I honestly can't figure out why SIM thinks `28 Sukeforth is worth $5,000 more than `45 Sukeforth.  He has two more PA, but `45 Sukeforth has a huge advantage in BA (.294 v. .132), OBP (.345 v. .179) and slugging (.314 v. 208).  `28 Sukeforth has a fractionally better throwing arm (D+ v. D-) but does that really compensate for otherwise overwhelmingly inferior stats across the board?  If so, this is a classic example of SIM placing way too much emphasis on arms.  `28 Sukeforth will throw out maybe one or two more runners than his `45 counterpart -- hard to imagine this makes up for the RC's cost by such grossly inferior offensive numbers.  D+ is still a bad arm.  I don't get it -- younger and better looking, maybe?, 

1		Sukeforth, Clyde	1945 Brooklyn Dodgers	L	58	0	.294	54	.345	.314	1.96	40	$200,000	C/D+/D-	--	--	--	--	--
2		Sukeforth, Clyde	1928 Cincinnati Reds	L	60	0	.132	57	.179	.208	9.43	46	$205,307	D+/D-/D+

Catcher's Arm value does quirky stuff to pricing.

You have found what they call a "good value"

Is it normalization, perhaps?

Posted by Trentonjoe on 9/21/2011 9:26:00 AM (view original):
Catcher's Arm value does quirky stuff to pricing.

Indeed. Especially for part-time players. I never pay for arms with anything less then a full time player these days. For some reason, arm price isn't affected by PA like every single other stat that affects hitter salaries in the SIM.

But if it''s all about the arm, how do you explain Pinky Hargrave `23?  Much better arm, good offensive stats, more PA than Sukeforth `28.  How could you ever justify pricing Sukeforth `28 higher than Pinky Hargrave `23?  It makes no sense -- one of these two guys is "wrong priced."  I suppose the answer I will hear is that secondary positions (like Gary Carter `75, Charlie Hickman `98, etc.) are sometimes inefficiently priced.

Hargrave, Pinky

1923 Washington Senators

S

66

0

.288

63

.311

.322

10.17

50

$200,000

D-/C/C+

--

--

C/D-

--

D/D+

Posted by thunder1008 on 9/21/2011 7:39:00 PM (view original):
But if it''s all about the arm, how do you explain Pinky Hargrave `23?  Much better arm, good offensive stats, more PA than Sukeforth `28.  How could you ever justify pricing Sukeforth `28 higher than Pinky Hargrave `23?  It makes no sense -- one of these two guys is "wrong priced."  I suppose the answer I will hear is that secondary positions (like Gary Carter `75, Charlie Hickman `98, etc.) are sometimes inefficiently priced.

Hargrave, Pinky

1923 Washington Senators

S

66

0

.288

63

.311

.322

10.17

50

$200,000

D-/C/C+

--

--

C/D-

--

D/D+

You gave yourself the answer I would give you here. There's a reason that Hargrave is a bench cookie.

Posted by thunder1008 on 9/21/2011 12:30:00 AM (view original):
I honestly can't figure out why SIM thinks `28 Sukeforth is worth $5,000 more than `45 Sukeforth.  He has two more PA, but `45 Sukeforth has a huge advantage in BA (.294 v. .132), OBP (.345 v. .179) and slugging (.314 v. 208).  `28 Sukeforth has a fractionally better throwing arm (D+ v. D-) but does that really compensate for otherwise overwhelmingly inferior stats across the board?  If so, this is a classic example of SIM placing way too much emphasis on arms.  `28 Sukeforth will throw out maybe one or two more runners than his `45 counterpart -- hard to imagine this makes up for the RC's cost by such grossly inferior offensive numbers.  D+ is still a bad arm.  I don't get it -- younger and better looking, maybe?, 

1		Sukeforth, Clyde	1945 Brooklyn Dodgers	L	58	0	.294	54	.345	.314	1.96	40	$200,000	C/D+/D-	--	--	--	--	--
2		Sukeforth, Clyde	1928 Cincinnati Reds	L	60	0	.132	57	.179	.208	9.43	46	$205,307	D+/D-/D+

Be thankful.  As you know, it wasn't that long ago when '93 Tony Phillips was about $5M.  Pitching pricing is still an issue, but position players are priced more fairly than anytime in the past 3 years