It's interesting. The end result of the current system is that the top players would be, arguably, too expensive even for 255M leagues. But, at that point (and not before) they may begin to see decreases. Further, more and more players would reach that level until, eventually, an equilibrium was reached where the same % of players were unusable vs. usable.

Are people still using 92 Roberts and 89 Johnson all that much after so many salary increases? I find this a bit hard to imagine to the point where it makes me suspect that something about the system isn't working. It makes a lot of sense though that Joss/Lajoie/Cobb keep increasing given the existence of big cap theme leagues.

I'm just glad to see alot less of Addie Joss... that being said, it seems to me that there's more inflation in quality pitching than there is in hitting/defense, although that's just a casual observation on my part and may be due to the fact that there are 8x more hitters than pitchers in each lineup.

This is a really dumb question...

Are they resetting the usage counters to 0 with each salary update, to determine the next round?

It's dumb because this should be obvious that they do, but this could cause some of these issues...

Posted by uncleal on 6/23/2017 3:58:00 PM (view original):
This is a really dumb question...

Are they resetting the usage counters to 0 with each salary update, to determine the next round?

It's dumb because this should be obvious that they do, but this could cause some of these issues...

They had included that in the original plan (i.e. looking at usage for the last four month period each time), so you'd have to assume so.

Look, this idea seemed good. But frankly it's a disaster. I'm just afraid me saying anything will be a negative since the last several designs have been "Stop Grizzly and the 'fatigue strategy' at all costs.

I'm sure this has been mentioned, but the ratio of price decrease/much lower usage isn't close to price increase/slightly higher usage. I play more progs than themes....but this may drive me to playing progs exclusively.

Simply put............. The whole idea was to make the under-priced over-used cookies to expensive to use. Since the same cookie players still continue to go up in salary, this proves it isn't working. (Unless you only play $80M open leagues).

I suspect two things:

1) If they're using all-league data... a lot of leagues aren't capped, or are very high caps, skewing the results... they really should only look at Open League data...

2) Four months might not provide enough leagues to get an accurate usage feel... if one use is more than the expected value, that means there aren't enough leagues to do this with really... rather than a straight "use all players equally" they may need to consider setting the expected value to 1 or 2 if that's a higher number... or something like that...

Maybe it's because I play mostly progs now with a few themes thrown in, but I still prefer dynamic pricing to what we had before (i.e., no change for years and years). If this is a "disaster" as my old friend Grizzly claims, at least it's an interesting disaster...

I think that in one way what most of us wanted - to price Joss, Hojo, Bip Roberts, Toney etc. out of the market until they were not used very often and we got more varied OL rosters - has happened. Howard Johnson 1989, Gary Carter 1975 etc. are not Babe Ruth after all.

BUT...as everyone here has pointed out, the problem is that we assumed that it was the use in OLs only ($80 mil) that would be the data used to determine salaries, since who cares if Babe Ruth is used a lot in $225 mil leagues? But using ALL leagues is messing up an otherwise good idea. I agree with crazystengel that this is still better, but it needs to be put back in order - only OLs should be used, just as only OLs are used for performance history (and that very fact means it can be done).

I agree with uncleal that only Ol data should be used. We need a petition or something on the Forum for suggestions/gnashing of teeth and to get them to make that one adjustment, since relying on high salary cap leagues is absurd.

Yeah, it's clear the high cap leagues are gumming up the works. Use OLs and OLs only for the dynamic pricing experiment.

How long would it take them to fix this to only use OLs? After all, we are still waiting for the 2012 update.

Posted by thejuice6 on 6/22/2017 5:33:00 PM (view original):
Just reset the salaries to where they were originally and give people choices of what CAP open leagues they want to play in instead of just making them all $80M. If you get tired of seeing all of the Bip Roberts and Addie Joss', just join a $60M or $70M open league where it would be tougher for everyone to fit them onto their roster. The current system is definitely not working...

Honestly, it wouldn't be the worst thing to reset them. Idk anyone under $160 mil caps who are still using Elton Chamberlain for $9 mil. That's insane.

The highest cap leagues have definitely been impacted. Even without clones, it's not possible to have the same caliber lineup at $225M or $255M now that could have been made before dynamic pricing.

For me, the far bigger issue is the dominance of the dead ball pitchers. If Admin refuses to address this issue, then I have no problem with them becoming more expensive with each update.

I play mostly progressives now in part because you can win with a lineup that is strong by accepted baseball analysis and not a bunch of switch hitters and A+ range fielders in a park that favors singles with as many dead ball pitchers as possible on the staff. IMHO, this is a far bigger issue for the sim than all-time great seasons becoming significantly more expensive.