| 0 |
Subject: Are roster values inflating too rapidly?
Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 11:58
I've seen several people express sentiments - almost dismay - that roster values in the TSN Ultimate game are inflating too rapidly.
That may or may not be so - but they don't seem to be growing as fast as last year, which was the slowest gaining year ever, as I recall.
Based on today's Gurupie Rankings, many teams seem to be in the mid to upper $50s. While the wealthiest teams may crack $60m today, it's more common to see teams in the $55-57m range.
Compare this to the standings from last May 1. (I don't have the April 22 standings saved from last year, but I do have monthly rankings retained in the standings forum.) Franchise values in the mid-$60's are common, and one team is almost at $70m.
Maybe values are still moving too fast, but it certainly looks better than last year.
What do you think?
|
| 1 | Richard
Leader
ID: 6232711
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 12:11
|
Thanks for the historic perspective, Guru. I just hit $58,650K after today's price change. Making money seems to be easy so far this year but I do have to have a better exit strategy for some of my OFs. It seems like most of them are now leading the money losers list;-)
I like the pace of money gaining this year so I don't think I'm making money too fast. Won't be very many teams at the $60 million mark yet but several are getting close.
Richard
|
| 2 | J
Leader
ID: 49346417
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 12:22
|
I hit $60.08 today, and it does seem to be kind of easy. But I think alot of this is luck with picking the right guys to jump onto.
Deciding who to skip is just as important as jumping on the right guy. Deciding when to dump is also important of course. I've been doing all 3 of those things real well so far. Of course, I really think the day late strategy was an important factor to get a head start on the gainers and being able to save HTs early on - drafting Jacque Jones & David Justice sure helped!
I got in on some trains earlier than most - Patterson, Barrett, Jensen, Spivey, Hillenbrand, & Gibbons so far. I missed out on the huge early Padilla train, but jumped on board eventually.
With my 60mil I am able to afford to hold Schilling & RJ and will now focus on saving my PTs, looking for the next trains and ready to finally upgrade to a big time hitter somewhere (ARod?) before most can afford to.
Next train I'm waiting for: David Ortiz.
|
| 3 | OSU Rules
Leader
ID: 15372315
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 12:41
|
I'm with J, my day late team crossed $60M today as well. One of the keys in my mind is picking a few positions to be long term holds, which from a roster value stanpoint means low ownership and low price volatility. This allows me to use my trades for the real big trains and still have the trades to sell early rather than take losses.
This team has 6 positions that have made less than $100K, but I have been aggressive with the other roster spots. Some examples of long term holds are Jeter, Berkman, Frank Thomas, Kevin Millwood, Brad Ausmus, Soriano. Most of these guys are just expensive enough to avoid heavy ownership, but still produce reliably enough (in my opinion) that they won't hurt me in points or dollars. Bottom line avoiding the losers is just as important as getting all the gainers.
By the way, one of my other teams is only at $53M. This morning I had one hitter trade left and Vizquel, Patterson, and Jacque Jones on the roster. I used the last trade to go Patterson to Lofton. I try to use the same strategies and analysis on all my teams, but different starting points and a couple bad breaks and the results change dramatically.
|
| 4 | The Pink Pimp
ID: 34240111
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 12:54
|
If I may be allowed to state the obvious, you can't just look at roster value in isolation. You have to consider the prices of the players as well.
for example,
Player TY 4/21 | LY 4/21 | LY 5/01
----------------------------------------------
Randy 11,310 | 9,370 | 9,460
A-Rod 8,050 | 7,150 | 7,290
Jeter 6,040 | 5,260 | 5,250
Bonds 10,020 | 7,130 | 7,140
Sosa 9,100 | 7,290 | 7,230
Of course this is an isolated sample and proves nothing about the overall numbers. I do not have the data, the time, or the expertise to do real hefty analysis on this but I think it is fair to say that marquee players this year are coming at a premium. Perhaps the premium for the well known names in the outfield is part of what is fueling the market for outfield positions. I have to think that fewer rosters this year have Sosa or Bonds when compared to last.
I also have to agree with the notion that money trains are simple to catch this year, especially at pitcher. The moving 5 day average has greatly reduced the influence of the panic sell. Last year if a widely held pitcher had a low scoring game his price would suffer the very next day. Then on the day after that managers would be forced to burn a trade to get out of him or eat more dollar losses. This year that doesn't happen. If a pitcher (particularly a pitcher whose price is trending up) has a substandard game his price may still continue to rise the very next day. With no day after dollar losses there is nothing to motivate additional managers to sell or to prevent other managers from buying in. This may in fact be creating ideal condition for pitcher values to trend up to maximum levels per player. And the downside of the pitcher price market is changed as well. Last year trains at pitcher used to wreck, now they come to a slow announced stop so everybody can get off safely before the price pendulum swings the other way. Compared to the hitter market the pitcher market is way less volitile and easier to make money in. I could easily structure my team for the two headed monster and was in fact planning to do so to bank trades, but right now the money is too good and I might just go with Randy as a lock and use my trades to manage the other four slots where I'm finding good gains from Padilla & Fogg, and am expecting good gains from Livan and Lawrence.
|
| 5 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 29232811
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 13:03
|
No Schilling, Pink Pinp? Wasn't he real cheap at this point last year? Anyways, I'm forking out for the premium and THM....it seems to be working thus far. I just need to be more careful with my HT's because I have now switched into some more widely owned hitters becuase of their prices. If those cheap hitter trains all come to a halt at or around the same time...that's when I'll be in trouble. Can't afford Soriano, Berkman/Manny, more expensive 1B, etc.
So, go Spivey, Hillenbrand, Gibbons, Bautista, Barrett, etc...
|
| 6 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 13:04
|
Pink Pimp raise a good point. Last year's top player's were more affordable, which means that the relative inflation last year was even more pronounced vs. this year.
|
| 7 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 13:06
|
I don't think the problem is that the RVs are inflating comparing to last year (they just can't with the "max" move for a player is around 150k a day).
The problem is that making money has become way too easy. Everybody knows who is gonna go up and how much, specially in the pitchers side.
There is nothing wrong with the hitters changes. But I feel that the 5-day change thing for pitchers is a total failure.
TSN has build that system thinking that the traders will keep on doing exactly what they were doing. Buying the day of the start, selling the day after. But thats not the deal. It was very easy to everyone (encluding the lemmings) to discoved how to break that system.
Fogg and Padilla are perfect examples. It's like there is some kind of "conspiracy" of all the players in the game, to keep those guys for 5 more days, max there profits and then sell them. Then everyone will be ready for their drop, will get rid of them the same day, and they will continue to lose for 5 days, when nobody has them.
This system has created a situation were every pitcher move affects 5 times, and becuase the effects sprerds over 5 days, it's goes around the overall smaller changes. Of course that after that every pitcher will lose big time for 5 days in a row, and will come back to his original price, but nobody will have by then.
|
| 8 | Bandos
ID: 422571916
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 13:24
|
I humbly diasagree with td. I like the new pitcher changes eventhough I havent figured them out yet for the high priced pitchers. I made the 240,000 blunder of trading RJ for schilling today when I could have waitd for tomorrow. I dont have the cash reserves to THM so I figured on rotating for a week or two until I do - ouch! It makes drafting/trading AND holding a good pitcher very worthwhile and rotating NOT worthwhile - trust me :(
|
| 9 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 13:46
|
FWIW, Randro worked under precisely the same pretenses - the more people you had on board doing the same as everyone else, the more profitable it was for everyone. The main difference as I see it is that the current scheme allows for much more differentiation between rosters. Since it has thus far been mostly low priced pitchers that become widely bought, even three simultaneous trains might not use up the roster value tha was necessary to be set aside for Randro in just one pitcher slot. Also, since making money off pitchers no longer consumes trades at almost the same rate that they are obtained, I believe we will see more variation among peole's staffs.
Has the new repricing scheme proven to be a "solution"? Since I'm still a little fuzzy on why Randro was something that TSN felt had to be eliminated, I'm not sure. But if the current strategies we see employed by the masses wind up remaining as the pattern for the rest of year, I think that all things considered, this is overall probably a slight improvement on the game.
|
| 10 | walk
Leader
ID: 24318228
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 14:03
|
I'm sure you have read a few of my posts which have indicated that we are making money too quickly, Guru. What's interesting is your historical perspective, which shows that are still not making money any faster than last year.
I cannot refute the data! I guess it just "seems" that we are making moneyh too fast. And you know the consequence, big rich franchise values with too much time left such that most of the savvy investors have the same (or similar) all-star line-up's. However, if we are not making money too fast, then nevermind.
Perhaps my perception relates to what tduncan says, which is that the money-making facet on the pitcher side seems obvious. For me -- and I am not sure if I can explain it to others -- it merely translates to finding the cheapie pitchers that everyone is buying and then ride them out. There seems to be more cheapie pitchers make a lot of money this year than in previous years. There was Schoenweiss and Freddy Garcia from last year, but this year, Padilla, Jensen and Fogg seem to have steeper curves. I have no data to support this claim though.
Anywho, as long as we are all in the same boat....
BTW, my 3 roster values are $56.6, $57.6. $58.5, none of which are at the J master J level of $60MM (impressive, even for a Mets fan!).
;-)
walk
|
| 11 | Go Easy
Donor
ID: 41312229
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:21
|
I also humbly disagree with td. Having to pick up a Padilla or Fogg to me is much more of a risk than picking up RJ/Pedro/Schilling. And in the past ("Everybody knows who is gonna go up and how much, specially in the pitchers side")was always the case but there was not the risk because it was the stud(s). When it was Randro or some combination there of you had to do it or you definately were going to fall off in the money and usually points. I don't own Fogg and have done fairly well money wise (57.3). Just think it is a lot more interesting not blindly rotating. I also think it has put more of a premium on hitter trades since unlike the past I am always out of them but usually have ample pitcher trades.
|
| 12 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:23
|
The Schoeneweis run-up was 2 years ago. Freddy Garcia was 3 years ago. Time flies! Last year it was Wade Miller and Matt Morris, IIRC.
Every year there have been cheap pitchers who start strong and provide a big price boost. The 5-day trade method doesn't really make much difference in that regard, other than prolonging gains for a few days. Jensen turned around in just a few days time. Fogg and Padilla will do the same if they really crap out or get injured. So I don't think this is all that big of an issue, although the "comfort factor" is certainly greater.
Looking around at some of the teams in my autodivisions, it is clear that a lot of people still have no clue about how to make money. Most if us here have a biased view of the "ease" of generating wealth.
Frankly, I think the 5-day pitching approach is a big improvement. And to the extent it allows us to bank some gains without excessively rotating early in the year, this should translate into point benefits later in the season.
Since I raised the question in the thread title, I guess my personal answer for now is that the current pace is probably OK, and certainly better than in past years. I also recall that last year, there was some complaining that values were rising too slowly! (Or was that 2 years ago?)
|
| 13 | Go Easy
Donor
ID: 41312229
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:29
|
I agree that the price increase is okay this year. It did seem though at the beginning it was tough to make money but the last 6 days at over 500k a day had me thinking it was to easy. Then again with 1 hitter trade and way to many could deflate at anytime players on my team that could quickly turn around.
|
| 14 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 29232811
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:35
|
One thing that I conversed about with J a few hours ago was the date of the standings posted. Let's not forget that the gurupie standings are generally erased except for the first of the month, and Guru used May 1, 2001. It's only the 23rd of April, so the disarity will be less than what has been presented (just wondering if ya'll picked that up). So, the J's of the world will be over 64 million by the first of May, IMHO.
The point disparity is what really jumped out at me, though....as the total TSNP or SWP should be significantly less than it was at the same time last year.
smallwhirled
|
| 15 | walk
Leader
ID: 10321917
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:41
|
Funny, Guru. Schonny was 2 years ago, and Freddy 3 (but I coulda sworn Freddy had a run-up last year with his bargain-basement base price).
Also, I think you hit it on the head with the "comfort factor." I think, IMO, last year, Fogg would have increased, but then had a sell-off after the recent 22 point outing. However, with the new 5-day plan, I KNOW to hold him until I see otherwise. And then, I "think" the fact that prices continue to rise might cause some masses to continue to buy for fear they are missing some kinda runaway money train. Just one theory. I could be wrong.
Also, I am in two autodivisions: in one other folks have made good money (56MM and up), but in the other, not as much. Still, your point that we are somewhat proficient at making money does tend to bias one's (my own) view...
- walk
|
| 16 | Willix
Sustainer
ID: 50650614
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:45
|
I agree Guru. I think the current pace seems fine. Everyone makes more money earlier in the season. We have had some easy trains early on which has allowed us to make some nice financial gains. Padilla and Fogg seem easy because everyone is making so much money with them. However, it's easy because they both have pitched extremely well. It's rare to have cheap pitchers continue to pitch well (no negative point outings) out of the gate. Once they do implode, then it will become more interesting. Every year has the good cheap pitcher. This year, a few have stepped to the front early on.
I really like the fact you don't have to Randro anymore. The game wasn't fun doing that. I like to take chances because that makes the game more enjoyable for me. The new format is better.
Now if I could get some more hitter trades! Like Go Easy said, this year is reversed regarding the trade situation. I have pithcer trades saved up, but I'm out of hitter trades again (two weeks in a row)! Greed has cost me. As I chase the money, I become trapped as a manager. I need to do a better job managing my team, which is the whole point. :)
|
| 17 | Go Easy
Donor
ID: 41312229
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 15:51
|
But if we could still just Randro, going out of town for the next 3 weeks sure would make it easier to have a buddy manage my team. Damn if I could just work on the road when it wasn't baseball season!!
|
| 18 | Jevon Kearse
ID: 19331217
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 16:09
|
I think the new pricing algorithm for pitchers is great, because I hated Randro with a passion. However, I think it is probably easier to make money now.
I had my best performance in fantasy sports last year with a 51 WWR in TSN fullseason baseball. My basic strategy that I followed all season was to acquire points with pitchers, and make money with hitters. That strategy does not work quite as well this year, becauase the incredible financial rewards for jumping on cheap pitcher trains (Padilla, Fogg, etc.) are much greater than in years past. This makes picking up a cheap pitcher train an easy option because even if one of these pitchers gets shelled, the 1.5 million you made on that guy can easily balance out a -60 point outing. I'm sure there are numerous managers out there who might be tentative to jump on all pitcher trains, for fear of an outing like that (I think Tony Armas's -200 combined SWP in back-2-back outings in 2000 gave me this mentality). Furthermore, if Fogg or Padilla have a horrendous outing, they will still see gains for a day or 2 after their start.
Pitchers don't appear to be as high risk-high reward as they have been in the last year. I never jumped on the Padilla/Fogg trains, which I'm obviously kicking myself for now. So even though a large majority of teams feel like they are making money with ease, there are still plenty of teams out there like mine who maybe are picking and choosing their spots with their pitcher trades.
With all that said, I'll be changing my strategy to make more money with my pitcher trades than I did last year. It's easy money, and I think you have to take advantage of it.
|
| 19 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 16:30
|
The way I see it, the only thing the 5-days thing has done was making pitchers go up or 5 straight days, instead of just 1 day. Pitchers are making too much money. So why would someone sell a pitcher who is giving him 130k a day, and he knows he is gonna continue giving it to him for the next 4 days?
I think a key sentence is Jevon Kearse's "Pitchers don't appear to be as high risk-high reward as they have been in the last year." You really can't lose on those cheapes. Last year, Paddila and Fogg would have been on the top of the losers list after their combined 50 TSNP. This year, they are continueing to make money, becuse everybody knows that if they just keep them, they will continue to rise astronomically even without new buyers. And thats a problem.
|
| 20 | OSU Rules
Leader
ID: 15372315
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 16:30
|
Every one keeps assuming that pitchers will continue to rise for 1-2 days after a bad outing. I think this is a mistake. The 5 day pricing model provides insurance early on, but after a long period of gains I think it will offer little protection. We almost saw it with Schilling he had been steadily rising (even though at a slow rate) and then had a very bad outing. His gains went to near 0 and then negative in 2 days. If Padilla or Fogg have a bad outing next time, I would not be surprised to see them negative the day after their start.
|
| 21 | J
Leader
ID: 49346417
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 17:05
|
Also, something to remember, as the season goes on, TSN's sartibles wont make finding hot hitters as easy for the non-gurupies. Where, Guru's wonderful sartibles have the wonderful 30 day, 15 day... sartible features. While we'll be able to find the hot hitters easily, someone just going to TSN's sartibles will only see YTD points.
|
| 22 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 17:09
|
OSU Rules - I think you are correct, although it make take a disaster to get the point across. Maybe later this week. No one has yet been "Ramoned". Smoltz just wasn't heavily enough owned.
Of course, there is another possibility. If everyone assumes that cheapies are "deflation proof", then they will not sell after a weak outing, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We'll see...
|
| 23 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 17:32
|
I think the potential for a sudden deflation (pop!) should only be there for pitcher trains that approach teir ceiling. If Padilla, for example, hit high enough ownership that people stopped buying into him and a near 0 gain occurred followed the next day by a poor outing, the obvious contingency would be certain doom.
|
| 24 | OSU Rules
Leader
ID: 15372315
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 17:34
|
Guru- as usual I agree. Padilla should provide a good test real soon. His gains will slow in the upcoming days, because he is reaching saturation and his last start was marginal. A bad outing and another attractive pitcher option (Perez or Tomko perhaps) and people will be quick to take their gains and run. I know I will.
|
| 25 | Jazz Dreamers
ID: 23322023
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 19:51
|
I can't complain about the new pricing method -- TSN let us know about it in advance and the challenge of the game is to adapt to it. :) I, for one, haven't done a good job of adapting so far. I have resisted the Padilla and Fogg trains because I saw them as cheapie pitchers who would cause me to burn pitcher trades. But with the fact that they have pitched quite well so far and have made a ton of money, I really missed the boat there. Hopefully, I will be able to adjust as the season goes on. :)
One problem with market based systems is that there is always distortion from "self-fulfilling prophecy" effects as Guru put it. Clearly Padilla and Fogg should not be the top money gainers if money gains are tied to recent performances -- they both had quite mediocre games in their tete-a-tete showdown. One thing that TSN could explore would be to make price changes based on both buys/sells and also on recent performance. This could reward people who got in on underpriced players before the masses did. For example, it seems that the people who bought Damon before his doubleheader monster recognized that he was undervalued before it became obvious, and it's not clear why the masses who rush into buying Damon are deserving of the same amount of roster value increase as are those who bought him before his recent hot streak. Also, managers shouldn't be punished if Jacque Jones heats up against weak pitching this week because other managers (perhaps foolishly -- at least from the perspective of points, if Jones continues swinging a hot bat) bailed on him. On the other hand, managers who hold on to Jones during a cold streak (discovering that his hot start was perhaps a fluke) should maybe be punished in RV.
I don't know. I think the system is fine as is, but I do think a market system always has the inherent flaw that it rewards people for making the same moves that the masses are making. A price change that was more performance based would reward managers for predicting who would perform the best on the field, not for predicting who would be the most bought player.
|
| 26 | The Left Wings
ID: 760719
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 20:09
|
I think the complaint/observation comes from the difficulty in making money in the hockey pool this past season, which ended after the baseball season started. After 30 days in last season's baseball pool, I had $64.41M. 30 days into the hockey season, I had $56.12M. (I don't know how the NBA pool was this past season cuz I did not play.) Right now, my 5-day-late free-and-crippled baseball team is on pace to make just as much money in 30 days as my full-strength hockey team. That would tell you the difference. With half a team, it is still easy to make over $400k per day, whereas making $400k a day in hockey was a lot tougher.
Of course, I won't know about the Ultimate situation, but I can't imagine how the pricing model will be different from the free game. 6 more players on the roster means, what, an extra $300k per day?
|
| 27 | R
ID: 3856197
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 20:24
|
I don't mind the new pitcher changes or the hitters, but wouldn't you all like to see smaller roster values for a bit longer?
I don't mean changing the formula, but just make the changes smaller, perhaps cut all changes in half. I like having to find cheapies and praying they produce. Last year in hoops, i was ranked 3 in the world at one point towards the end of the season, but everyone in the top 10 had almost the exact same players. None of us made ground on each other and the game got boring, so i quit.
Id say in about two months, everyone who has some knowledge on how to make money quickly is going to have a lot of the same players. Everyone is going to have ARod, Bonds, Vlad, Unit, Schilling, etc. Perhaps you guys don't have the same feelings, but the start of every season is my favorite part, just because you have to budget your money between stars and cheapies. I like differentiation and i wish roster values wouldn't increase so rapidly.
|
| 28 | Go Easy
Donor
ID: 13271323
Mon, Apr 22, 2002, 22:35
|
I agree with you "R" that the most enjoyable part of the season is the beginning. I also think cutting the price changes in half would be good. At least the gains.We still all have to play with the same rules just would make things more interesting throughout the season. Just my thoughts and am not complaining at all about the currents set up. TSN is really doing a great job, at least compared to previous years!!!
|
| 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 08:45
|
R
wouldn't you all like to see smaller roster values for a bit longer?
Personally, I think that TSN has achieved (what I believe are) your desired conditions by raising the prices of average to slightly-above-aveage players across the board. In short, $57m does not get you this year what it got you last year. Since the TSN dollar isn't as valuable as it used to be, we will need to continue the hunt for cheapies longer and will be forced to stay away from whomever this year's exceptional studs turn out to be until further into the season.
|
| 31 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 09:28
|
I think that there should be a rule change which gives us 2 hitter trades per week next year. I think the number of chances to get in and out of trains needs to be cut down in order for a manager to really think about which players he wants and rewards other managers for sticking with players or getting on to values early. This would be a good way to curb the ease of money making and put a higher risk in carrying to many highly owned players.
|
| 32 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 09:44
|
MITH makes a great point that I hadn't thought of yet. Though the RVs may be very close to those of last year by the end of the month, the prices for studs is much higher. This means the value of the TSN dollar is much lower than it was last year.
Lord knows I know what that is all about.
[insert pot shot at Canadian curreny below]
|
| 33 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 09:51
|
Apparently even the word currency is worth an extra letter down here :)
|
| 34 | JC REB
Sustainer
ID: 5212816
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 09:58
|
MITH, I agree re pricings of studs. I did a quick check as to how much RV would be needed, based on todays prices, to have the top priced players at each position, it's about 120 m. Not sure exactly how this would compare to LY, but I know I had a very decent roster when I hit 100 m. It does seem to me that making money on hitters is easier than last year, there seem to be more simultaneous trains, and as RV's increase, and money becomes available to move to hot studs, we just might see the stud prices pushed even higher.
|
| 35 | Erik B.
ID: 239592612
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 10:32
|
Gang:
As you know, we monitor threads like this closely. We're really trying to find the right balance between rewarding people for making the right picks and making RV accumulation too easy. As Guru stated, we dampened price swings significantly compared to last year. Our next step would be to change the min. increase/decrease from $10k to $5k or less so that we could dampen even more. The sense that we have now is that people wouldn't like that ... But each year, we'll keep fine-tuning until we've achieved the perfect balance.
-ESB
|
| 36 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 10:52
|
"...we'll keep fine-tuning until we've achieved the perfect balance."
I'm not sure there is a perfect balance, Erik.
Actually, I retract that. I'm sure there is no perfect balance.
There's a natural tension that cannot be "perfectly" resolved. When you lower the price sensitivity, then cheap players remain systematically cheap, and rosters all tend to converge on the same cheap players out of necessity.
When you raise price sensitivity, players have a better chance to achieve a fair market price, but that creates overall roster inflation, which leads to "over-studification" (don't bother to look that one up).
At any rate, it is way too early this year to know where this season's balance is. In general, I don't think that April experience necessarily mirrors that of the rest of the season. Statistical anomalies are much more pronouced at this early stage, making certain hot streaks much more noticeable than they would be later in the season. We also have tighter value constraints in April, creating more demand for cheap players than we will see later on.
The best approach at this stage is to "learn a lot just by observing". I think the reduced sensitivities (vs. last year) combined with the higher prices for studs are both moves in the right direction. Ditto the 5-day pitcher moves. None of these are "perfect" solutions, but all seem to be improvements, even if they do create some new idiosyncrasies to exploit. When we get to the second half of the season, we'll be better equipped to assess the current balance.
|
| 37 | Promize
Sustainer
ID: 462202623
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 12:14
|
Woke up this morning, and saw someone close to 60m and thought the same thing Guru.
Without Randro, seems roster values are still going up fast. I also noticed that a lot of people burning trades this year. Was it the same last year?
According to AA's Gurupie Standings
Avg Pitcher Trades Left 2.5
Avg Hitter Trades Left .7!
Kind of seems like we all trying to hop on a lot of trains.
|
| 38 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 503102121
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 12:46
|
55.64, that's the avg TRV according to the gurupie standings. Is that too much? I really don't think it is. Sure, it seems like it's easy to make money this year, but with dampening and the premium prices of the studs....I think it's just fine. There are many simultaneous trains this year, but, remember, it's a risk/reward type of thing. If you are holding these trains, you will not be able to gain ground because the players are widely owned.
There is a ton of differentiation IMHO thus far, and what makes you think that dampend RV's would call for more differentiation and finding cheapies? I think that it would force the manager to go for the Gasol and Tinsley types (basketball reference) even more.
Say you upgrade your hitters in the traditional manner...A-Rod, Bonds, 1B, etc....Then everyone would have the same upgraded player + the cheap guys combinations. So, either way, IMHO, there are still going to be similar rosters.
Or, this could be a bunch of mumbo-jumbo?
smallwhirled
|
| 39 | quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 15:20
|
i've always felt that the way to make the rosters diverge is to raise the price sensitivity and make the price increases proportional to the change in ownership of the player rather than the fraction of total trades for any given day. Give the first 500 managers that found padilla a $500k boost, and stabilize the price sooner so that by now we'd have stopped seeing price increases for a pitcher that has already shown taht he can pitch beyond his TSN price. this would also tend to stabilize the price afterwards and disallow for "train wrecks" which shouldn't really exist in a market-based system. One bad game does not prove that Padilla doesn't deserve his new, inflated price and shouldn't cause a plummeting of his price.
|
| 40 | perk9600
ID: 12310312
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 16:00
|
but you are calling for a more market oriented system. Taking out the crash if Padilla stinks it up goes against the very fabric of what you are trying to do.
|
| 41 | quik_ag
ID: 368423022
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 16:39
|
not at all.. if padilla were to be held onto by some portion of the buyers-into, his price wouldn't crash by quite so much. the first buyers and the last sellers would have the most sway on the price fluctuations. price would end up being something of a logarithmic increase in terms of the number of owners.
|
| 42 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 16:43
|
Why would he HAVE to crash after a bad start? I guarantee if he has 3 bad starts he will crash. I just don't think the market should require you to sell after 1 poor start in order to be a "good" market. This market is simply more patient and perhaps will be more reflective a players overall value, not just based on his last start like last year.
|
| 43 | Willix
Sustainer
ID: 50650614
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 16:44
|
Exactly Perk9600. quik, if a company has a really bad quarter, don't you think their stock price will plummet? Padilla's price is whatever the buyers and sellers deem it to be.
People panic all the time in the market and sell shares in a company as the price is dropping, even if they think it's a good company. Sometimes you take the money and run. I, myself, like the long term approach. However, TSN Smallworld only lasts for one season, so you pick and choose when the best time to sell is. Unfortuantely, the masses sometimes dictate that for us.
I still don't know why Oswalt dropped today. I don't see him being heavily dropped after his last start. I would think his buys would far outway his sells, especially with him going up $60k for the past four days. I guess my thinking was wrong.
|
| 44 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 16:57
|
I think Oswalt is mostly a victim of an extra day of rest between starts. His buys before the prior start were dropped, but those who wanted to buy him back could wait until after trades were refreshed.
Same thing happened to Schilling yesterday.
|
| 45 | Willix
Sustainer
ID: 50650614
Tue, Apr 23, 2002, 17:19
|
Great point Guru. I forgot to think about new trades being given out today in combination with the extra day off. Hopefully Oswalt will start to climb again tomorrow. Always one step ahead Dave! :)
|
| 46 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 1832261
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 02:49
|
I have never been good at making money, but as of now I am almost considering a 3HM of Randy, Curt and Pedro. I think I can pull that off next week. I currently have 2 of the 3 (plus Oswalt) and am picking up the 3HM starts by trading out of whichever player is most likely to drop (or not rise) by looking at their recent price history. I am undecided as to whether or not this is a good thing. I definitely agree that the game is most interesting when you can't afford an All-Star team, but if the cheapies don't rise to the value that they should be based on performance, you have a situation where everyone has the same cheapies and RV means nothing.
I'd have to say I'm satisfied with the current mix. I also LOVE Pride's suggestion of 2 PT's per week. That would definitely make selective train-hopping a priority.
|
| 47 | R
ID: 3856197
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 03:04
|
azdbacker-
Curt, Unit, Pedro, and Oswalt come out to a total of over 37 million. At first thought, i thought there was no way it was possible, but then i remembered that you probably have all the cheap dbacks. Money will still be extremely tight, but if you can pull it off, its gonna be scary.
Also, consider that you are going to probably have to make more than one trade if you ever wanted to upgrade a hitter.
I still think gains cut down say 30% to 45% would be the best idea. I personally like trading players often and I'm sure many others out there would lose interest if there wasn't as many trades to work with.
|
| 48 | stinkypuff
ID: 333322212
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 09:41
|
Rather than dampen price gains, why not lower starting budgets to, say, $35 mil.? Starting with less cash would delay the dreaded "studification" and force owners to dig a little deeper for bargains. Instead of having all-star lineups by the all-star break, most teams would still be looking for underpriced performers till sometime in August.
|
| 49 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 09:42
|
I don't even want to think about drafting 14 slots at 35 mill, ugh.
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 09:52
|
Besides, why is that better than what TSN has already done- raise player salaries?. IMO this has worked fine to this point. Even though we might get to $85,000,000.00 in the same time it took us last year, $85m will not get us in production what it got us last year. True roster values (based not on TSN dollars but on overall returns in player talent and production) started off lower than they did last year and thus should take longer to achieve optimum levels, even if dollar profit has not been effectively retarded.
|
| 51 | stinkypuff
ID: 333322212
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 09:58
|
Ender: It would be challenging. But think how proud you'd be if you became the first guy in your division to get the OHM (one-headed monster). Imagine the thrill of seeing your third-string catcher promoted to 1st backup!
OK, bad idea.
|
| 52 | stinkypuff
ID: 333322212
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 10:12
|
MITH: How much did player salaries rise? Or do you mean that we are paying the same for players who aren't going to produce as many TSNPs because of the new scoring rules?
|
| 53 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 10:36
|
No, I mean that players are generally more expensive this year than last. Last year, all you had to do was sift through the new crop of starting rookies to have a bunch of players in the $800k to $1.8m (or so) range, leaving room to start off with a spot for Randro and another stud someplace of a solid roster including several mid-priced players. How many starting rookies were in that price range this year? How many were $3m+?
Check posts 16, 85, and 87 through 90.
Also check my post 34 in that thread, which is an early outline for some cheap player ideas to start with. In years past a thread like that would name players of about half the price you see there.
|
| 54 | perk9600
ID: 12310312
Wed, Apr 24, 2002, 10:40
|
why don't we ask Ira how much it would take for the perfect roster?
|
| 55 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 31, 2002, 11:34
|
Now that we've got two full months, I did another Franchise Value comparison vs. last year, using the current
Gurupie Standings vs. those from June 1, 2001.
Here are the percentile breakdowns:%-ile 2002 2001
95% $70m $79m
90% 68.7 77.8
80% 67.1 76.9
70% 66.2 75.7
60% 65.5 74.5
50% 64.5 73.8
Teams seem to be worth about $9m less than at this time last year. Cumulative gains are only 60-70% of last year's gains.
Some have suggested that the 5-day pitcher repricing has made it too easy to generate wealth. But if so, it's evidently much harder in all other facets.
|
| 56 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 17152614
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:01
|
Thanks Guru!
Now will similar hitters but WAY better pitchers translate into more points??
smallwhirled
|
| 57 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:05
|
Thanks Guru. That chart not only confirms that I've been terrible at picking pitchers and gaining points, but that I've also done squat in roster value on my best team. ;)
Interesting though. How do the points compare?
The thought is that the lower roster values at this point in the season make it more difficult to get the stud players for more points.
Is there a similar correlation for point production?
|
| 58 | TD
Donor
ID: 364522113
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:09
|
Id imagine that the -2 for an out will skew any comparison of points between this year and last.
|
| 59 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:10
|
I don't think a raw comparison of point production would provide anything meaningful.
It would be interesting to see the relative contribution of pitching vs hitting points to a team's total, but I have no way of measuring that - for either year.
|
| 60 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:50
|
Excuse my ignorance here as I am not playing season 1, but probably will play season 2. Doesn't season 1 end when season 2 starts or is it like previous years where season 1 continues and season 2 starts at the all star break? If season 1 ends at the all star break then direct comparisons to last year may be misleading. I don't remember too many teams switching from money making mode until after the all star break. If that is the case then to me that indicates most managers didn't have enough money to field the "stud" team until then. If you wait this year the season will already be over. Can you switch to a stud team half way through season one now?
It would also be interesting to see the relative movement of players prices. If there is a damping effect from last year, then it shouldn't take as much money to afford the better players. If you are making the same amount of money as last year, but a players value is increasing at a slower rate than last year, then the value of a TSND is increasing (relative to last year) as the season goes on.
|
| 61 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:55
|
You're confusing the free and pay games.
Pay game is full season. Free game season 1 ends at ASB, season 2 starts post ASB if I'm not mistaken.
|
| 62 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Fri, May 31, 2002, 12:56
|
As is usually the case with TSN baseball discussion here, I think this thread directly refers to the pay game. The constants between the 2001 free game and the 2002 free game are too few to draw any useful comparisons.
|
| 63 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 4431816
Fri, May 31, 2002, 13:01
|
I thought the pay game was only 1/2 season. Guess I won't play, LOL! nevermind... although I think point 2 is still valid.
|
| 64 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 31, 2002, 13:21
|
Point 2 is valid to an extent. However, the prices of the studliest players were relatively higher at the start of this year's game. Note Pink Pimp's examples in post [4].
I haven't run the numbers, but I'd expect that the price for an All-Star roster this year is somewhat higher than at this same time last year. Of course, this depends on who you assign to those rosters, and whether they are traditional stars at higher prices, or up-and-comers at bargain prices.
By the way, these numbers do relate to the pay game, which lasts all year. I haven't heard definitively, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a mid-season pay game with "fresh start" pricing this year. Seems like they would want something for the first-half free-gamers to transition into.
|
| 65 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Fri, May 31, 2002, 13:26
|
I'd like to see that but if it's the case, Guru, then why not announce it as vigorously as they're pounding the second half free game?
|
| 66 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, May 31, 2002, 13:33
|
I dunno. I'm surprised they are hawking the second free game so hard, when it is more than a full month away. I would have also expected them to promote a pay version first.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|