I never liked the dynamic salaries. Is short sighted. It would have been a fine way to adjust salaries if they did so once per year--say at the end of the MLB season when that season's players enter the draft pool. But doing the updates 4 times per year has inflated prices in such a way that eventually low cap leagues like OLs will be using very mediocre players. It's currently fun, but will it be so say next year? As many of you pointed out the salaries don't adjust lower much at all. Hopefully a change is made.

Here's a pitcher I'm currently using in an OL with 0 uses in his Performance History:

Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
10/26/2017	$4,159,057	-$6,531	$4,152,525
6/20/2017	$4,165,442	-$6,384	$4,159,057
2/15/2017	$4,171,663	-$6,220	$4,165,442
10/11/2016	$4,177,753	-$6,089	$4,171,663
6/3/2016	$4,183,126	-$5,372	$4,177,753
2/9/2016	$4,188,677	-$5,550	$4,183,126

It's 1916 Jack Nabors, 226 IP, $4.15M. So far he's pitched 30.1 innings, has a 3.26 ERA and 3-1 record.

From the same team, 1902 Harry Thielman (2 previous uses, 245 IP, $4.85M):

Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
10/26/2017	$4,854,712	-$6,232	$4,848,480
6/20/2017	$4,860,823	-$6,110	$4,854,712
2/15/2017	$4,867,108	-$6,285	$4,860,823
10/11/2016	$4,873,292	-$6,183	$4,867,108
6/3/2016	$4,879,560	-$6,267	$4,873,292
2/9/2016	$4,885,737	-$6,177	$4,879,560

He's 3-0 with a 3.58 ERA in 32.2 IP.

What's wrong with finding players you've never used (or heard of!) and getting some mileage out of them in OLs?

And if you really want the superstars, you can always join a high cap theme league.

THis ^

Posted by crazystengel on 11/23/2017 2:57:00 AM (view original):
Here's a pitcher I'm currently using in an OL with 0 uses in his Performance History:

Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
10/26/2017	$4,159,057	-$6,531	$4,152,525
6/20/2017	$4,165,442	-$6,384	$4,159,057
2/15/2017	$4,171,663	-$6,220	$4,165,442
10/11/2016	$4,177,753	-$6,089	$4,171,663
6/3/2016	$4,183,126	-$5,372	$4,177,753
2/9/2016	$4,188,677	-$5,550	$4,183,126

It's 1916 Jack Nabors, 226 IP, $4.15M. So far he's pitched 30.1 innings, has a 3.26 ERA and 3-1 record.

From the same team, 1902 Harry Thielman (2 previous uses, 245 IP, $4.85M):

Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
10/26/2017	$4,854,712	-$6,232	$4,848,480
6/20/2017	$4,860,823	-$6,110	$4,854,712
2/15/2017	$4,867,108	-$6,285	$4,860,823
10/11/2016	$4,873,292	-$6,183	$4,867,108
6/3/2016	$4,879,560	-$6,267	$4,873,292
2/9/2016	$4,885,737	-$6,177	$4,879,560

He's 3-0 with a 3.58 ERA in 32.2 IP.

What's wrong with finding players you've never used (or heard of!) and getting some mileage out of them in OLs?

And if you really want the superstars, you can always join a high cap theme league.

How about just fixing the dynamic salaries and not ignoring a major problem?

That's fine, let them fix it. I just happen not to think of it as a "major" problem when you look at what it replaced.

Dynamic pricing killed the Joss/Hojo/Raines/Bip/Carter/Coleman/Dilone teams. Dynamic pricing is like a war hero who returns home when the fighting is done with "issues." Work on the issues, but respect the service!

Ya I usually stick to $120 mil themes, and it used to be every winning team had 2000 Pedro and ‘95 Maddux. It’s nice to see they aren’t there no more, but now the OL cookies are here, and with salaries exploding with no end in sight, every usable player will be gone and it’ll be Brad ******* Radke vs David Eckstein in the SIM, which is lame af

Posted by ozomatli on 10/26/2017 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Assuming this is the issue, it's interesting that HoJo's (and other old cookies) counter is still so much higher than the players being used more frequently now. In a way, it's a victory for dynamic pricing (once it's implemented correctly) because it shows that, back then, there was much less variation among team rosters and that the new system makes it difficult for the "best" choices to become known quantities in the same way that they were back then. It makes the game more about skill and less about following a recipe.

With that said, definitely important that we get this fixed so that it can work as intended.

We said, agree all around.

Thanks to Schwarze for the hard work of getting all this data and for sharing it.

Posted by mildnhazy on 10/26/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):
also - is someone able to explain to me how and why the top riser goes up 2 mil plus and the top faller goes down 28k?

I suspect it has to do with percentages and the difference between high numbers, low numbers and zero: the MOST used can be counted relative to others, and a certain percentage of a high number is higher than a percentage of a low number. And there is no LEAST used, in absolute terms, because you can't go below zero.

Posted by schwarze on 10/26/2017 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mildnhazy on 10/26/2017 3:21:00 PM (view original):
also - is someone able to explain to me how and why the top riser goes up 2 mil plus and the top faller goes down 28k?

Because of their arbitrary rule that the total amount of the player pool salary must stay the same. So the handful of huge salary increases gets divided by the multitudes of undraftable players, ergo small decreases for them.

Okay, a better answer than the one I just posted. Thanks. The "multitudes" (nice name for them by the way) are all those not drafted in a given period, who are all even at being drafted zero times, which nothing can be lower than. Only if there were ONE single player least drafted could that player get a big decrease in salary.

Posted by crazystengel on 11/23/2017 2:57:00 AM (view original):
Here's a pitcher I'm currently using in an OL with 0 uses in his Performance History:

Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
10/26/2017	$4,159,057	-$6,531	$4,152,525
6/20/2017	$4,165,442	-$6,384	$4,159,057
2/15/2017	$4,171,663	-$6,220	$4,165,442
10/11/2016	$4,177,753	-$6,089	$4,171,663
6/3/2016	$4,183,126	-$5,372	$4,177,753
2/9/2016	$4,188,677	-$5,550	$4,183,126

It's 1916 Jack Nabors, 226 IP, $4.15M. So far he's pitched 30.1 innings, has a 3.26 ERA and 3-1 record.

From the same team, 1902 Harry Thielman (2 previous uses, 245 IP, $4.85M):

Batch Date	Previous Salary	Adjustment	New Salary
10/26/2017	$4,854,712	-$6,232	$4,848,480
6/20/2017	$4,860,823	-$6,110	$4,854,712
2/15/2017	$4,867,108	-$6,285	$4,860,823
10/11/2016	$4,873,292	-$6,183	$4,867,108
6/3/2016	$4,879,560	-$6,267	$4,873,292
2/9/2016	$4,885,737	-$6,177	$4,879,560

He's 3-0 with a 3.58 ERA in 32.2 IP.

What's wrong with finding players you've never used (or heard of!) and getting some mileage out of them in OLs?

And if you really want the superstars, you can always join a high cap theme league.

This is still my view of it, thanks crazystengel and ozomati. While some adjusting is probably called for, I don't see any reason to prefer the ancien regime, with every team made up of Carter, HoJo, Joss, Joss etc.

That a $4 mil + pitcher can be useful in an OL was unheard of before. Now it is not, so your knowledge of players and baseball (mine are fair to maybe good),, as well as statistical abilities (mine suck), can make a real difference.

What does need addressing is that very good players who were never used before because their salaries were too high are not being made economical because of the problem Schwarze has explained well, so that we don't see lineups of relative unknowns with the occasional Ted Williams, or Lou Gehrig available because they had not been used, with their salaries only rising once they are widely used (which admittedly would happen quickly if they were suddenly affordable, but at least for 3 months they would get to play).

So I don't see the salary increases as a problem at all -we saw those players enough for many years, good riddance, with all due respect. But there does need to be a change in the overall cap as Schwarze calls for, so those not used can fall in price, or else a more sophisticated algorithm on the price reduction side so the occasional star can also be more affordable. Still, that only affects a few superstar seasons, and otherwise the new system is still preferable.

Posted by crazystengel on 11/23/2017 3:23:00 PM (view original):
That's fine, let them fix it. I just happen not to think of it as a "major" problem when you look at what it replaced.

Dynamic pricing killed the Joss/Hojo/Raines/Bip/Carter/Coleman/Dilone teams. Dynamic pricing is like a war hero who returns home when the fighting is done with "issues." Work on the issues, but respect the service!

heh

Also, eliminating high cap leagues (120+) from the salary equation would be helpful. The Pedro's and Maddux's don;t get used anymore at 80M. We don;t need to bump those guys up 10% every 3-4 months. If people want to have a high cap theme league that makes those guys less popular, then have it part of the theme rules (or lower the cap).

bagchucker, why, in an online game involving strategy, outwitting others, knowledge of advanced statistics where available, and the most complex game (baseball that is) played by humans, are "better" and "more complex" not a good thing?

And you seem unhappy that the HoJo, Raines, Joss, Dilone, Bip, Carter etc. teams are gone, given your reply to crazystengel. How is that a bad thing?

And for once, someone even out poetry-ed you (which is hard to do, let's face it folks, bagchucker is an excellent poet) - crazystengel's channeling of Homer's Iliad wins the day's verse contest.