It took me all week to get the CAP adjusted for the new Park numbers because John M is on a deadline at work and has had precious little time to help. Rerunning the stats takes a couple of hours and this was done on Thursday evening. The park effects data has not been updated as yet but the PB value numbers do reflect the changes.

We will have to wait for Ken G to run the numbers. Ken was responsible for the research that originally set the numbers at 106 for a 20-team league and 96 for a 24-team league. These numbers were deemed very close to the 125% figure but still arbitrary.

Since the numbers were arbitrary and estimated several weeks ago, it may be that the new numbers are similar or even lower.
While it is obvious that managers who have teams close to the cap would want the cap level readjusted, how does everyone else feel?

If you have an opinion on this issue please weigh in under this post and please be sure to tell us if you have team(s) near or over the cap.

At the time of the original cap discussions the majority of owners felt that "super" teams were one of the big reasons we were losing membership. Most of us agree that it should be difficult to maintain dominant teams in PB (indeed it is difficult for every team outside of the Bronx to do so in MLB) and that a strict cap limit should be in force. It is unfortunate that the process has been more difficult to implement than we envisioned, but I believe that most of us continue to want to enforce a cap.

Mike Bravard (PB)