Right now, the more minutes a player plays, the more, the more that player costs per minute.  For instance, look at Wilt's 1964-65 partial season's vs. how much he costs for a full season.  Or, look at just about anybody's partial seaons vs their full seasons.  Since you need 17,500-19,500 minutes for your roster, your best value players are going to be players with (17,500-19,500)/12 minutes = 1458-1625 minutes - players with enough minutes to fill your roster, but not so many minutes so as to incur a larger minute premium penalty

.  What they should to do to fix the problem is make eliminate the minute premium for players with more than 1000 minutes.  That way, players who have enough minutes basically fill a roster will be able to be judged on an equal basis; there would no longer be any intrinsic reason a 1400 minute player would be a better value than a 3500 minute player.  Players with less than 1000 minutes would be a better value, but you can't fill a team with players with less than 1000 minutes.  Of course, this would make players with more minutes a bit more valuable, because the more high minute players you had, the more low minute players you could fill your roster with.

Posted by appleseed1 on 3/25/2011 4:44:00 PM (view original):
Right now, the more minutes a player plays, the more, the more that player costs per minute.  For instance, look at Wilt's 1964-65 partial season's vs. how much he costs for a full season.  Or, look at just about anybody's partial seaons vs their full seasons.  Since you need 17,500-19,500 minutes for your roster, your best value players are going to be players with (17,500-19,500)/12 minutes = 1458-1625 minutes - players with enough minutes to fill your roster, but not so many minutes so as to incur a larger minute premium penalty

.  What they should to do to fix the problem is make eliminate the minute premium for players with more than 1000 minutes.  That way, players who have enough minutes basically fill a roster will be able to be judged on an equal basis; there would no longer be any intrinsic reason a 1400 minute player would be a better value than a 3500 minute player.  Players with less than 1000 minutes would be a better value, but you can't fill a team with players with less than 1000 minutes.  Of course, this would make players with more minutes a bit more valuable, because the more high minute players you had, the more low minute players you could fill your roster with.

All the partial seasons are underpriced.  I've been saying that for years.

It's very dumb.  I've been doing a lot of salary study with spreadsheets and am becoming redisenchanted (not a word, but fun times).  It's absolutely dumb that I can get more of anything I want by simply just getting players that played less minutes.  It also means that many great players are practically useless.

Right now, the OL environment is quickly becoming more restrictive than before.  Since the theme circuit is so small, that's bad news all around.  But hey, whatever.

I think it is just to make us feel better about our favorite players getting injured mid-career-year.  Stellar empathy skills ++

I love lamp