|
| Posted by: Guru
- [330592710] Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 17:22
Just posted at the Ultimate TSN site:
"Pitcher Price Changes. We are making a significant change to our Price Market algorithm this year. We will be basing the daily Pitcher price changes based on the previous five days of trading activity, instead of the usual one day. This is an effort to smooth out the otherwise "spiky" price changes that starting pitchers experience because of their once-every-five-days playing schedule. Hitter prices will continue to move daily based on the previous one day of activity." [end of quote]
This clearly has some significant implications:
1. Randro-like strategies will no longer generate the "easy money" that was avilable in past years. This should place greater emphasis on efficient rotation strategies, rather than following the herd on stud rotation days.
2. Pitcher prices should still track the underlying, longer term buy-sell trend, but without the inter-start volatility that we've gotten used to. Hopefully, the overall price sensitivity for pitchers will be increased to compensate for the dampening effect of the 5-day lookback.
In general, I think this will be a good change.
|
| | | 1 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 17:43
|
I don't understand this. We will be basing the daily Pitcher price changes based on the previous five days of trading activity, instead of the usual one day.
So, pitcher's prices will change every day, but the change will reflect the last 5 days of trading? So trades made into and out of a pitcher on Monday will have an effect on each of the 5 following days, meaning that his price change on the following Saturday will still be partially affected by Monday's trading? Was Randro that much of a blight on the game? The general consensus in a previous thread on precisely that subject was an undenyable no. I did not expect this.
|
|
| | | 2 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 18:03
|
As I understand it, it means that the daily price change will reflect all buys and sells made over the previous five days. The impact should be to generally neutralize the price swings which were strictly due to the starting cycle, while still allowing for ups and downs related to general ownership levels.
Was Randro a blight? No. But it was not really related to the fundamental value of a player, and created very simple ways to generate gains. To compensate for these "easy gains", the entire price formula sensitivity had to be significantly dampened.
Getting rid of the extreme rotation impact on gains and losses seems like a good idea. But it also permits greater sensitivity in the resulting price change formula for both pitchers and hitters. If that is calibrated reasonably well, then the change is a good one, IMHO.
Some of the other approaches that were suggested as a way to dampen rotation-related price volatility were so convoluted as to make them worse than what they were designed to correct. But this method seems simple and effective. And I, for one, will be happy to be able to manage my pitching more efficiently without falling behind in value generation (vs. those who regularly Randro.) To the extent that others continue to execute Randro, I think this gives the rest of us a potential competitive advantage.
|
|
| | | 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 18:06
|
I wonder if any new exploitable trends will develop anyhow.
|
|
| | | 4 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 18:06
|
Great change. I hated being a slave to using my pitcher trades to rotate the popular studs in order to make good money.
Up to the minute probability of biliruben playing TSN Baseball: 68% and trending up.
|
|
| | | 5 | billy hill
ID: 347231613
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 18:30
|
I wonder why yesterday when I signed up a team,reading the rules I didn't see this change. As preseason goes along how many more changes to take place.
Before releasing a game do these people proof the game. Guru mentioned 100 players missing yesterday,whats up with that?
Mr. Guru it seems you are on top of TSN did they ask you to review before the release and do you read the rules daily to have picked up the pitcher pricing change so quick. I don't see it posted but in the rules now.
Great site and thanks.
|
|
| | | 6 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 18:43
|
hmmm, Now to ponder this effect on the staff that regulary uses 4 VS 5 SP's (or 6!).
It also seems to me that a pitcher in a 4-man rotation will have a bigger advantage than one in a 5-man rotation. Of course the obvious one exists, more frequent starts, now there may be some real price stability there (?) if not steady long-term gains w/o reciprocating losses (?) as long as the SP is consistant? It will also make very dense schedules all the more popular to from a SP standpoint, no?
hmmmm, now to ponder my puncuation in the previous paragraph.
rfs ®
|
|
| | | 7 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 4215277
Fri, Feb 22, 2002, 20:04
|
biliruben, about the same % here bro. This changes levels the playing field, literally, with pitchers and hitters, from a holding standpoint. They seem to have desired this in the past couple of years, but didn't get the result intended by any changes they made. They may now.
|
|
| | | 8 | Slow Stick
Sustainer
ID: 181402519
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 01:25
|
I think this means we dust off some of the trading schemes from the days of weekly price changes.
While this pricing scheme will not be spiky it will be lumpy.
The every 5th day pitchers will be the smoothest.
The pitcher in a 4 man rotation will be the lumpiest with some price periods with more gain days than loss days and others with just the opposite. It is these imbalances that we need to discover and take advantage of.
The every 5th game pitchers (Randy for example) will have times when the team day off will result in more loss days than gain days. Which means the Arizona off days become much more important.
But generally it is the day after the pitcher trades that will be have the largest changes. Because it is the day when the most people will be able to make the changes.
I guess I will start with the age old sell someone that pitches only once that week and buy someone that pitches twice, especially if the second game is on new trade day, method of managing the pitchers for a while.
The fun part is watching what losing the trade happy lemmings will do to all this.
|
|
| | | 9 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 09:18
|
If a pitcher has 5 days of rest between starts, it doesn't follow that his trade flows will necessarily experience that 5 day gap. People don't always wait until the day of a start to buy a pitcher. Generally, the timing of the buy is dictated by the timing of the sold pitcher.
My guess is that "exploitable" situations will be rare - as the gain/loss implications of these longer rest periods will be minor.
In any event, it will take a few cycles to see, I'm sure.
|
|
| | | 10 | KevinL
Donor
ID: 191181913
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 10:33
|
I think this is a good solution, but I think it may be minimally exploitable.
If you are selling a pitcher, it should always be most efficient to sell a pitcher the morning after he pitches.
It is also most efficient to buy a pitcher the morning of the day he pitches.
Most teams have a 5-pitcher rotation. An off day will mean that many of the sells will be six days before his game. So pitchers who last pitched six days ago should go up in price compared to pitchers who last pitched five days ago, all other factors being equal.
These same pitchers may see a down-spike the day before they pitch, as the buys (six days ago) will wear off and the sells (five days ago) will linger.
I will use an example. In a 2 week period, team has four 3-game series, TWR, FSS, MTW and FSS. Off on the first Monday and the second Thursday.
Ace pitches Tuesday. Sees higher selling on Wednesday. Ace is neither bought nor sold on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. Ace pitches and sees higher buying on Sunday. Five days includes Wednesday AND Sunday, so no change.
Ace sees higher selling on Monday. Five days includes Monday AND Sunday, so no change.
Neither bought nor sold on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. Friday's 5 days include Monday but NOT Sunday so Ace sees a price drop. The day before he pitches, how cool!. Ace pitches and sees heavy buying on Saturday. Saturday's 5 days do not include his sell day last Monday, so he sees a price gain. Cool again!
Bottom line, this is even more reason to do the efficient Guru-rotation, always buying INTO pitchers whose teams have had an off day in the past 5.
|
|
| | | 11 | perk9600
ID: 4542177
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 10:43
|
wow that seems very confusing to me. I think I'll just buy the best guy at the time and not worry about when they had an off day. The money moves will most likely not be that big anyway.
|
|
| | | 12 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 10:49
|
Kevin, I think you may be making some unfounded assumptions on what trends may develop in buying pitchers. I have a feeling that an initial trend, possibly something very much like you describe will probably take shape at first, but once the (far more competetive than usual) masses see the pattern, they wil adjust their own habits to try to take advantage. We could potentially see several different phases of mass buying/selling activity throughout the season. The only thing I'm banking on for now is that most of the people playing this game and driving it's market are experienced players who will be looking for a pattern to exploit.
|
|
| | | 13 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 11:44
|
Toral-o-meter (probability of playing Ultimate Baseball) up to 42%. These changes put it up a few points. I won't miss Randro (though I will miss the loss of an interesting tactic). The fact that the game designers have examined what they considered to be a problem and come up with a sensible, workable solution is in itself a good omen.
Toral
|
|
| | | 14 | walk
Leader
ID: 14154112
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 11:59
|
Mike D (boyeeeeeee!) and biliruben: If you do NOT play this year, I will have to do myself in.
PEIORD.
Dudes: C'mon! We are all a gang here...over 3 years of commaraderie! $35 for 3 teams. It's nada. We've been lucky all along there were no hard costs. I would like to see all of the usual suspects playing, please.
cheers,
- walk
|
|
| | | 15 | perk9600
ID: 4542177
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 12:01
|
Walk I havn't been around nearly that long, but that was my exact line of thought. If you really like this game that much 35 bucks is nothing especially when you consider the months of entertainment you get from it. I seriously hope everyone plays.
|
|
| | | 16 | walk
Leader
ID: 14154112
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 12:10
|
Right on, perk9600. I respect that some folks have their principles, but my main principle of kinship indicates that there's no value to it. It's worth the meager $35 to play, have fun and be totally motivated to continue to participate on these boards!!
- walk
|
|
| | | 17 | perk9600
ID: 4542177
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 12:17
|
Here here
|
|
| | | 18 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 12:19
|
Walk-dude! Glad to see you back and excited to play! Truthfully, it has little to do with money and more to do with time, though if it was free I could tell myself - "well, I can always abandon my team if I begin to forego my job, food and sex". This dissertation thingy I've been ignoring has found the extremely small Responsibility Node of my brain. You and all the other great baseball fiends from yester-year, as well as the new-fangled changes are making my fantasy baseball jones flair up however... 72% and rising.
I can finish my dissertation in 6 weeks, right?
|
|
| | | 19 | walk
Leader
ID: 14154112
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 13:00
|
Of course you can, bili! Not only that, I bet you have to have a reader from outside of your department on your diss committee, right. Well, look no more, "Dr. Walk" ('tis true) he of the Ph.D. in Psychology, can surely help you out here! I'll ask no questions about epidemiology, only about smallworld and pitcher trading strategies. I'll only grill you if I find out that your best team had a better WWR than mine last year (and I am sure it did!).
Otherwise, dude. I recall William Hurt's in "The Bill Chill" ("I chose not to..." when asked why he never finished his dissertation).
You can do it, you just have to kick it's behind like you would imagine in a ballgame. You write and stay up and bug your major professor to review promptly and you re-write ASAP and you give your readers plenty of time to schedule the defense, and vwoillah!, you are done.
Seems so easy.
4.5 years for me, bro. That's my strategy in life though, get it over with (you can see the correlation with my trade-a-holic tendencies, no?).
good luck bili (oh, and don't forget to buy a team and play...one team, just one...you will be able to manage that, too -- windows are great).
- walk
|
|
| | | 20 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 13:26
|
Sweet, Walk! My current committee member outside epi recently ended up on the front page for leaving a 12 inch retractor inside someone for 6 months. I've been afraid to call him. You'll do!
Another useful line from the Big Chill I've been using too much: "I'm not too hung up on the whole 'completion' thing."
;)
|
|
| | | 21 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 14:16
|
If I could interject fellas. I too found myself in bili's shoes as talk of SW Baseball started to kick up but just didn't think I'd be able to find the time to swing a team. My solution, find another gurupie who shares my passion for SW baseball who has a little more time and just as much desire to put a team in the Top 100.
Co-managing is a great way to spread out the responsibilty and still have a great team. I'm sure two gurupies that have been doing this for as long as you two have would be able to agree on most of your moves and finding those sleepers becomes even easier when 2 sets of eyes are looking for them.
Just thought I'd throw out that idea so that you could keep both the BASEBALL FEVER NODE and the RESPONSIBILITY NODE satisfied during this year's baseball season.
(Only drawback is splitting the prize money but when has SW ever really been about the money?)
|
|
| | | 22 | Lutefisker
Sustainer
ID: 471532615
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 16:08
|
I predict the new pitching rule will bring new levels to the use of the word lemming. I will probably begin by looking who went up the most in the last coupla days and pick that pitcher, especially if he will be starting the next day, since he will in all likelihood go up tommorrow if he went up in price today. I will be just about assured of an increase in price...
I suspect the result of this change will be several "runs" on pitchers as people buy into and sell out of pitchers simply because they have gone up or down in value. They will have an almost sure reasonable expectation of making money since most of todays rise or fall in price will also be a good part of tommorrows rise or fall in price.
As for my opening day strategy, I am looking at either 2nd or 3rd day pitchers or relievers because I surely do not wish to be put in a position of losing trades early or sitting on a pitcher whose opening day sell off will bleed me for the next 5 days!
|
|
| | | 23 | Species
Donor
ID: 304521510
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 16:47
|
Lutefisker - excellent point on the Opening Day pitchers!!! If every price change for 5 days will take into account the sells of Opening Day pitchers, then it seems very difficult to imagine ANYTHING but a 4-day bleeding of those pitchers. All they have to do is be sold once (i.e., after their opening day start) and, by definition, that single sell will count for 5 days (ouch).
To take it even further, you could conider 3rd or 4th day (and with so many off days early, you're not getting the 3rd or 4th starter necessarily) starter to weed out the 'masses' early itchy trade finger.
|
|
| | | 24 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 18:35
|
ummm,suppose RJ and PM both open on 4/1 (suppose). And the schedule is Ari. playing (April) 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9.... Bos playing 1,3,5,6,7,9.....they off a few days!
Over the first five days holding RJ would be much better than holding PM. however come 4/7 or 4/8 PM should go up and RJ go down. just a early randro thing that has RJ pitching at least a day or two before PM second go round.
will be interesting to see the early movements on these two. my first team drafting is skipping it,going with Penny,Ortiz,Millwood,Wolf and a cheap reliever (when I find him) leaving room to get RJ for his second start if needed. All subject to change:
How many guys opening with a closer?
|
|
| | | 25 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 19:26
|
Has anyone come up with an analysis of the impact of owning closers vs. starters as a result of the repricing?
|
|
| | | 26 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 19:37
|
Do you mean the new 2002 formula or the daily repricing based on the 5 day average, SitS?
|
|
| | | 27 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 19:39
|
sixties seems to me at 7.13,6.60 and 5.75 Rivera,Nenn and Foulke are a bit high for openers. looking at a couple of cheaper options during spring thing. myself will decide last minute on jose or such.
|
|
| | | 28 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 19:50
|
rockfish I might go with two closers, possibly three at first, depending on what I can find. Eddie Guardado is $3.26m and Matt Herges is $2.39m.
|
|
| | | 29 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 20:09
|
Bili, meant the new 2002 formula
|
|
| | | 30 | Stuck in the Sixties
Leader
ID: 12451279
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 20:11
|
Just seems to me that if its going to be harder for pitchers to amass points, maybe having a bunch of closers who will amass at least some points on a regular basis would be a solid option. Problem -- I can't do the math.
|
|
| | | 31 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 20:18
|
After getting Ramoned hard at the start of the '00 season, my plan starting off last year was to go with 4 closers and to gradually switch the ones that weren't producing to starters. This gave me a good chance to keep up with points while sitting back to estimate who was starting off strong. I fell way behind. But I think there is some sound logic since I think even the best starters often start off reletively cold for the first few weeks.
|
|
| | | 32 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 58735170
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 21:19
|
SitS...why will it be harder for pitchers to amass points? All of the point/rule changes this year have helped pitchers and hurt hitting.
|
|
| | | 33 | JEsse
ID: 591162423
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 21:23
|
LEMMINGS O/T
People refer to the trading lemmings and the lemmings that jump on board.
FWIW
LEMMINGS do not commit suicide nor herd over cliffs to their death. This was a mythology that was created by a Disney 'nature documentary' in the 1950's where animal protection groups were not in force!! lol.
Sorry to bust this bubble for the general population... i too was a lemming faithful, churning out the metaphor of the lemming mentality. Problem is- it's not accurate.
Just wanted to give you some cocktail party fodder, or for the other party- something over the beer and chips.
jesse
|
|
| | | 34 | Khahan
ID: 567232217
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 21:33
|
I still haven't been able to get a handle on this repricing thing for pitchers. Prices will be changed every day. However, it will include 5 days worth of trades. In other words, part way into the season, I buy Pedro Martinez. Essentially, he gets counted as being bought 5 times? I buy him on Monday. Tuesdays price change counts my trade. Wednesdays price change counts my trade. Thursdays price change counts my trade. Friday's price change counts my trade. Saturday's price change counts my trade.
Now, I buy him on Monday (see above) and sell him Tuesday after his start. So for 4 days we have offsetting actions. 1 buy and 1 sell counted again and again?
Sorry guys, but if I follow this right, the heart was in the right place, but the brain refused to follow.
I assume this is meant to offset buying a player the day of his start, seeing a $200k gain then everybody selling him off after his start and seeing his price drop $200k. Right?
Somebody please explain how this is going to work.
|
|
| | | 35 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 21:44
|
Clearly, this allows for money train long term holds. We will still be rewarded for holding cheap starters having good seasons or good stretches.
|
|
| | | 36 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 21:45
|
2 things to keep in mind:
1) Price change is based on NET buys/sells. If I buy Pitcher A today and sell him tomorrow, then he has 1 Net buy today, and 0 net buys for 4 days, then 1 net sell (the 5th day after I sold him).
2) The actual amount of change is based on proportionate net buys/sells over the trading period. In other words, even if the exact same number of people buy him today and then sell him tomorrow, the total number of trades may not be the same, thus the price gain and price loss will probably not be the same.
|
|
| | | 37 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 13:35
|
Ok, but still, in essence, we see the effect of any given buy or sell 5 times, right?
|
|
| | | 38 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 14:55
|
right
|
|
| | | 39 | deepsnapper
Sustainer
ID: 421144298
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 22:45
|
my head hurts already
I may actually troll for some c-losers.
|
|
| | | 40 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 2011382318
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 23:10
|
LOL Roy, me and you both :-)
|
|
| | | 41 | Lutefisker
Sustainer
ID: 471532615
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 09:52
|
As I am seeing this... there will be a greater need for muted price swings this year than otherwise... Lets go over the most typical rotations
4 day rest rotation.
1- Buy pitches
2- Sell day after pitching
3- rest
4- rest
5- rest
6- Buy pitches 1 buy 1 sell
7- Sell day after pitches 1 buy 1 sell
8- rest 1 buy 1 sell
9- rest 1 buy 1 sell
10- rest 1 buy 1 sell
11- Buy pitches 1 buy 1 sell
12- Sell day after pitches 1 buy 1 sell
but now lets try a 5 days rest rotation or anytime there is an off day in a 4 rest rotation.
1- Buy pitches
2- Sell day after pitching
3- rest
4- rest
5- rest
6- rest 0 BUY 1 SELL
7- Buy pitches 1 BUY 0 SELL
8- Sell day after pitches 1 buy 1 sell
9- rest 1 buy 1 sell
10- rest 1 buy 1 sell
11- rest
12- rest 0 BUY 1 SELL
13- Buy pitches 1 BUY 0 SELL
14- Sell day after pitches 1 buy 1 sell
The implications seem to be as follows for maximum price gain:
You can expect to see little or no drop in price the day AFTER a start (since it is offset by the buys of the previous day) but you can expect to see a SHARP drop if the pitcher has a 5th rest day since on that day there will be one day of strong selloffs with no corresponding day of buys.
Also, You can expect to see a SHARP rise in the price of a pitcher on the day that he pitches AFTER at least a 5 day rest since he will have a buy day with no corresponding sell-off day.
These SHARP rises and falls will be even more amplified if TSN decides to not mute the pitching gains and losses since the general impact will be to mute the swings (but only by causing some other more complicated swings in the process)
So the new strategy seems to be to look for the starting pitcher that has not started in the last 5 days and sell the starting pitcher who will be having at least 5 days rest...
The Bizarro Randro lives on!
|
|
| | | 42 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 10:10
|
The problem with that as I see it is that most pitchers due pitch on a 5 DAY schedule. The pitchers that would frequently have an extra day off would be spot or 5th starters. I don't intend to rotate those types of pitchers and I don't see them having heavy rotation by others. Therefore there won't be much money to be made anyway.
|
|
| | | 43 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 10:16
|
The problem with that scenario is that is assumes the buys will occur on the day a pitcher starts, and the sells occur the following day.
That's not the normal practice, especially for heavily rotated pitchers. For example, teams using a straight Randro approach will buy one when the other is sold. As a general rule, price gains begin to emerge 2-3 days before a pitcher starts. So the spiky trade patterns you are forecasting are unlikely to occur very often.
|
|
| | | 44 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 10:18
|
That is, price gains used to emerge 2-3 days before a pitcher started.
|
|
| | | 45 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 10:19
|
Lutefisker,
Another problem is that you are assuming that the masses will buy and seel pitchers on the days they formerly would have under the old price change structure. Assuming that the average SW manager is smarter than before (reasonable considering the game is no longer free), I think you can expet to find that most managers will be looking for the best times to buy and sell their stud pitchers, like we are and that there will be considerable experimentation, probably throwing most early season trends out the window. IMO, it is possible no trend develops at all.
|
|
| | | 46 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 10:19
|
It also forecasts 7 sells in a 14 day span. I'm sure we all wish we had that many trades, but alas it is not so.
|
|
| | | 47 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 10:24
|
As stated before, it is probably a safe bet that many managers will start off Randroing, not knowing about the price change. I suppose initial buys and sells could be figured around this (how I don't know but I'd be surprised if a bunch of you out there weren't already working on it), but anyhow I doubt many managers will continue rotate those two blindly when they see it no longer yields automatic cash as before.
|
|
| | | 48 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 11:12
|
MITH - don't be so sure about the latter. Although Randro may not produce the automatic cash, a lot of managers will still think it maximizes points. If someone doesn't understand the concept of extra starts per trade, and that Randro only generates 0.5 extra starts per trade (and many, many managers will not understand that fact), then Randro will still appear to be the point-maximizing tactic.
But unless those two pitchers produce significantly more per start than the alternatives (which can happen sometimes, but is unlikely on average), it will be a suboptimal strategy - as has been discussed many times at this forum.
|
|
| | | 49 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 157582113
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 11:36
|
Let me add to this discussion.....I'm am one confused little manager, as everyone is coming up with proposals but nobody is really sure what's going to happen. I'm going to employ the vacation strategy on my teams just to see what the heck is going on.
;)
smallwhirled
|
|
| | | 50 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 5031911
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 12:01
|
I am basically going to go with the vacation strategy at first on my pitchers too. I am going in with the strategy of picking up pitchers who I think are underpriced and holding for possible money trains. I plan to rotate only the bare minimum at first (injuries, new P money train, can't miss matchup). Basically I plan on treating pitchers like we have treated hitters in the past and just hold them until something forces a trade. It will be really nice if we do not have to rotate pitchers to make money. I am still considering an early randro strategy on one of my teams just to see what happens but on the other two I will definitely conserve trades for efficient rotations.
The rules changes that increased pitchers points and decreased hitters points make it all the more important to use pitcher trades efficiently.
|
|
| | | 51 | beastiemiked
ID: 17414316
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 12:08
|
The vacation strategy sounds good but just wait til one of your pitchers puts up a -50 outing. After seeing a boxscore with my pitcher getting bombed I never seem to sleep to well that night.
|
|
| | | 52 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 157582113
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 12:32
|
My pitchers aren't gonna get bombed, and I can assure you of that, bmd.
But really, will a -50 weigh into the decision of dropping a pitcher, probably...and that will be the ideal time for me to move into a guaranteed pitcher money train.
|
|
| | | 53 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 5031911
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 12:45
|
I normally will excuse any pitcher one or two negatives. All pitchers (or most) will have bad games I think it is important to stick with a pitcher through those starts. I did pretty well at this last year...not wasting trades moving out of every pitcher who has a bad game. Unless of course you have made a ton of money on a pitcher and you know he is widely owned and is due for a huge decline. I remember Guru had a chart a while back that showed pitchers rebound pretty well after negative outings and that the more positive outings in a row a pitcher has the less chance his next outing will be positive and vice versa. Not that I don't get pissed off when a pitcher puts up a fat negative but in most cases I think you are far better sticking it out with a pitcher rather than wasting a trade.
|
|
| | | 54 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 12:55
|
Consider what a -50 outing does to widely held pitcher price, especially one that has been held for some time on many rosters, like Wade Miller from last year for example. In years past, there would be two days of sales following such an outing. A widely held player would see a tough loss. But that translates to 6 days of losses under the new system, not taking into account buys for his next start. How many people could we expect to buy into 'Miller' following three and four days of tough losses? How many of those who initially decided to keep him through the $$loss might get fed up after three or four days of losses and contribute further to the slide by droipping him then out of frustration?
Depending on the trigger fingers of the masses, pitcher money trains might not be able to survive a single poor outing. Thoughts?
|
|
| | | 55 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 13:28
|
If I'm understanding what they do correctly, I'd have to agree with that MITH.
Like I said earlier, I think TSN's heart was in the right place with what they wanted to do. I jsut think the brain was out playing catch when tried to do it.
|
|
| | | 56 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 231045110
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 13:34
|
I agree that if a pitcher is:
1) heavily owned
2) records a large negative outing
You better have a trade handy.
How often do both those things happen, however?
Personally, I tend to avoid heavily owned but unproven pitchers, and I will do so even more this year, precisely to avoid the confluence of 1) and 2).
In general, however, I think TSN's solution to the near necessity of rotating two pitchers will work out just fine. Increasing the variation in strategies is always a good thing.
|
|
| | | 57 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 3711402623
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 14:03
|
biliruben, agreed. Clearly, if there was an obvious flaw, someone would have come up with it by now. I'm not totally sold on the new plan, but I'm certainly not knocking it. However, cheap pitchers on a roll are the stuff that pitcher trains are made of, and that does happen every year. Wade Miller, Kerry Wood and Matt Morris from last year are perfect examples. I held all three at length. Also, a pitcher does not have to be unproven to be widely held and toss a stinker.
|
|
| | | 58 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Fri, Mar 01, 2002, 14:40
|
MITH - I avoided all three of those pitchers last year (sometimes to my detriment - maybe that's why I like the solution so much!), but I agree sometimes a heavily owned Schilling or a Brown has a bad night. I'm not saying you can totally avoid it, but you can decrease your odds by avoiding the cheapie money trains where you think the pitcher just got lucky the last couple outings. Their new method gives more weight to talent evaluation, which may convince you to skip the latest money train.
|
|
| | | 59 | MyLakers
ID: 32161623
Sat, Mar 02, 2002, 03:16
|
butt
|
|
| | | 60 | Lutefisker
Sustainer
ID: 5925621
Sat, Mar 02, 2002, 11:00
|
Ender... (post 42) most pitchers do NOT start on a five day schedule, but rather on a 5 GAME schedule. Only a couple of the top aces start every 5 DAYS regardless of days off
Guru... (post 43) Yes, my scenario does assume that most people will still buy the day before a pitcher starts and sell the day after. This is still the best manner to maximize points.
Guru... (post 44) EVen if the purchases are made in the 3 days prior to a start, those three days would count towards the players total buys while the majority of the sells would be eliminated on that last day. Thus the point as to whether or not the purchases are in the last 3 days or last day are irrelevant as long as the sells are still the day after the last start.
|
|
| | | 61 | RR41
ID: 4811522716
Sun, Mar 03, 2002, 07:56
|
How do closers usually fare in this game? Seems like all the discussion is focused on starters.
|
|
| | | 62 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Mar 03, 2002, 15:04
|
Closers are great when a team is winning, they stink when the team is losing. Basically if you have them at the right time, it's all good.
The biggest strike against closers IMO is they don't pitch enough innings to balance out any runs they might give up. If they give up 2 ER you're sunk. If a starter gives up 2 ER you're fine.
|
|
| | | 63 | APerfect10
ID: 3257215
Mon, Mar 04, 2002, 01:44
|
Lutefisher's analysis appears dead on...
Key Situations :
4 Day Rest -> 4 Day Rest
Little Fluction in price due to rotation
4 Day Rest -> 5 Day Rest
Day Prior to Start - $$ Loser (lowest price after loss, BUY)
Gameday - $$ Gainer (**Largest single day $$ increase)
Day after Gameday - $$ Gainer (highest price, after gain SELL)
5 Day Rest -> 4 Day Rest
Day Prior to Start - Small $$ Loser (lowest price, BUY)
Gameday - neglible gains/losses
Day after Gameday - neglible gains/losses
5 Day Rest -> 5 Day Rest
Day Prior to Start - $$ Loser (lowest price, BUY)
Gameday - $$ gainer (largest single day gain)
Day after Gameday - $$ gainer (highest price, SELL)
I can post my analysis if needed. If you still do not understand how to maximize your profits forget it! ;)
Beginning of Season Maximizing of Profits
Opening day pitchers should expect losses for four consecutive days following their opening day start, therefore their lowest price can be obtained the day prior to their 2nd start. The 2nd day pitcher will experience mild/moderate gains the day of his start. The 3rd day pitcher will experience mild gains the day before his start and moderate gains the day of his start. Also expect mild losses the day after his start.
4th Day pitchers will experience mild/moderate gains before his start and suffer very mild losses if any.
Therefore to maximize profits theoritically you should...
a) Have no 1st day pitchers, that will be heavily drafed, on your roster.
b) Initially draft 2nd day pitchers, who were not heavily drafted prior to the season start.
c) Partially Guru-rotate your first 2 trades in the following order :
- 2nd Day Pitcher -> 4th Day Pitcher
- 4th Day Pitcher -> 1st Day pitcher
Disclaimer
I have not provided my data, analysis or assumptions due to the lack speed of the computer I am currently using. If there is mass confusion I will be more than willing to post my excel analysis. When I say to maximize profits, I mean exactly that. To maximize trades you must guru-rotate therefore this technique may not be the best possible way to handle your team. You can figure out that part. ;) When I say 2nd day starter, I do not mean a teams #2 starter. I am referring to a pitcher that is scheduled to pitch the day after a heavily drafted pitcher. Similiarly for 3rd and 4th day pitchers. I have not looked at scheduling yet, but it could be possible to rotate between three aces in the first few days to maximize $$ gains.
I am sure there is mass confusion by now, so if you are confused, please ask by all means! ;)
|
|
| | | 64 | smallwhirled
Donor
ID: 157582113
Mon, Mar 04, 2002, 02:36
|
Too confusing for me at 2:40 in the morning, I'll do the vacation strategy.
;)
But, really, the number crunching does seem correct.
|
|
| | | 65 | DanQ
ID: 41241420
Mon, Mar 04, 2002, 22:37
|
My Delurking message (after lurking for over 3 years),
One thing I've noticed a lot comments on is how the masses will operate this coming season. I was wondering if anyone was wondering how the "masses" will operate under the game cost structure? There will be fewer players, but on average they will be more active it would seem.
Was just curious how you think this will affect the new pitching pricing? I think once it is really identified how the system works, the price effect could actually magnify because of higher competition.
Was just curious if anyone else considered how the game price will change how players will operate.
(placed #110 last year in the guru ranking and lost my local division by less then 20 points last year, my best year ever)
|
|
| | | 66 | APerfect10
ID: 3257215
Tue, Mar 05, 2002, 00:13
|
DanQ, I think any and all changes should be minimal. You may not have as many lemming buys and sells but pitcher rotation should remain similiar. If pitcher rotation methods change, it will be a few weeks and/or months into the season.
Avg Pitcher rotation
3 days prior to start - 10% of total buys
2 days prior to start - 15% of total buys
1 day prior to start - 20% of total buys
Day of start - 55% of total buys
Day after start - 80% of total sells
2nd day after start - 20% of total sells
All of these numbers are estimations but are rather logical and should continue well into the season.
If a non-gurupie doesnt know the new repricing method, it will take a while for them to figure it out. If you didnt have the initial statement of how the repricing would be done and you didnt have the exact outline (as I laid out in my post above), wouldnt you expect it to take quite a while before you could figure it out? IMHO, it would be easier to figure out exponentially derived prices rather than the current repricing method. As the season wears on I expect a few players to notice these trends and maximize their profits using the key situations I outlined above.
---------------------
I just did a quick analysis on the absolute worst case possibility for pitcher repricing, assuming each person bought and sold their players at the best possible time to maximize profits (as outlined above). Even if this were to occur, those key situations and times I mentioned to maximize profits would still hold true. There are numerous possibilities and all of the extreme cases would only shift the point of maximization by one day.
I apologize if I have confused anyone. At times when I have an overwhelming amount of data, it is difficult for me to present it in a clear manner. That is why I'm an engineer and not a teacher ;) If there is confusion, I'm sure if I posted my analysis it would clear up a lot of questions...
|
|
| | | 67 | mr g
ID: 15311150
Thu, Mar 07, 2002, 01:15
|
i undstand your number on your avg pitching rotation, all but the 2nd day after a start 20% u would be foolish to trade the second day after a start. pitcher's if they are going to be trade should always be trade the first day after a start.
|
|
| | | 68 | APerfect10
ID: 3257215
Thu, Mar 07, 2002, 07:19
|
mr g, in previous years it would be foolish to sell the 2nd day after a start, but if you go back and look at a pitcher price changes, you will see that a pitcher would continue to fall for two consecutive days after a start.
This year however will be different. If you look at post #63, you will see that a pitchers price will continue to rise the day following a start in 2 key situations :
4 day rest -> 5 day rest
&
5 day rest -> 5 day rest
In both of these situations, not only will the pitchers price continue to rise on the day following a start, their price will go up more on the day following a start compared to the day of the start.
|
|
| | | 69 | cancermoon
ID: 53248219
Fri, Mar 08, 2002, 04:20
|
APerfect10, maybe i am overestimating people who will pay to enter competitions, but in my mind, the people who play the ultimate version would in general not be stupid enough to hold a starting pitcher till the second day, they will either sell immediately or hold for the next start.
There are two reasons why i think paying players would sell immediately, first to avoid losing any more money from sales than they have to, and second to get in on their next stud as early as possible to maximise profits for the next start.
20% is a pretty high figure, i doubt 1 in every 5 players will be that silly in the ultimate game, just my opinion, and maybe i over rate the skills of the competitors.
|
|
| | | 70 | Slow Stick
Sustainer
ID: 3237818
Fri, Mar 08, 2002, 19:08
|
I played the Pay game last year, with the 1,700 or so other "Knowledgeable" managers. The pitchers pricing would drop a lot the 1st day and some the second day. Personally I chalked it up to either last minute trading that was too late or what I called last-hour-trading. While all or rosters were frozen at exactly noon the calculated price changes would also show up at exactly noon. The way I figured it they took all the trading up to a point in time before the freeze and did the pricing calculations based on those numbers. That way they could post the pricing changes instantly. Those trades that happened between the internal pricing freeze and the users team freeze were simply carried over to the next day's pricing model.
|
|
| | | 71 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Mar 08, 2002, 19:44
|
I don't think so, Slow Stick. TSN (and formerly SW) has denied that there is any lag effect, and when we've done sampling in the past, it has also confirmed that trades are covered right up to the freeze time. It shouldn't take any meaningful time for a computer to recalc the prices.
Some people just trade late - pay or not.
|
|
| | | 72 | loki
Sustainer
ID: 12253422
Sat, Mar 23, 2002, 16:16
|
*
|
|
| | | 73 | APerfect10
ID: 39143521
Thu, Apr 04, 2002, 13:42
|
BUTT, I think some people need to read before posting further questions.
|
|
|
|