I think the best solution is probably to exclude players who were used 0 times during the 4 month period from the salary redistribution calculation. That way, the pool of players being increased / decreased would significantly shrink and the cutoff between increase and decrease wouldn't be a value between 0 and 1 time, but rather some true middle value in terms of usage. Players used tons would see increases and players used just a few times (but more than 0) would see decreases.

I sent this in to support with some more thoughts and they said they'd be thinking it over.

I sent a ticket to support as well just asking that the process be re-evaluated since it doesn't appear to be functioning in a way that's viable long-term. I was simply told it would be forwarded to the appropriate people.

Posted by skunk206 on 6/26/2017 3:28:00 PM (view original):
I sent a ticket to support as well just asking that the process be re-evaluated since it doesn't appear to be functioning in a way that's viable long-term. I was simply told it would be forwarded to the appropriate people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyetbvrQjOs

I didn't read all of this and maybe I'm repeating someone, but here goes. I hate it. It made me quit playing baseball at WIS. (I did just get into a draft league, but that's okay, I think.) What's the point of upping the best players' salaries if you can just move them into a league with a higher salary cap? I think it would work in open leagues, where the cap remains constant, but other than that I think it's stupid.

I'll voice the dissenting opinion and say I like the way this is working.

First, I can say with certainty that 1 usage does not inherently make a salary go up. I can point to three guys I've been using in open leagues recently that have gone down multiple times. No, I won't tell you their names, because they are my little good-value secrets I've found and I want to keep it that way :)

I play a mix of open leagues and a few progressives at once. This has no effect on the progressives, and an equalizing effect on open leagues. I've seen a great variety of players in OLs and much fewer dominant teams from experienced veterans who had learned all the cookies with which to dominate the league.

So the big guys cost a fortune. Do your research and use someone else. The value players are out there. It's keeping the game fresh and interesting.

I made the same point earlier. What we have now is imperfect, but compared to all those years of 1908 Joss and 1989 HoJo showing up on half of all Open League teams, I'll take it. Some players are overpriced, some are underpriced -- if you're in a league that has a salary cap, take some time to find the best deals.

Meh, they still got the formula wrong. Player's just go up on value, and will never fall the least bit.

1921 Bob Jones has gone down in price 5 straight times. And he's being used. I'm using him right now, and I've used him in 0soup4u's $110M 2-Team Twist League for three straight seasons.

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$4,593,404	-$1,480	$4,591,923
2/15/2017	$4,596,315	-$2,910	$4,593,404
10/11/2016	$4,602,365	-$6,050	$4,596,315
6/3/2016	$4,612,816	-$10,451	$4,602,365
2/9/2016	$4,615,570	-$2,754	$4,612,816

A bunch of other players who have gone down 5 straight times, all of them on my 1938 progressive team:

1938 Pete Fox

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$4,263,399	-$4,367	$4,259,031
2/15/2017	$4,268,879	-$5,479	$4,263,399
10/11/2016	$4,275,022	-$6,142	$4,268,879
6/3/2016	$4,284,730	-$9,707	$4,275,022
2/9/2016	$4,290,844	-$6,113	$4,284,730

1938 Carl Reynolds

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$4,619,418	-$7,669	$4,611,748
2/15/2017	$4,628,844	-$9,425	$4,619,418
10/11/2016	$4,638,289	-$9,444	$4,628,844
6/3/2016	$4,648,822	-$10,532	$4,638,289
2/9/2016	$4,657,491	-$8,668	$4,648,822

1938 Frank McCormick

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$6,146,300	-$7,273	$6,139,026
2/15/2017	$6,153,572	-$7,271	$6,146,300
10/11/2016	$6,161,823	-$8,250	$6,153,572
6/3/2016	$6,175,816	-$13,992	$6,161,823
2/9/2016	$6,184,767	-$8,950	$6,175,816

1938 Harry Danning

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$3,591,408	-$3,584	$3,587,823
2/15/2017	$3,595,428	-$4,019	$3,591,408
10/11/2016	$3,599,588	-$4,159	$3,595,428
6/3/2016	$3,607,762	-$8,174	$3,599,588
2/9/2016	$3,611,049	-$3,286	$3,607,762

1938 Russ Bauers (won the Cy Young!)

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$7,506,230	-$3,178	$7,503,052
2/15/2017	$7,510,944	-$4,713	$7,506,230
10/11/2016	$7,516,227	-$5,282	$7,510,944
6/3/2016	$7,525,894	-$9,666	$7,516,227
2/9/2016	$7,530,251	-$4,356	$7,525,894

1938 Clay Bryant (Cy Young runner-up)

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$8,365,178	-$2,866	$8,362,311
2/15/2017	$8,368,704	-$3,526	$8,365,178
10/11/2016	$8,372,959	-$4,254	$8,368,704
6/3/2016	$8,383,728	-$10,768	$8,372,959
2/9/2016	$8,388,071	-$4,342	$8,383,728

1938 Lefty Grove

Salary History
Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
6/20/2017	$4,648,119	-$1,624	$4,646,494
2/15/2017	$4,650,139	-$2,019	$4,648,119
10/11/2016	$4,652,532	-$2,392	$4,650,139
6/3/2016	$4,658,516	-$5,983	$4,652,532
2/9/2016	$4,660,646	-$2,129	$4,658,516

The problem is just that salary updates are zero sum, yeah? So the many never used players can only go down by 0.2% each at a time (because only relatively few players are increasing in value substantially). Would it be so bad if this were not the case, and unused players went down a full 10% in price each iteration (and consequently the total / average cost of everyone in the database went down)?

The formula should be tweaked like previous posters said. The idea overall is good.

Posted by mattedesa on 7/3/2017 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I'll voice the dissenting opinion and say I like the way this is working.

First, I can say with certainty that 1 usage does not inherently make a salary go up. I can point to three guys I've been using in open leagues recently that have gone down multiple times. No, I won't tell you their names, because they are my little good-value secrets I've found and I want to keep it that way :)

I play a mix of open leagues and a few progressives at once. This has no effect on the progressives, and an equalizing effect on open leagues. I've seen a great variety of players in OLs and much fewer dominant teams from experienced veterans who had learned all the cookies with which to dominate the league.

So the big guys cost a fortune. Do your research and use someone else. The value players are out there. It's keeping the game fresh and interesting.

I completely agree. It's working just as mattedesa says. I think the main point was to improve open leagues to give newbies a fighting chance. That has certainly happened. I'm fine with the best all-time players getting priced out of most leagues below $120.

Looks pretty good to me. WIS staff may wish to revise just a bit before long, though.

I just noticed '03 Gagne on schwarze's list - $8,683,246. That's over $100,000/inning. I realize it's a great season, but no relief pitcher should ever be pushing $9M. To me that's just one glaring example of how flawed this system is.

The cumulative salaries being zero sum is one of the problems with the formula. There is really no meaningful reason for this. By removing this arbitrary restriction, this will help more guys show significant salary decreases which in turn will create more value, thus removing the need to continue drafting the studs.

So, my suggestion is two-fold.
1. Only include players who play in cap levels $120M or less for player usage
2. Modify the salary formula to eliminate the zero sum salary rule, which will require a different calculation for % increase and % decrease,