| 0 |
Subject: Anti Gravity
Posted by: walking small
- Donor [451092216] Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:29
Money is difficult to come by this year and I am seeking every angle. Although I am no mathematician, I can see gravity from example in the case of Webber losing $30k daily since he is not playing and probably not owned. Hypothetically, if Tinsley were to continue his stellar performance, and owned 100% by all managers, would his value increase by $30k a day? In theory then, and excluding injury, it seems we would have the leagues most productive performer valued at seven or eight million by years end. If this is the case, is there a strategy someone would care to divulge as to roster planning? |
| 1 | Doug
ID: 221039714
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:33
|
Yes, I believe if a player is owned by 100% of all the managers it should be that way; however, not 100% of owners own Tinsley because of the trade off that occurred last week and the fact that he has a 2 GAME WEEK during the week after next.
|
| 2 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:34
|
walking small -- post #13 & #18 here start to address anti-gravity. I don't think you will se TSN chang anything in the pricing formula during the year. Maybe just generate ideas for next year or to apply to other games.
rfs
|
| 3 | Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:36
|
I don't think there is anti-gravity. I also don't see a great need for it. If anti-gravity were to be implemented, I think it should only affect players that are extremely widely owned (80% or more). In this case, these players would pretty much be taking up a slot on everybody's rosters and any TSNP or money gain would be pretty much uniform across the entire spectrum. Hence, any gains that you think you 'should' be getting from anti-gravity are gains that everyone else 'should' be getting also. And gains in anti-gravity that you 'should' be getting over those who don't own player X is losing out on player X's TSNP (which I would imagine are rather significant given the immense ownership). So it all evens out in the end.
|
| 4 | Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:38
|
I'm actually looking forward to that 2 game week. I have the perfect plan already... And I have a feeling that a lot of other shrewd managers are going to follow suit meaning big RV gains for me. >:)
|
| 5 | Doug
ID: 221039714
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:40
|
What is your plan Blooki? It definately involves TRADING Tinsley.
|
| 6 | Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:43
|
I'd rather not say, but it's not that complicated, but I think it conserves a couple of trades that I foresee others will be burning while maximizing the effectiveness of the ones I will be making.
|
| 7 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:44
|
Blooki - Yes, but there are certain players that are incredibly undervalued and will remain undervalued all year no matter what happens under the current re-pricing formula.
Take Tinsley as a perfect example.
He will be bought and sold throughout the year and his price will vary from $3m-$4m at different points in time. Tinsley (if he continues to be the real deal) is a $7 - 8M player. I'd like to see a way for his value to climb over an extended period of time unrelated to sell/buy activity so that in April, you actually have to 'evaluate' him when deciding to buy him back or not. Some will, others will not. This will crate more differentiation among rosters. The way it is structured now and with the slow money growth, Tinsley will be a no brainer EVERYTIME his schedule is moderate to dense, thus removing any strategy around him from the game.
I'm not saying anti-gravity is the solution, but gravity is the built in mechanism to control prices for overvalued players, shoudln't TSN find a mechanism to deal with undervalued players?
rfs
|
| 8 | C-Dawg
ID: 102331617
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:48
|
if 100% of the owners own tinsley his price will continue to climb i believe. His price will have to "catch up" to the amount of owners that own him. Technically his price should go up a lot more each day then it does, but his price would climb at a crazy rate if it went up as much as it should. Therefore I think for a significant time after, assuming all managers keep him, his price will climb. Of course it will sink again though once his schedule goes down hill
|
| 9 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 12:50
|
C-Dawg - Under the current TSN pricing formula, the is no such thing a "catch up" (although maybe there should be)
rfs
|
| 10 | Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 13:00
|
I agree. However, there are two points of conflict that make this problem so hard to address:
(1) The most compelling reason that "a mechanism to deal with undervalued players" is necessary is because of players such as Tinsley who are about $4mil below their equilibrium price and need to be brought to their equilibrium price as soon as possible rather than at the end of the season (so I don't think $30K/day will cut it) if roster diversification is to be reached regarding this player anytime soon. If anything, I think a small anti-gravity component of $30K/day would cause this player to be even more attractive and widely owned for most of the season leading to less diversity.
(2) Anything mechanism that does in fact move these players upwards to their equilibrium price quickly enough to deter managers from buying into him or promote managers to sell him off would place those who didn't own him at too great of a disadvantage.
|
| 11 | Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 13:13
|
On another note, do you think anything should be done (in addition to gravity) about players who are overvalued by a significant amount (i.e. David Robinson this year)? I know this problem would probably be equally hard to solve, but do you guys think it should even be addressed or just continue to be ignored (along with such players).
|
| 12 | Mark
ID: 14107230
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 13:32
|
Regarding post 10, if anti-gravity is only applied to players who are owned by more than 80% of all managers, it seems we won't lose that much diversity even if the other 20 percent start buying them.
Also, if 80% or more managers own a certain player, wouldn't it indicate that that player is "worth" owning? Managers who don't own this player might be at too great disadvantage anyway, aside from the money issue.
|
| 13 | Blooki
ID: 359321514
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 13:38
|
But should you kick the 20% while their down and reward the 80% with a $4 million increase in RV over a short period of time?
|
| 14 | VIDevilRays
Leader
ID: 29439176
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 16:01
|
Pretty good discussion. Who gave this thread a 1?
|
| 15 | JCS
ID: 381051716
Fri, Nov 23, 2001, 16:23
|
I agree with Blooki, especially with the first part of post #10...
I like the fact that there won't be anyone with an all-star roster this year. Anti-gravity would apply to players that almost everyone owns, that means all of these players would see a significant gain in RV over the course of a month, if we take the exemple of Tinsley, thus negating the effects of the new repricing formula. And the 20% that didn't have him would jump on him one day or another, so they can gain some RV too...This means less and less differentiating...
About game improvements, i have to admit i like the idea of selling trades to gain, say $200,000...Players who use their trades wisely could gain a significant RV advantage over the others...But then again, that would lead to higher RV, which i think is a bad thing....Aaahhh, i don't know what i want...
|
| 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?)
|