these particular sophisticated stats have taken over now and why traditional ones like Wins and RBI still measure something worthwhile (see my explorations on WHIPs and high OBP seasons etc.) bagchucker as it was an attempt to make a similar point to yours right on "enemy terrain". 

Anyway, I am not sure what people here are saying - that all the player salaries are higher? What IS the point of that? I think some of us thought that since for example Ted Williams or Babe Ruth etc. can't be used much in OLs cause they cost too much, and many great modern pitchers cost too much per IP or per pitch compared with the deadball pitchers who were under-priced, that we would now see an incentive to use those players who had not been used in the "market" much. But if that has not been the adjustment than it will have indeed been a waste of time. That would be sadder than bagchucker's poetry even conveys. But these are first impressions yet, no?

Personally, I love the changes.

i agree with 66lemiuex there's nothing DYNAMIC about this it is just simple a increase of all players salaries. contrarian's own example above shows this, the 51 mantle in his performance history has only been used 6 times how does that deserve any kind of increase.  granted they said it is based on OL's and theme useage of which we are only privy to the OL's numbers but seriously outside of prog's how many 51 mantle's are we really seeing in use. i suppose next we will see a increase of maximum salary in OL'S TO 83.5 mil to offset the player salary increase. Seems like a lot of baloney

Posted by contrarian23 on 2/9/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
At first glance, they have done an excellent job with this.  The deadball pitchers and modern day switch-hitting speedsters seem to have gone up across the board, in most cases by a decent amount.  This should immediately have the effect of changing optimal OL strategy, and probably everything up to 120M.


Frankly, I could care less what impact the changes have on higher cap leagues, but that's just me.

Yeah I never play high caps either - total bore to me. But contrarian23, this is more hopeful as an analysis, but then has anyone's salary gone down? Even if not it will change optimal strategies, but I thought some players never used based on this lack of "demand" would have fallen in price, especially modern pitchers' prices per IP, which was part of their problem, since they throw more Ks and so use more pitches per IP and cost more than their deadball counterparts. But the sign seems to be that they too have risen in price. 

Maybe the four or five-man rotation will come into being? 

Posted by bagchucker on 2/9/2016 5:28:00 PM (view original):
you hate triples?

I love doubles with people on base - in the gap, down the lines, but triples are just doubles that are stretched. There is something asymmetrical about them that bothers me aesthetically. I think they erode character. I think the rule should be that if you pass second base on your own hit  you are out unless you make it home. 

Posted by rjj4191 on 2/9/2016 5:29:00 PM (view original):
i agree with 66lemiuex there's nothing DYNAMIC about this it is just simple a increase of all players salaries. contrarian's own example above shows this, the 51 mantle in his performance history has only been used 6 times how does that deserve any kind of increase.  granted they said it is based on OL's and theme useage of which we are only privy to the OL's numbers but seriously outside of prog's how many 51 mantle's are we really seeing in use. i suppose next we will see a increase of maximum salary in OL'S TO 83.5 mil to offset the player salary increase. Seems like a lot of baloney

I think it is early and we need to find some players that are not used a lot that did not have price increases, but it is true that if a player like 51 Mantle  was used only 6 times but the price went up that is absurd. Oh well.