Forum: base
Page 13736
Subject: Suggestions for 2003 TSN game

  Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 12:46
Since we have the ear of the folks at TSN, and before baseball is a distant memory...

What changes would you suggest for the TSN game(s) for next season?
 
1gibby88@WORK
      ID: 588371414
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 13:27 		I would love to have the DH (extra player) back from a few years ago...I realize most do NOT prefer this. Personally, I like having another big gun in my order....

 
2walk
      Leader
      ID: 214581016
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 13:33 		At first, I was opposed to the five-day pitcher pricing formula, but I quickly realized, with the help of some Guru's out there, that this was a major improvement in the game/

In the spirit of what should smallworld not only do to change, but what should they keep as-is, I vote for this one -- the 5-day pitcher pricing formula.

I also love the soft cap (a hallmark of their games), and think the number of trades they allot per week makes sense.


I'll leave it to the rest to chime in on some details...but in the grand scheme of things, The game is quite challenging and enjoyable this year.

thx, guru,
- walk
 
3ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 19325417
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 14:53 		One thing I would like to see is...more data on the "Your Division" page. Like Franchise value, Pitcher/Hitter Trades. I realize this info is already available if I click on each individual team but it would be much simpler to see in one place.

I can't think of much related to the game play...it was pretty solid this year. I would second the motion for the DH to replace the 4th outfielder.

 
4ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 19325417
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:07 		More improvements. Many of us fantasy guys are stat freaks...I would suggest improvements playing to that fact.

I would love to be able to see how many TSN points I got just from pitching this year and be able to compare to other teams. How many points I got from each hitting position. Helps judge how effective my trades were or were not.

The one thing I really liked about this year is that it was more difficult to make money. Most teams are still around the 70-85 million roster value and this has prevented all star teams from being formed. Still have to weigh where to spend your money.

Another idea...is reverse gravity. If a player is owned by a certain % of all teams he should raise in value just like he would fall in value if noone owns him. This would have the benefit of eventually raising a players value to where it should be if seriously under priced. I would say this % should be pretty high...like maybe 25% ownership.

One last idea...I think the time has come for an opening day price change based on the draft. It always seems wrong to me that heavily drafted players get no bump in price. The reason they are drafted is normally because they are underpriced...only makes sense they should go up in price because of the draft. I think this fits perfectly with the theme of your game...market based pricing.
 
5Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:09 		If the new pitching formula is to be kept I would add the number of daily buys and sells to the players' pages. We know it's technologically possible, since it used to be done, and was axed IIRC after the info made it possible to document the bogus-pricing fiasco of a few years ago.

The formula causes results which are not intuitive (I'm not saying they can't be figured out) and gives too much of an advantage to roster-samplers. Putting the buy/sell info out in the open would level the playing field somewhat.

Toral
 
6Go Easy
      Donor
      ID: 589119
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:22 		Chicago TRS,
I agree with the reverse gravity and especially a price change before the opening day freeze.
 
7mrbig
      ID: 137282815
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:42 		I like the idea of a price change before opening day.

Also give an award to team with top value (or at least ranking of top franchise values so we can easily see how rich the richest teams are). Since this is a fairly important aspect of the game, managers who excelt at franchis value might as well receive an award (although considerably less than is received for the most points).

I would also lean slightly toward a DH over the 4th outfielder, but think this is of less importance.

Definite keeper isthe 5-day pitcher repricing formula.
 
8X Giants
      ID: 33627811
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:43 		Include "Total Pitches" with a pitchers overall statistics.
 
9Richard
      Leader
      ID: 53824316
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:47 		TSN has attained a remarkable balance between the points contributed and the player prices. An Allstar team (based on highest YTD TSNP), as of Sept 10th, would cost you $108,890K. Of that money you would have 42% in pitching ($45,280K) and 58% in hitting ($63,610). The points contributed would also be 42% (13,880 pts) from pitching and 58% (19,207 pts) from hitting.

I like the balance achieved between money invested in pitching and in hitting. A dollar spent wisely in either should get you the same points.

I'm not sold on the 5-day pricing model for pitchers. While it is remarkably easy for a veteran roster-sampler, like me, to see the price changes, the model yields some counter-intuitive trends. This season, usually a highly traded pitcher, like Johnson or Schilling, would drop in price the day they pitched and then gain money for a few days after they pitch. It makes more sense to have the price rise timed to the day they pitch and the price drops timed to a few days after they pitched. The current 5-day price model for pitching has a negative impact of the price gains when you employ a guru-style rotation. You buy into a price loss and sell before a price gain. It costs you roster value to follow this type of pitcher rotation.

I like the fact that price gains have been muted. In years past, I've usually had a roster value that would allow me to field an allstar team shortly after mid-year. This year, my roster values, while high, aren't close to the $109,000K it would take to field the top point getters at each position. As noted by others, I think it is good that I'm forced to be making money-based decisions this late in the year.

The game this year was a great game. Unfortunately most of my hitters never pulled their fair share of the load. I'd be happy if there were no changes made for next year.

Richard
 
10JeffG
      Sustainer
      ID: 40451227
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:54 		I agree with the DH instead of 4th outfielder mentioned above. Has to be at least 4 seasons since they had it that way and hope it comes back.

One off the wall item I would like (in my dreams), although I do not want to think of all the logistics, is some way to pre-enter future trades or conditional sells to 'safe players' (like put a sell order in for player X to player Y when X drops to $4M or over $100K in one day). Or put a sell order in to trade from Shilling to Randy after Shilling pitches. This way, when I am on vacation for two weeks, my team could possibly be on auto pilot and not take on the look of an abandoned team that needs wholesale modifications after that time.

How about touch tone trade by phone ability? Ok maybe that would drive up the cost.

Yes, I know I could just have someone baby sit my team, but I figured I'd just toss it out on the table.

Really, I like the game as is and most of the tweaks for pricing have initially met me with resistance, but I have adapted.

I also like ChicagoTRS' suggestions for additional info on the your division page, great idea.
 
11Slow Stick
      Sustainer
      ID: 568511110
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:55 		Let me add my agreement to 5 day pricing, and Reverse Gravity.
I have no opinion on the DH.
Otherwise leave it alone.
I did good this year.
For me that is.
<8^)
 
12Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 87192619
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 15:55 		I like the daily email updates, but one thing that always annoyed me about them is that they never gave you the points for your team for that day, only the individual player points. I'd add that piece of information to the updates.

pd
 
13smallwhirled
      Donor
      ID: 17152614
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 16:17 		I am not for the opening day price change. I feel that it is an advantage for the critical reader of the rules (i.e. gurupie) to get the sucker pick advantage. You'd be forced to draft highly owned guys which will stop the early differentiation. Couldn't you do some type of collusion thing so everyone srafts the same team or something? I don't know, I just like the fact that you can dig a little deeper and get rewarded with a solid draft by dodging the early suckers (or go with a day late team).

I also like the 5 day repricing change, not too much to say about that.

I would love to be able to see how many TSN points I got just from pitching this year and be able to compare to other teams. How many points I got from each hitting position. Helps judge how effective my trades were or were not. - Chicago TRS

Best idea I've ever heard. That would be an awesome addition.

smallwhirled



 
14Micheal
      ID: 12744225
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 16:24 		ADD
* DH - Get rid of the 4th outfield slot
* Points for complete games - This is not common nowadays and you have the points for a 3D in b-ball.

KEEP
* 5 day repricing
* current repricing formula
 
15Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 16:39 		Although there are some counter-intuitive results, I agree that the 5-day pitcher repricing is an improvement.

Richard[9] - the issue you cite is actually one reason why I think the 5-day method works - especially for pitchers who start every 5th day.

Let me use an example. Suppose Curt Schilling pitches today, and (using the 5-day formula) his price drops. That was a common occurrence this year - although not a certainty.

If this happens, there is only one reason - that he is on fewer rosters today than he was for his last start, 5 days ago. And if that is the case, why should that not produce a loss? That is precisely how a hitter price change would behave.
 
16ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 256101115
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 17:01 		smallwhirled...I understand your point that having an opening day price change may cause some to be forced to jump on the sucker picks. But remember this is only one price change...even the most highly drafted player would only get between a 100k-200k price jump that first day. I don't think that little amount of money would really cause gurupies to really change strategies. That 150K on the first day will not really shield people from the price decrease that is sure to follow the highly drafted players but at least it will give some cushion/balance or time to get out of a player before losing your shirt.

The main thing is I think it follows the basic rules and idea of the game...the stock market aspect...tell me why shouldn't highly drafted players not experience some benefit of being highly drafted? It just makes sense that they should see a price increase based on being highly drafted/owned. I also think it will strike a nice balance between avoiding the highly drafted and maybe picking a highly drafted player or two. Right now it is seriously tilted in favor of having day late teams or not drafting any highly drafted players...why is that right or good? If a player is at a bargain price why should you be forced to avoid that player?

 
17The Left Wings
      ID: 55105317
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 17:08 		Turn the free game back to what it used to be!
 
18ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 256101115
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 17:11 		I would love to be able to see how many TSN points I got just from pitching this year and be able to compare to other teams. How many points I got from each hitting position. Helps judge how effective my trades were or were not.


To expand on this a little I would like to see top manager lists for pitching points and hitting points and franchise value. Be able to see who the best players are at running a pitching staff. Maybe even WWR for pitching/hitting/franchise value. I realize this could water down the critical WWR of overall points...but you could still tie all of the prizes to the overall points so that is highlighted at the most important aspect. Personally I just think this kind of info would be very interesting and would make the game much more interesting...anything that causes me to compete even more would keep me interested in the game. Would also cause a lot of analysis on how important roster value is or is it better to focus money on pitching or hitting etc...

Maybe a new page called "Fantasy Team Stats" or something close to this.
 
19Rogue's Strikers
      ID: 4286118
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 17:26 		Not sure I agree with reverse gravity. For those people who own the dude, that would equal extra price gains, correct? Since we all agree that we like the pace of price gains, should we not leave things as-is? (Besides, guys like Oswalt, Gagne, etc. would need 3 years of gravity to get to their current 'value' level.)
 
20beastiemiked
      ID: 587492117
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 17:32 		TRS, you don't have to avoid heavily drafted players if you know they'll have a good start. Take for example 2 heavily drafted players this year, Adam Dunn had a horrible start this year and thus his price dropped a lot, however Alfonso Soriano had a great start and his price reflected that. If there was an opening day price change I would've drafted Dunn and Soriano on every team along with just about every other heavily drafted player and I got a feeling that most teams would do the same.
 
21beastiemiked
      ID: 587492117
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 17:37 		They had that for the 1999 season, teams that led in different hitting and pitching categories. It was a neat feature.
 
22smallwhirled
      Donor
      ID: 17152614
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 21:17 		even the most highly drafted player would only get between a 100k-200k price jump that first day.

...maybe I'm missing the point, but you can't equate the 100K-200K price jump that way. Whatever happens, undrafted player or even drafted player, the jump continues because of all of the lemming moves. The first price update allows me to dig for deep values, get the first price movers because I've anticipated them, AND get a jump on everyone else...I like that. :)
 
23blade
      ID: 9831121
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 21:23 		i want to search for the piggy bank again :-)
 
24ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 58735170
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 22:26 		I guess I agree that not having a draft price gain helps us more experienced players but I still say the idea behind the game is a market based economy where the prices should reflect demand for a player. When a player is highly drafted (in high demand) it makes sense his price should reap some reward from this high initial ownership.

It does not make sense to me for example a player like Adam Dunn who was obviously underpriced at the beginning of the season and was probably on around ~25% of the drafted rosters unless he has a huge game in the first two games he is going to even suffer a greater decrease in his already bargain price...forcing everyone to trade and then 10 days later when his price stops falling because of everyone getting him off of their drafted rosters it will rise again because he is even a greater bargain now. I don't think having an initial draft price gain would necessarily stop everyone initially trading out as there will always be hotter players and you will have to trade someone to get those players but IMO it just makes sense to boost those players price who were initially drafted very heavily. Or another example are the day one starting pitchers...if you drafted one and held all you could do is expect big money losses for the next 5 days or more.

As for reverse gravity...one thing I did not really like about the ultimate game this year is that hot players/money trains seemed to get to about 40% max ownership and then no matter how well they still might be hitting everyone traded them because the only place the price could go at that point was down. Forced a huge wave of trades on that player and your hand was basically forced. Last year in the free game we already basically had reverse gravity...because so many new rosters were created each day that the initial drafts could keep a players price moving for weeks or months (LoDuca...Pujols)...in the utimate game since it is all pay teams there were no new teams after the first week so it was this constant one week up for a player and then a crash down once the initial wave of trades occurred. Reverse gravity may cause franchise values to get a little higher than this year but I think it would be balanced out because players prices would increase more through out the season and it would cost more to field a roster. Not talking about a huge increase in price just like regular gravity maybe +20K for players on 20% or more rosters or something...I would only want it to effect the top 2-4% owned players. If these players received sells that would normally equal -20K and then received +20K for reverse gravity they would get a 0 price gain...might temper some of these artificial limits on player ownership...kind of a critical mass point where players are forced to go down. I don't really think it would be a huge change in the game, we basically had it last year...just would prevent some of these sharp crashes and would get some of the players are huge bargains to eventually get to a more reasonable price.

Just my opinions/ideas...I understand these changes are maybe a little radical or big but look how well the 5 day pitcher repricing worked.

Really I would love to see the additional statistics and updates to the Your Division page even more than these changes.
 
25smallwhirled
      Donor
      ID: 17152614
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 22:43 		I agree, there were times when Dunn, Damon, Hunter, J. Jones, etc. were unbuyable (is that a word) for me. I remember getting the days of Sierra and Jordan saving me tons of HTs to make my cash in the IF...
 
26The Left Wings
      ID: 1668298
      Wed, Sep 11, 2002, 22:59 		How about starting the price change 10 days into the season? You can still trade and you will still have limited number of trades, but there will be no price change until the first round of what would otherwise be trains pass.
 
27slug
      Donor
      ID: 555102417
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 10:01 		Good idea Left Wings, although I would suggest no price changes for Pitchers only for the first 5-10 days of the season. You shouldn't be punished for picking up an opening day pitcher.
 
28Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:23 		A price change moratorium for the first 5 days of the season might be a good idea, for pitchers and hitters. This would alleviate the urge to quickly jump on someone who happens to have a hot opening day, and would provide a few days for stats to accumulate. It would also take away some of the idiosyncrasies of light opening schedules.

I've suggested some form of reverse price gravity in the past, and still believe it is needed. It is, however, a tricky one to define. And perhaps there is an easier way to accomplish this.

How about consolidating the Ultimate and Basic trading for the purposes of repricing, and having only one set of prices for both games? This would allow the new teams that are constantly forming in the Basic game to effectively provide persistency in upward movement of fundamentally cheap players. It would also bulk up the total trade figures, which might be good. I think that the limited number of Ultimate managers - particularly as the season wears on - sometimes created big price moves for relatively small activity.

I'd have to think about this a bit more, but it might have merit. And I'm not sure I see any downside.
 
29smallwhirled
      Donor
      ID: 17152614
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:29 		Guru,

Would the trade purchases in the free game present a problem with that idea? I don't know how to figure that out, but I may as well throw it out there.
 
30Jackie Robinson
      Leader
      ID: 4942911
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:36 		I strongly favor a delay in price changes for pitchers at the begining of the season. Or count the number of pre season purchases against 2nd thru 5th day sales.
Openning day starters get killed in price the first week because there are zero buys for a Pedro to offset the rotation into a day two pitcher.
This forces you to sell openning day pitchers or skip their first start or suffer a money loss.
 
31ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 256101115
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 11:48 		Guru...as always great ideas. I will have to watch the price changes on the free game for a few weeks...the only thing I worry about is that the free game will definitely control/dominate the price changes because of the vast amount of teams, they do have less trades but so many more teams that the ultimate trades would just be a drop in the bucket...but even that might not be too bad as we are all used to judging the lemming trade effect. You would think it would make the games simpler for TSN to manage...one set of player prices...one daily price change. Would make your data easier too.

I think a 5 day moratorium on price changes to open the season is a no brainer...solves the ugly pitcher price changes the first few days and allows hitters to stabalize a little before people go trade crazy. Puts a little more importance on the draft which I think is a good thing. Also virtually does away with day late teams as they no longer would have much advantage. Never did like that a team would have an advantage by actually missing a few days of points to open the season. I guess you could still do day late to jump on the players you think will be hot when price changes do start but would be far from a guaranteed thing at that point.
 
32Dude
      ID: 148401011
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 12:03 		This could apply to both baseball & football. I like to play in the same division with my friends, but to qualify for the $50, there must be 10 teams. There's only about 6 or 7 of us, so we can't reach the minimum. We each buy 3 teams, but it wouldn't be too smart to put them in the same division and lose a crack at $150.
What we did in football this year was wait until the day before the first freeze, then we ambushed 3 different defenseless (non-password protected) divisions that had roughy a dozen teams. Judging from the interdivision emails, some weren't too pleased.
We would rather not do this, but it seemed like the only way around it. Perhaps you could have a link for non-password protected divisions for people that have the same dilemma. Maybe a "pick-up division" link.
 
33Catfish
      Sustainer
      ID: 515239
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 12:08 		I really liked both the 5-day pitcher repricing, because it took away the option to do well by mindless Randroing, and also the muted pricing changes.

Systems support and customer service were a ton better this year.

My only request is this: can the team pages be formatted so they print out on a sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 paper without the players' prices dropping off the right hand side? Suggestion: moving the vertical nav menu to the right of the page will make sure the live area all prints on a page.
 
34Tree
      ID: 599393013
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 13:25 		any idea about viewing stats...

let's so you want to look at all the players, and rank them on Points Per Game.

unfortunately, unless you actually do it position-by-position, your first 100 or so guys are pitchers.

i'd like to see, much like there is here on the guru site, an option where you can do "hitters only" or "position players only", etc etc..

did that make ANY sense?

thanks,

Tree
 
35Bernie H.
      ID: 395452711
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 13:32 		Hi guys, just wanted to chime in and let you know that yes, we're listening. Thanks for all the good ideas and the occasional kind word. Keep 'em coming.

Bernie, TSN
 
36Stuck in the Sixties
      Leader
      ID: 278451021
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 15:39 		I'd like to see a change in the way prices work. For example, Ibanez has been losing triple-digits lately despite putting up relatively good numbers. I'm going to hold him anyway but it seems stupid to force managers to dump players for doing well enough that they're bought by a large percentage of teams.
 
37beastiemiked
      ID: 17414316
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 15:47 		Ibanez is the 48th ranked OFer the past 15 days, right behind Darren Bragg and Milton Bradley.
 
38Dude
      ID: 148401011
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 15:52 		I like the DH and the team-tally sheet that you had a few years ago. Team home runs, RBI's, wins, saves, etc...as referred to in post #18. You're able to see where your club is most effective (or deficient).
 
39slug
      Donor
      ID: 555102417
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 16:54 		Clarify the DH for me please.

Is this a separate position: You have a list of possible DH's just like you have a list of 1B, 2B, etc. Seems imbalanced since the position will be dominated by AL players.

Or is this a wildcard position: No separate list of DH's; so, you can put any hitter into the DH spot. For example, you could have ARod at SS and Tejada at DH.
 
40Micheal
      ID: 33457215
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 16:59 		Having anyone in that DH spot.
 
41MNG@computercorner
      ID: 158441217
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 17:44 		If it would be possible I would like to see that stats updated real time.. Also.. I'm in the minority and don't expect the 5-day pitching pricing to change but I liked the 1 day better.. Keep up the good work!
 
42Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 17:56 		slug - the DH slot would be a wildcard hitter's slot.
 
43albo222
      Donor
      ID: 541025107
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 21:24 		I'd like to see more emphasis placed on the initial draft.
Have the first price change based on #of buys in the draft AND no trades for first 5 days.
 
44Skidazl
      Leader
      ID: 5074248
      Thu, Sep 12, 2002, 22:26 		In the free game, I would suggest there being some way to show who has purchased trades. Alot of us play towards No Extra Trades, but there is currently no way to know who HAS bought trades...

Also, they removed 1/3 of the players on a team in the free game, but took away 2/3 of our trades, makes for a pretty uneventful week after trade day. I would recommend either we get 3 or 4 trades a week or 2 pitcher trades Tuesday and 2 hitter trades Thursday.
 
45 22 Rules
      ID: 297191118
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 07:06 		First, I agree with Guru that if you apply the rotation theory on your pitchers and "Schilling's" price goes down, so be it.

I am for anything that rewards true value buying from someone who is on to a players performance BEFORE others actually see this performance. People need to be rewarded for being the first to recognize an opportunity and the lemmings should not be rewarded.

Finally, while I understand TSN needs to make some money, I would really like to see how many trades were bought from a person. Standings are basically meaningless without this knowledge.

Steve
 
46Pistol Pete
      ID: 406471514
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 09:52 		Yes, please show which managers have purchased trades.

I would also like to see TSN go back to separate pitcher and hitter trade allotments.

 
47Ref
      ID: 28045169
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 10:18 		Sorry about posting in the other thread, Guru! Lots going on at work this week and am trying to contribute w/o having the benefit of reading much beforehand. I will paste my post from other thread...

Get rid of 5 day pitching price change. Even 4-day would be better--but it works in reverse IMO of how this game was developed. The more people buying, the more price should go up. I know it inflates rosters, but haven't come up with a better solution.

Credit 3 points for a sacrifice.

Put in a DH or Flex position, like it was 5 yrs ago.

Keep stolen bases where they are. This helps out non-power hitters and makes them more playable. Credit -5 for getting picked off and credit a pitcher for a pickoff if that is possible--I dion't think it is--but that's a big play and they should get more than an out. They should get that hit back--which is likely 5 points (3 for a walk of course).

10 or 15 points for a Hold. This makes middle relievers more playable. Right now no one uses them. They are virtually useless.

Also, I would love to have a price change for ALL preseason price changes. Like the day of the first game have a price change.
 
48Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 10:49 		I'll second Dude's suggestion in post 32. I had a similar problem this year but was able to fill out my division by posting an invitation at Rotoguru. Thanks again to Jedman and Perm Dude. But I do not believe most TSN managers are familiar enough with this site, nor do I believe that inviting a member of the elite group that are gurupies is to the advantage of average people who are looking to qualify for a prize. I also attempted to recruit division mates by posting email invitations in my two other (public) divisions, but nobody bit. Perhaps I was too aggressive.

Re Ref's suggestion in 47 for awarding points for holds, this was brought up by me in post 3 of last year's suggestion box, and also suggested by a few others in the posts that followed. But in #21 of that thread, Steve Houpt posted the following:
4. Holds are not an official MLB stat. There used to be two different 'rules' for determining holds. May still be. It started as a sabermetric stat and has never been endorsed by MLB as 'official'. Do not know if different stat sources are still calculating different ways. There used to be an article on holds in Rob Neyer's archives at ESPN.
And there are lots of quality hitters with no 'fantasy' value either. Will always be some pitchers too.

4a. Holds and blown saves are least of my concern about 'fantasy' baseball. Leave them out IMHO.

WHY. Look at this game. LA-STL

STL pitchers got 7 holds. Look at last three. Score 6-3, start of ninth. Matthews enters game. Get's a K and gives up a walk. Leaves game with 'hold'. Timlin enters. Gets flyout and gives up 2 run homer. Leaves game with a 'hold'. Tabaka enters. Gives up single. Leaves game with a 'hold' - hey score is still only 6-5. Stechschulte enters game and gets last out. Gets the SAVE. But other three 'held' the lead and get holds.

Also, KKB post #24:
2. Keep "Hold" and "Blown Save" out of the game. As Source pointed out, "Hold's" are way too arbitrary. And realistically, do we want to give as much fantasy value to a middle reliever as a closer? Middle relievers are role players and the great ones are few in number. Keep them that way. And "Blown Save" doesn't really effect the game unless it turns into a loss and that usually gets tagged on the guy with the "BS", so a double negative for that seems unreasonable. If so, make it a small penalty like -10 or something.

Those two posts effectively changed my opinion, and everyone else who posted after that last year agreed, including Bernie H.
 
49Perm Dude
      Leader
      ID: 19652912
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 11:17 		Well, I'm going to make my yearly suggestion of including stats by pitchers hitting and hitters pitching. If they count the out in the real game (or the HR in the case of Mike Hampton) then they should count it in the fantasy game too.

pd
 
50The Left Wings
      ID: 1668298
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 11:41 		Naw.
In real life, the individual player's stats don't count towards final standings, so it's okay to have different rules between the leagues. But in our pool, they do count towards the final standings, so the two leagues gotta have the same set of rules.
 
51Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:01 		I've made this suggestion before, and it should apply to all games. And I'll continue to make the suggestion until it's implemented, because the more I reflect on it, the more convinced I am that it would be a MAJOR enhancement.

Allow all trades to be "reversible" until the trade freeze. For example, suppose I swapped from Payton to Ibanez last night, only to discover this morning that Ibanez was injured last night. I should be able to undo that trade, and instead go from (for example) Payton to Garcia - as long as the change is made before today's freeze.

In effect, all trades entered would be "pending" until the next freeze. This would allow managers to enter trades earlier than they might otherwise be inclined to do, since any late-breaking info (injuries, postponements, etc.) could still be addressed. It would therefore alleviate any need to wait until the last minute to make trades. And it would also protect managers from their own stupidity or carelessness, if they happened to inadvertantly sell the wrong player (I've done it!), or leave themselves with insufficient funds, or simply forget to make a trade (done that too!) at the last minute, etc.

I realize that this would require some reprogramming of the trade process, but because it could be applied to all games, and because it would so significantly improve team administration, I think the effort is well worth it. It is certainly more important than adding a wild card DH slot, or hitting stats for pitchers, or even a draft price adjustment.
 
52beastiemiked
      ID: 587492117
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:05 		Allow invalid rosters to still accumulate points.
 
53Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:19 		Disagree with #52 BMD. That would allow us to take 2HM, possibly another stud pitcher, 4 stud OF and a 1b and leave the less productive spots blank.
 
54James K Polk
      ID: 23754811
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:31 		Not sure that strategy really would work, though. Maybe the stud pitcher part would help you avoid the potential negatives of cheapie pitchers, but it could backfire too, when Millwood, Odalis, etc., are firing big games.

Pretty sure employing that strategy for very long would really cut into your cash gains too.

Maybe I'm wrong.
 
55Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 13:33 		Perhaps, I just don't like the idea of being able to snatch up Sosa's at the beginning of a hot streak by trading Garret Anderson and going without a catcher.
 
56 22 Rules
      ID: 297191118
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 14:03 		FWIW, "holds" is not a SABER stat.
 
57jumpball
      Sustainer
      ID: 46647610
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 22:33 		I like the game like it is.
That doesn't mean that it couldn't be tweaked a little to make it better -- just not sure what the best tweak would be.

5-day pitcher repricing -- I like it. To Ref's point earlier, it's allows more strategy (do you get the guy even though you know his price will drop some?). Maybe even the hitters should use the same formula . . .

4th OF -- it would be better to have this as an extra position player, but difficult to implement from a TSN perspective. I'd actually prefer to add another player to the roster (utility IF).

SNPs -- pitcher points are weighted a little too high this year. I'd suggest going back to -1 SNP for an out for hitters. Another option would be to add points to R and RBIs (maybe 6 each?) to put more value to these important stats. If you did that, reducing a HR to 18 makes sense.

SAC and SF -- hitters used to get 3 points for these; let's bring that back.

HOLD -- I'd love to see this included (maybe +10), but it would have to be supported by the stat service. It brings a lot more pitcher options into play.

BLOWN SAVE -- there are lots of closers in the top 50 pitchers this year. To balance this, a -10 SNP penalty should be assessed for a blown save.

Most importantly, keep the price to play down as low as possible for next year.
 
58Rogue's Strikers
      ID: 4286118
      Fri, Sep 13, 2002, 23:45 		#51, it would also allow us to try different trades out, without having to use a spreadsheet and calculator. (Kind of what we do before the season starts basically.)

#57, I wouldn't mind adding another position spot either, and Utility IF seems reasonable.

I'd have to disagree with you on pitching points. I don't feel they're higher than they should be. In fact, I think someone earler in this thread showed that the dream team roster split their total points almost 50/50 between hitting and pitching, which is desirable.

Also, I think its good that there are some closers in the top 50 pitchers. If the better closers can't even crack the top 50 pitchers, they'll end being as useless are middle relievers are now. This has been an unusually great year for closers. (I remember back in 2000, I was happy to have a 'stud' closer who got me 35 saves and a sparkling 3.25 ERA. Now, there are 10 closers who are better than that previous 'stud' line, with two closing in on 55 saves.) Also, these great closers will all be priced higher next year, based on their TSNP production. (Just like Rivera was this year, we can expect to see Gagne and Smoltz up around 8, maybe even 9 mil.) 2001 was a weak year for top closers, and this year a pretty amazing year. That helps explain why so many are considered 'bargains' this year. (Not to mention that Gagne and Smoltz were two pitchers who's IPO prices didn't reflect their role at all this year.)
 
59cancermoon
      ID: 53248219
      Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 01:45 		Intentional walks should be worth more than a normal walk, as players like Bonds , Helton, etc deserve to earn points for the fact that pitchers are afraid to pitch to them, It is so annoying to own a top class hitter, and have the potential points burned because they wont get pitched to.
 
60Ender
      ID: 13443221
      Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 21:37 		I'll paste a suggetsion I made in the hoops forum regarding gravity:

Complete "What If" mode here, I have not completely thought about the material consequences of this decision:

What if the owners who hold a player who is in gravity simply gained the gravity amount (20K or whatever) in their "Cash Left"?

For example:
I hold Joe Shlobotnik on my roster at a price of $2,000,000. I have $1,000,000 Cash Left. Mr. Shlobotnik is in gravity so he drops $20,000. That's fine his price is now $1,980,000. However, I now have $1,020,000 Cash Left.

This gives the brave soul who holds a gravity player the benefit of his new cheaper price, but he doesn't materially lose the $20K. His RV is unchanged, a Net change of $0.

Thoughts?
 
61rockfish
      ID: 531038288
      Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 22:33 		The game this year has been fine. The pitcher pricing does need some tweeking,perhaps go to instead of five days go to six or even ten with a beginning of season lag. It does seem to be a drag to draft opening season starters only to have them be a handicap.

The one thing this season that does get my goat is why the player pages don't show if the next five games are @ home or away,really is that to hard. Also the pitcher pages could show besides the next start,the teams next five or six games after a start.
 
62Rogue's Strikers
      ID: 51826140
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 02:22 		Ender, I like that suggestion, but I too am not sure of the consequences. Could someone conceivably make money this way? 180K a day for all gravity hitters is pretty decent...
 
63Ender
      ID: 13443221
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 09:39 		Is 180K per day on hitters more than normal? If it is more than normal, is it worth the sacrifice in points?

I'll bet on most normal days we have had a single hitter gain 100K+ so I doubt 180K is too much. I also think that having 9 gravity hitters would be murder point-wise. There is a reason most of the guys are in gravity i.e. they are not worth owning. We are simply trying to avoid being penalized for having a couple who do produce.

Plus, the bigger thing is this, your Net RV is not changed at all anyway. You're not really making 20K. Sure it is freeing up 20K per day and that would have some benefit, but it's not like you are actually making money.
 
64ESB
      ID: 22853159
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 10:01 		This feedback, as Bernie said, is great.

Since I've come back to TSN, one of my primary goals has been to make the games closer to the image of what our users want them to be.

Here's what we'll do --

1) We'll go another 2-3 weeks with this thread.

2) In November, Bernie and I will review the list, decide what we can and want to implement, and adjust our spring production schedule accordingly.

3) When we have a better idea of what we will and will not do, we'll post a thread here.

-ESB
 
65 dwsarge
      ID: 13647158
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 11:33 		Disagree with reverse gravity. Value should be based on movement only.
 
66Ref
      ID: 121135289
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 11:48 		Disagree Ender with adding cash. That would be like selling the guy. You can't have money in the bank froma guy while he is still on your team. In Hoops there are many times I have a gravity player trying to differ from the rest and it has really helped me at times--though I'm losing cash. That is the chance you have to take and when he continues to do well he defies gravity and starts making cash. I did that awhile this baseball season with Garrett Anderson as well.

The thing with the pitching is that if they are so widely owned, how are they dropping? It's the 5-day model. I had RJ on every team and my hitters did pretty well, yet I dropped on every team in the standings. Why? Everybody had him. 92 of the top 100 teams had him, yet he didn't raise at all price-wise. To me, something is so fundamentally wrong with that. Often times they have even lost money on the day they start. Just seems paridoxical to me that a player can be so widely owned and lose money when everyone is buying him heavily for his start that day.

The 30K is good for gravity. It takes a long time to get the overpriced players down to a price that makes them playable. Maybe if they go on DL, they fall at a faster clip--dunno. I also don't have a problem with reverse gravity. IF everyone has him, it throws some strategy in there--'I gotta get him to make that extra cash' or 'he's too expensive now' or 'everyone else is getting him so I will differ with this other guy'. We all know that a lot of people follow the leader and play off of the price movers. That is so assinine much of the time but we'd see even more of that with reverse gravity. Could be a slippery slope.
 
67Stuck in the Sixties
      Leader
      ID: 12451279
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 12:04 		In general, I like the muted pitcher trades. However, it seems just as silly to go from Randy to Curt and lose money in the process as it used to when we did the same thing and gained $1 million. There should be no financial penalty for rotating studs. That's always been an important part of the game since most of the time we can't afford more than 1 or 2.
 
68Ref
      ID: 121135289
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 12:15 		To add on to my post in 66 and stuck's follow-up on 67...RJ is again at 0 gain today after such a huge day of buys yesterday and Schilling, who starts today, is at -40. Again, how does that use the market system that this Market-based game that TSN is supposed to represent. MUTE the gains by all means but don't reverse them.
 
69Ender
      ID: 13443221
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 12:44 		Ref, the prices do reflect the overall buy/sell trend this way. It may not reflect today's buys/sells, but that's the point. If even after heavy buys yesterday RJ is owned by less people (or the same number) his price should reflect that IMO. I don't care that 1000 people bought him yesterday, if less people own him for this start versus his last start then he should have a lower price this time.
 
70Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 14:28 		Bingo, Ender[69]!

I think the sentiments expressed by Stuck[67] and Ref[68] are just missing the big picture. The only reason a pitcher's price drops on the day of his start is that he is owned by less teams that he was 5 days ago - probably for his last start. That sounds like the perfect reason for a decline in price. If he was sold by more teams than bought him back, then his price should be down.

That isn't at odds with a market-based rationale. It IS market based. And it isn't a penalty for rotation. It simply reflects relative ownership for this start compared with the prior start (5 days ago).

This also suggests a reason for reverse gravity. One reason that Randy has trouble gaining further is that almost everyone has him. They can't buy him again. A market-based rationale would argue that when a player is so heavily owned, he is obviously good value for his price, and could probably support an even higher price. When there is such an imbalance of buyers vs. sellers, the price would rise in a "normal" market. But in this case, it can't because the market has run out of eligble buyers.

Reverse gravity would compensate for running out of potential buyers, and therefore is entirely consistent with a market based system. But another way to address that (mentioned earlier) is to base price changes on consolidated trading activity across both pay and free games, thereby continually introducing a supply of new eligible buyers.

 
71Tree
      ID: 22758146
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 15:33 		what has happened to me over in football is exactly why i would like to see SOME sort of price bump for players drafted heavily...

among my early roster was both Quincy Carter and the Dallas defense.

for many reasons, it was pretty clear they were fairly heavily owned for week one. and, for those same reasons, it was pretty clear that they were gonna get dumped before week two - especially since they were both SO awful in week one.

so i traded them, to avoid a huge financial hit at the start of the game. so of course, both of huge games.

i'm not bitter, because it's the nature of the beast, but it's a perfect example of how lemming activity sometimes rules the game, and supercedes actual statistical performance predictions...

Tree
 
72Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 16:01 		Tree - would you have really held those two if you knew they wouldn't suffer a price drop?
 
73Rogue's Strikers
      ID: 51826140
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 16:39 		The only concern I have with reverse gravity is that people's price gains would become too much. Basically, so far everyone has said how much they like that making money isn't as easy as it was in years past. Its the middle of September, yet I still need bargains like Huff and Garcia on my team. I just don't want to see people hitting 90 mil by August because of this.
 
74Tree
      ID: 22758146
      Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 19:35 		Guru - seriously, i would have. i believe both QC and the Dallas D are better than they were in week one....which is why i drafted them in the first place - not just because i felt they'd do well against houston, but because they'd do well until about week 4 or 5 (whenever they play the 0-2 rams)

Tree
 
75Jackie Robinson
      Leader
      ID: 4942911
      Tue, Sep 17, 2002, 12:56 		Re: Guru post#51
I vote a million times in favor of your proposal to allow you to reverse trades until the freeze.
I can think of no reason not to!!!!!!
 
76jeff
      ID: 37741518
      Mon, Sep 23, 2002, 13:04 		i'm all for the trade reversal also. it seems i burn myself every once in a while.

and i know i'm going a bit roto with this idea but what if there was room made for a second catcher. this would give the catchers position a chance to be a bit more valuable. every catcher gets a day off or platoons every once in a while. i realize that as far as hitter go, the catcher wouldn't produce many points anyway and most people would rather have another dh or outfielder but the point in this case would not to be to generate points but realism. this is just a thought but it might get wheels turning and spur some other idea.

i'd also like to be able to use my players in multiple positions if they've played a reasonable number of games at each positions. player such as pujols could be just as important to our teams as he is to the cardinals.