Open for discussion: Worst superstar card in Strat

I nominate Bob Gibson.

Guy had an alltime season in MLB.

His Strat card makes him into a mediocre pitcher.

Is it me?

there are several that never get used. wish a player's price would depreciate/appreciate 1% based on league usage. bring more variety for sure. there are 5-10 player's card priced under 2 mil that are used in every league. this would bring expensive RP-onlys back into play also.

Super interesting concept there, Scorehouse. That would definitely get more cards being used.

there are several that never get used. wish a player's price would depreciate/appreciate 1% based on league usage. bring more variety for sure. there are 5-10 player's card priced under 2 mil that are used in every league. this would bring expensive RP-onlys back into play also.

This is an awesome idea!

you could go from 1-2-3%, then a 3% increase for each league thereafter. then reverse for unused players. example players price rises 6% from use, then he goes unused, his price would drop 1%, then another 2 etc. you could adjust daily or weekly but once a league is drafted, player prices r set for the League. curious how low Sutter, Murray, would have to fall to be sought after again? I would recommend this for only Leagues priced from 80-100 mil. high priced and below the 80-100 mil leagues would distort the results for the standard league cap database.

love that idea. There are several players that for me never seem to fulfil their superstar price. Gibson for sure but those 1968 pitchers all seem to under preform. Robbie Alomar who I always seem to use usually disappoints as does Mike Trout. Alex Rodriguez Yankee cards are super duds although I like his Seattle card. Conversely there are some players that almost always play better than the price. My favorite is Albert Belle, his bullet prove card plays 2 million dollars better than the price.

I remember a discussion of dynamic pricing and although I agree, it is a good idea--I think it is logistically a problem to constantly revise the prices. Additionally, if I understand correctly the usage data isn't always that accurate because there are many players with multiple cards and the data that is collected doesn't accurately reflect actual usage.

I'm in favor of dynamic pricing, but not as dynamic as daily or weekly. More like monthly or quarterly.

Daily price changes would leave us with draft cards over budget all the time, weekly not as bad, but still an issue.
For example, a draft card is filled out is a $60M league, drafted team salary is $60M. 2 or 3 players go up in price overnight, then the guy has an over budget team in the morning, or is given secondary players at a lower price like when multiple owners draft a guy, but in this case there's no competition for the card.

you could go from 1-2-3%, then a 3% increase for each league thereafter. then reverse for unused players. example players price rises 6% from use, then he goes unused, his price would drop 1%, then another 2 etc. you could adjust daily or weekly but once a league is drafted, player prices r set for the League. curious how low Sutter, Murray, would have to fall to be sought after again? I would recommend this for only Leagues priced from 80-100 mil. high priced and below the 80-100 mil leagues would distort the results for the standard league cap database.

I love the idea, but daily??? with THIS company? Let's get real. I'd settle for MONTHLY!

Poor Bob.