Salaries Analysis Topic

schwarze
Posts: 37923 (1)
Hall of Famer
1693 74 4 1 1
Hall of Famer
Oh, and I confirmed that 99% of the players who's salary did NOT change are 200K players.
2/10/2016 2:45 PM
contrarian23
Posts: 19284 (2)
Hall of Famer
1761 1
Hall of Famer
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/10/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Contrarian - the reality is that in leagues $70 million and up, probably 75-80% of the player pool is virtually unusable.  It just doesn't make sense to carry a guy with an OBP of .330 on your team as a full-time player.  These seem to be the ones dropping in salary.  I'm not sure if that was the intention.  Effectively, for all the players that are reasonable to use, it's an across-the-board increase, and it isn't substantially differentiating the overused players from the rest of the usable field.
I disagree with virtually every part of this post.  But to each his own.
2/10/2016 2:45 PM
schwarze
Posts: 37923 (1)
Hall of Famer
1693 74 4 1 1
Hall of Famer

With 80%+ of the pitchers' salaries dropping, but by only about 0.1%, it will take some time for those pitchers to become preferable over the current crop of cookies.  The best of that lot will start to see some use as the cookies' salaries continue to increase.  But I would imagine that it will take at least 8-10 iterations for things to really start to balance out.

2/10/2016 2:48 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
Posted by contrarian23 on 2/10/2016 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/10/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Contrarian - the reality is that in leagues $70 million and up, probably 75-80% of the player pool is virtually unusable.  It just doesn't make sense to carry a guy with an OBP of .330 on your team as a full-time player.  These seem to be the ones dropping in salary.  I'm not sure if that was the intention.  Effectively, for all the players that are reasonable to use, it's an across-the-board increase, and it isn't substantially differentiating the overused players from the rest of the usable field.
I disagree with virtually every part of this post.  But to each his own.
You disagree?  Odd how you have well into the double digits of active teams and under half a dozen full time starters below that RL OBP cutoff I arbitrarily threw out, and those on what appear to be teams with fairly restrictive roster rules...

It's really easy to grandstand about how many ways there are to win, but you certainly aren't proving me wrong at the moment.

2/10/2016 5:56 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
Cutting off at a .330 OBP eliminates over 55% of the player pool, FWIW...
2/10/2016 5:59 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
I should point out here that I actually am perfectly fine with the way this worked out on a personal level.  I prefer low caps, $60M and even $40M, so with the way I see this - as a nearly monotonic price increase for all intents and purposes - works out great for me.  I prefer having to make legitimately tough decisions.  However, I think it is vastly different from what WIS envisioned, I think the idea was poorly conceived and poorly implemented, and I don't think they got the results they would have hoped for out of this.  It's unclear whether they even QA their own product enough to recognize how this worked out.

What really concerns me is the amount of negative feedback we have seen.  There do seem to be a vocal minority (including me) responsible for a lot of it, but not all of it.  Typically, in the past, changes to games on this site have cost upwards of 20-30% of the user base.  I'm not sure that SLB at this point has the player population to afford that kind of exodus and survive/remain interesting.  That's my big fear here.
2/10/2016 6:13 PM
schwarze
Posts: 37923 (1)
Hall of Famer
1693 74 4 1 1
Hall of Famer
I am looking forward to building teams with the new changes.  On their first iteration, it's clear that the unpopular players' salaries (which didn't decrease very much) won't necessarily make them that much more appealing.  But I will have to downgrade a few players due to the cumulative effect of the increases.

Each iteration will get us closer to an ideal equilibrium.  It's silly to expect the first iteration to eliminate the popularity of all the cookies.  They will still be drafted... but maybe just a little less frequently.
2/10/2016 8:35 PM (edited)
ozomatli
Posts: 10221 (0)
Hall of Famer
1039 1 1
Veteran
Today I built an OL team, a 100M team with no restrictions, a 140M team with no restrictions, and an 80M team with no AAA help. In all cases, I compared them against teams from the same caps that I built before the update and found exactly what schwarze just said to be true. I fully expect his prediction for an equilibrium to be true within the next couple iterations as well.
2/10/2016 9:03 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
I think you'll be waiting a lot longer than that for anything resembling equilibrium.
2/10/2016 9:24 PM
schwarze
Posts: 37923 (1)
Hall of Famer
1693 74 4 1 1
Hall of Famer
It will take 8-10 iterations, in my opinion
2/11/2016 8:15 AM
tridentric
Posts: 5321 (0)
Hall of Famer
804
All Star
Posted by schwarze on 2/10/2016 2:43:00 PM (view original):
Oops, the last post neglected to include partial seasons...

Player Old Salary___ New Salary___ Salary Difference %Difference
1893 Hughie Jennings 200,000 219,558 19,558 9.8%
2007 Chris Gomez 200,000 215,883 15,883 7.9%
2003 Wilson Delgado 249,592 268,281 18,689 7.5%
2010 Wilson Ramos 200,000 214,479 14,479 7.2%
2013 Michael Young 202,934 215,667 12,733 6.3%
1977 Tim Foli 235,490 250,242 14,752 6.3%
1973 Rich Reese 200,000 211,129 11,129 5.6%

Player Old Salary___ New Salary___ Salary Difference %Difference
1918 Fred Toney 4,203,375 4,623,712 420,337 10.0%
1919 Art Nehf 3,880,829 4,217,095 336,266 8.7%
1992 Dennis Rasmussen 1,488,414 1,573,194 84,780 5.7%
2013 Wesley Wright 565,952 596,509 30,557 5.4%
2013 Travis Blackley 405,328 425,923 20,595 5.1%

hmm looks my normal OL team. lol
2/11/2016 9:25 AM
Donburgh
Posts: 2973 (0)
Hall of Famer
387 16 1
Pro
Any thoughts on why several 2013 pitchers are on the increase list. There's 6 on the full season list, plus two more on the partial season list. Are 2013 pitchers really that popular?
2/11/2016 8:50 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 270 18
Pro
Posted by schwarze on 2/11/2016 8:15:00 AM (view original):
It will take 8-10 iterations, in my opinion
I bet that's still an underestimation.

I think it's pretty clear from this first iteration the direction things are going to go in.  The players that are largely unusable in most caps because they just aren't good enough to play with will eventually all drop to whatever level it takes to balance out 10% increases for most of the usable players, maybe slightly smaller ultimate increases for the marginally useful players.  But there will be multiple levels of actually having new players become attractive due to value, as intended.  The problem is that I would expect all those guys to ultimately just get stuck at the max increase as well as the original cookies, at which point we're back with the original cookies and a bunch of players who even at a ~15% discount relative to them may not be worth considering at caps above $50 million.

2/11/2016 9:55 PM
ozomatli
Posts: 10221 (0)
Hall of Famer
1039 1 1
Veteran
One thing to consider is that for this change, they were pulling from 3 years of usage data, whereas in June and beyond they will only be pulling from 180 days.
2/11/2016 10:08 PM
popfischer
Posts: 76 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 2
Prospect
Posted by ozomatli on 2/11/2016 10:08:00 PM (view original):
One thing to consider is that for this change, they were pulling from 3 years of usage data, whereas in June and beyond they will only be pulling from 180 days.
if they indeed used 3 years and it only caused this rather small degree of salary movement then FWIW I agree it will take much longer than 8 to 10 revals to see any real equilibrium.
2/12/2016 8:03 AM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
Salaries Analysis Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.