The top salaries are too low.  Only four players have salaries over $9M.

The ODL and NCIH draft leagues will both have to drop their caps under these salaries.

Guys ... isn't the goal here to set the salaries to equitably value players against each other?  Whether they're too high or too low is really a moot point, and can be dealt with by either raising/lowering the cap appropriately, or by multiplying all salaries by some factor to get them into the right range for cap purposes.  

What we should be looking at is how the various statistical categories make a player more or less valuable to a team than his peers.  So if we believe rebounding is undervalued, then Russell, Moses, Unseld, etc. should be bumped a bit.  Sounds like everyone believes this new formula is working better for the 3 point chuckers, so that's a step in the right direction.

A few questions I would ask ... why does it make sense for 67-68 Wilt's salary to drop by 37%, but 05-06 Kobe's only drops 7%?  Was Wilt that much more overvalued in the old SIM?  Why?

My first assumption was that it has everything to do with rebounding being undervalued, relative to the old formula, but then I look at 52-53 Neil Johnston, who averaged 14.1 boards, and his salary has INCREASED by nearly 20%.  Whoa.

And how did 51-52 Paul Arizin suddenly become the equal of 97-98 Tim Duncan, who shot a full 10% better from the field?  Yeah, he played a few more minutes and scored a few more points, but I'll take that FG shooting percentage any day.  Someone will have to remind me what that "True Shooting Percentage" column at the end means, because that doesn't seem to compute.  Must have to do with the big fundamental's poor foul shooting, I guess.

I'll be back with more later, but that's at least a start at pointing out some things to consider.

True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

As other people have said, the weight of rebounding in the salary formula needs to increase and I don't think "compressing" the salaries is the right way to adjust the salaries.  I don't want to see super teams in a $42M league.  Currently, only 28 player-seasons are $8M+.

would it be possible to track players by frequency of use in the current leagues? maybe get a top 100 most used players to compare?

2 $10 mil players?  If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it still make a sound?

seble - quick question for you:

is the engine changing w/the salaries? if so, i'm all for a wide open, unknown game. THE WILD WEST IS MY $HIT.

if not, this is going to be bad. people are going to mount up with MONSTER squads. not going to be fun for draft, open, and many other leagues...

rebounding.  Right now in the current state of an OL... you really need 45/100 oreb/dreb% on the floor to be consistently competitive.
Lowering everyone's salaries this much will make this even worse and limit player choices for competitive teams even more.

Still, it's a good start.

ps - thank you for including tov% & ts%.  Will these be viewable, searchable and sortable when the new release comes?

I still don't think efg% has been valued highly enough - it's a much more accurate measure of (one part of) offensive efficiency than field goal percentage is. I think fg% should still be shown and searchable, but I think efg% should be applied directly in the formula for determining price and fg% should be minimalized or ignored completely. 


Compression of the salaries - bringing the top and bottom together - is, IMO, a terrible idea. There's no way that those prices accurately reflect value in the SIM. That will create more cookie cutter teams than ever - with those salaries, I would expect to see Wilt and Jordan on literally every team in an open league - and if you didn't have them, you'd probably be at a competitive disadvantage because those guys are so much more valuable, per dollar. Unless the sim is drastically changing along with that salary release, I think it would be a disaster in terms of team diversity and options.


Also - I'd like to also endorse the idea posted above for the top 100 players used in the SIM. That can replace the viewable top 25 teams, which currently allows anyone to copy a successful open league team exactly. Not necessary - no reason to let people look at those teams. Showing the top 100 players used would be much more informative, and much less suited to copying of successful teams.

I was thinking that a top 100 listing would be especially useful for reviewing the new valuation as those players are obviously the ones with highest percieved value per $ at the moment and the ability to reflect upon the price changes of that focus group would quite likely be more revelatory

Agree wholeheartedly on the top 100 player list.

just for starters it doesnt bode well that Moses, Rodman and Sir Charles have seen big drops in salary - they are in heavy rotation because they're such bargains as it is so it seems like they're headed the wrong way

Thanks for the thread, Seble --

With the proposed salaries, the top 100 player seasons (by cost) average $7.9M and 3,310 minutes per season.  Those seasons are represented by only 29 players.  Which basically means we are going to see those 29 players show up on rosters over and over and over again.

What I always liked in team-building was -- similar to what most NBA teams face -- choosing one or two superstars to build your team around, then filling in with efficient role players.  With the high end players being so cheap now, I'm afraid I'll never get to see the likes of Rony Seikaly again.

Thanks again for your efforts, I think some of the frustration in recent threads in a way is a positive indicator that you've built a product that people are passionate about.

Thanks for getting this started. After a quick review of the new salaries, my first impression was wow! that seems drastic. i'm wondering if were trying to do to much?

:Does defensive stat values realley need to go down. I would rather see them remain unchanged. rebounds being under valued is a bad idea
:Offense is where i see improvement needed. I see that is happening but is it enough?  high ts% and  volume 3 pt shooters wiho shoot a high % and low tov% players should all see salary increases.

I guess what i'm saying is keep it simple. leave the defensive values alone and try to obtain a better balance on the offense side. If that makes overall salaries to high tnen adjust the defensive side.

defense being over-valued was a huge issue in the current version of the sim, though.

ON THAT NOTE...

Where's the new def rating formula coming into play?  I still see 08-09 Troy Murphy as a 96 def rating.  That in itself leads me to believe you still have def reb% in the formula, and it absolutely should not be for what you use def rating.