Posted by ozomatli on 10/25/2017 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Funksteady: That's an interesting perspective. I see the benefit as greater for lower cap leagues than higher cap leagues. It increases the amount of viable players to be used and therefore the complexity of the team construction process. More options = more interesting, in my book

More options at the lower end of the skill pool, not something I find more interesting. If I want that I'll join a 50mil league. OLs are supposed to be balanced somewhere between low and hig caps in order to allow owners to draft some great seasons from MLB stars and mix them with lesser ones and we use to be able to do that at 80mil but now it's going toward the lower end of the draft pool. In other words 80mil OLs are starting to look more and more like low cap themes which i don't think they were ever meant to be.

The quality of player that's usable in an 80M league is still greater than the 90th percentile of quality of total player-seasons. Yes, they are lower quality than they were two years ago, but they are still very high compared to the "lower end"

90th percentile right? Not what it used to be, you are obviously happy with this flawed dynamic salary raises and I'm obviously not. It's just not what it was supposed to be, because high cap leagues are pulling everything up, very little is going down to balance the overall pool which is where the word "dynamic" fails and can be pretty much changed to "increase".

I'd be interested to know if even one player in the entire database has had both a salary increase and decrease since dynamic pricing began.

Posted by skunk206 on 10/25/2017 5:33:00 PM (view original):
I'd be interested to know if even one player in the entire database has had both a salary increase and decrease since dynamic pricing began.

Looking at one of my teams only at the non-scrubs I found 4 players with both increases and decreases

'65 Mazeroski
'56 Virdon
'59 V. Law
'64 Veale

Posted by skunk206 on 10/25/2017 5:33:00 PM (view original):
I'd be interested to know if even one player in the entire database has had both a salary increase and decrease since dynamic pricing began.

I’ve definitely seen it, but they’re not necessarily good players. Like a Jack Wilson, or Ryan Doumit. Maybe u might have more luck looking at platoon players, which may be the way to go now. But for the most part, if you have a full season, batted .300, you’re salary has gone up every time

It isn't logical to have statistically identical seasons be priced differently. Tweaking the salary formula every year to coincide with the release of new players would be better, imo.

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 10/25/2017 10:06:00 PM (view original):
It isn't logical to have statistically identical seasons be priced differently. Tweaking the salary formula every year to coincide with the release of new players would be better, imo.

True, but the only player I've seen this be an issue with is 1902 Bill Bernhard. He will be underpriced forever under the current structure

Posted by Funksteady1 on 10/25/2017 6:00:00 PM (view original):
90th percentile right? Not what it used to be, you are obviously happy with this flawed dynamic salary raises and I'm obviously not. It's just not what it was supposed to be, because high cap leagues are pulling everything up, very little is going down to balance the overall pool which is where the word "dynamic" fails and can be pretty much changed to "increase".

There are definitely things that need improvement for the current structure to be viable in the long term. However, I do think a dynamic structure (in some form) is superior to a static from where the best bargains are known quantities and on all successful teams.

The next round of dynamic salary updates will start Thursday morning

I wonder when they'll finish?

Posted by ozomatli on 10/25/2017 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Funksteady1 on 10/25/2017 6:00:00 PM (view original):
90th percentile right? Not what it used to be, you are obviously happy with this flawed dynamic salary raises and I'm obviously not. It's just not what it was supposed to be, because high cap leagues are pulling everything up, very little is going down to balance the overall pool which is where the word "dynamic" fails and can be pretty much changed to "increase".

There are definitely things that need improvement for the current structure to be viable in the long term. However, I do think a dynamic structure (in some form) is superior to a static from where the best bargains are known quantities and on all successful teams.

I do agree on this, no way do we want to go back to a static salary structure but there has to be a way to stop pulling the skills through the roof due to high cap leagues obviously being able to keep drafting these mega salaries, that or else raise the OL cap according to the % of overall salary increases with every update. Just throwing ideas around here but I think two things are obvious,
1-This current dynamic pricing formula is flawed and will only get worse with time therefore must be changed
2- We do not want to go back to static salaries

3-Future increases should probably be based only on leagues for low and moderate caps (say 100mil and below, or 120mil and below)

Frankly, I don't care what '21 Ruth costs. In a 255mil league, I'll pay it, and in a 100mil league, I won't.

The prices are updated, but not the spreadsheet, so it's hard to do any analysis about what's changed/stayed the same.

UPDATE: The spreadsheets are now updated. Thanks seble!

One of my draftcenter teams seems to have gone down at least $5M. Was not expecting that.

Awesome