Don’t get me wrong though, I’d love to see some of the more inflated star salaries brought more inline and made more useable. There are flaws in the sim (fatigue model, ballpark normalization, projected IP/PA for older seasons, live play, among other things) that I would prefer be tackled first if there’s a priority list.

Posted by TulsaG on 9/18/2020 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I wonder some of us came up with a good solution, such as just4me's upthread, and it got enough backing if they'd considering doing it?

I don't know the answer to this, but as they say, if you don't ask the answer is always no.

I think the important thing if this was a route taken, would be having a unified voice. If a bunch of people on one side are saying "do this", and a bunch of people on the other side are saying "no do this!", Then the likelihood that nothing gets done goes up (American politics in a nutshell).

Posted by contrarian23 on 9/18/2020 9:09:00 AM (view original):
Salaries changed a ton in 2015-17 when the site made its ill-conceived foray into dynamic pricing.

I'm not at all convinced that there is a real problem right now with the salaries. There are a ton of different ways to put together a competitive team in an open league. just4me's recent posts have shown this. I have several different OL teams going right now, all very different in roster composition, all doing well.

Random salary adjustments would seem to serve very little purpose to me. I guess I am not completely opposed to it, but I don't think that's the problem with SLB really. Until they decide to really re-build the algorithm, everything else is just tinkering around the margins.

Overall, the market-based pricing worked VERY well, IMHO. Customer interest kept pace, considering the business issues of WIS. The sim player base was constantly refined.

The main "problem" as I see it was that the super-high cap themes still tended to draft the same, boring super, super, duper players over and over again (e.g.: Addie Joss 1908). And those who play the super-duper-high themes didn't like what that did to their salary levels. #yawn This also tended to create challenges for progressive leagues that had salary caps. This problem could fairly easily be fixed by capping those most inflated Mickey Mouse, John Wayne, Elvis, Beatles players.

The more normal salary caps have been fine. Open League style (All-Star quality) continued to be fresh and interesting. Realistic level play (~$70M Cap) was and still is very interesting.

Great discussion. I'd love to see the dynamic pricing come back with the first two problems on Contrarians list fixed.

I agree with the site staff that implemented it that the cumulative salary base should remain constant.

The salary adjustments could be batched into different cap ranges, i.e. 40-79, 80-119, 120-179, 180-255 so that high cap leagues aren't making the best seasons unusable for open leagues ect.

I love the theory of dynamic pricing but I have an issue with determining it based on usage - that suggests that all what if owners are perfectly efficient in their roster making decisions. The only way the dynamic pricing would work correctly is to base it on sim league performance, which is impossible. There won’t be sample sizes large enough, because the variation in rules and league composition can not be controlled for. So like I said, the theory of dynamic pricing is great but in practice it just creates inconsistencies in the system.

I would very much be in favor of a rollback of the dynamic pricing updates. Then every player is once again priced according to their on-paper ability. And it would also cause a nice refresh to our leagues, as a lot of the unusable seasons come back into the fold. It would also remove the excess value from 2018-2019 players who never got updated and aren’t wearing extra cost as a result. It would just make things more consistent and the original base salaries are obviously available if you look at the spreadsheets.

It doesn't assume that owners are perfectly efficient. It assumes that owners are more efficient, and they inevitably are.

crazy

inevitable

fate

Posted by just4me on 9/18/2020 7:06:00 PM (view original):
I know deadballers are popular, but I strongly believe modern pitchers are a better value and more consistently lead to more wins.

Most my OL teams are testing the limits of the sim or proving viability of differing strategies. Shoot, I’ve got a team of only Seattle Mariners in 1st in an OL (and tracking for 93 wins) that was inspired by the jonjoerob and bru teams...

I’ve also got a $50m team that just started in an OL and 9 games in is 5-4 with three 1-run losses (and a .621 expected W%). If I can keep a $50m team competitive in an OL, you better believe people can win with just about anything at $80m, even bringing in a ‘00 Pedro or ‘20/‘23 Ruth... (I picked up ‘95 Maddux and ‘19 deGrom off WW and will leave them in AAA until after AS break).

And if you want to have fun with some of your next teams, check out bounties thread. I throw out gift cards for owners winning with unique and fun strategies targeting certain types of play. I have a couple new bounties launching in the next few weeks, too.

The bounties you have come up with are great for the community. I will definitely have a go at one of them.

I had an idea for a bounty that would incentivise people to use some of the best seasons in MLB history. Lets call it the three headed monster challenge - you need to build a team that wins 100 games in an open league with only 3 positional players with salaries over $1m. No AAA trading is allowed. Obviously a big factor in winning is going to be getting lucky with AAA.

You have a much better knowledge of the sim than me I would be happy to adjust the win threshold or perhaps go to 4 players if you think that is more appropriate. If you think the bounty would be fun for the community and not throw off the competitive balance in open leagues I would be happy to put up the bounty reward payable in BTC.