That's because there's no limit to how often a player can be drafted, but there is a limit (0) to how often a player can't be drafted.

True, but guys who are drafted 0 (or even a handful of) times should be going down a lot more. That seemed to be what the original premise was when they introduced this.

Ya, while I’m glad that everyone ain’t using 08 Joss in OLs, and everyone using 95 Maddux in $120 leagues, they shouldn’t be going up the full 10% every time. As the prices go up, the ownership should go down.

Honestly, I think there was a coding mistake. I don’t think they are resetting the usage counter between rounds of salary updates. Fixing that might solve a lot of the problems.

Posted by brianjw on 10/12/2017 8:01:00 PM (view original):
Honestly, I think there was a coding mistake. I don’t think they are resetting the usage counter between rounds of salary updates. Fixing that might solve a lot of the problems.

I took a quick look at the caps of leagues that have finished within the four months between the two most recent updates and am pretty confident Brian is right. There simply are not enough high cap leagues where players like 1921 Ruth are still viable choices to weight the usage counters towards them.

there is really only one issue here... prices do not go down for non usage as fast as they go up for usage. Certainly there needs to be some tweeking on the up side.

The problem is there's just too many players.

It takes 137 players going down an average of about 57.5k each to cancel out the 7.8 million dollar increase for '01 Lajoie. (Actual numbers. The 137 biggest decreases combine for 7.83mil)

But what do you want? Do you want 127 players to stay the same and 10 players to go down 780k each?

You could have Lajoie not going up $7.8M, for starters.

I suspect many people are unhappy that the overall salaries are staying roughly constant. And I can sort of see why. Everyone has a sense of how good a roughly $90M team should be. If you remove some improperly priced bargains, then I suspect the quality of that $90M team will fall unless average prices are lowered. Equivalently, it will feel like prices in general are rising, because you now need to spend $95-100M to get a team of roughly that quality.

Maybe be we should have a one off 10% price cut across the board so things feel the way they always have?

That's been done before, long ago

we need some math and science here, some ability to figure

what we got is a new guy sticking his thumb in the pie

Posted by brianjw on 10/18/2017 10:55:00 AM (view original):
I suspect many people are unhappy that the overall salaries are staying roughly constant. And I can sort of see why. Everyone has a sense of how good a roughly $90M team should be. If you remove some improperly priced bargains, then I suspect the quality of that $90M team will fall unless average prices are lowered. Equivalently, it will feel like prices in general are rising, because you now need to spend $95-100M to get a team of roughly that quality.

Maybe be we should have a one off 10% price cut across the board so things feel the way they always have?

Love it! or increase open leagues to $90m.

I don't think usage within any league over $150 million should count. This should lead to better spread. A player used in a $150m league should already be priced out of open leagues.

Of course, none of this addresses the original theory of usage not resetting. If that's really the case, this will increasingly to turn to ****.

I know nothing of math and science, so take any comment I make with a grain of salt.

No update yet. Shocking.

This place has really hit the crapper lately

Three months at WIS and you're already longing for the good old days?