Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/15/2014 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Killebrew

NY2 Mutts

14

$40.8M

37-125 (.228)

Never denied that I tanked. To me, this is a dynasty game and in order to build a dynasty you need great prospects. Ill be milking my 4 tanked seasons for the next 8 highly competitive ones.

PS it wasn't easy. The 2nd worst team that year won 38 games.

Which is why you're against it.
No judgement, just let's get it out WHY you're against it.

Others, like myself, would find the race to the bottom a yawnfest, and the resultant award for it irritating.

The fact that you said it takes 3 months to fill would indicate that there is a problem.    I don't know what it is but I bet you do.    As death says, some people aren't enamored with 2-4 teams throwing their worst out there for half a season in hopes of a top pick.   And, since every loss = a win for someone else, it does affect the playoff picture.   I'd rather a 37-125 team go 0-162.   That way they only affect the playoff races for the other league(12 interleague giveaways).

It would seem to me that tanking, if left unchecked would cause a slinky effect of increasing amounts of disparancy which in turn creates a since of hopelessness in new owners which causes difficulty with filling the world. But I could be wrong.

The effects of tanking are multi-faceted.  

First, you have teams actively trying to lose.  As I said, I'd rather a 35 win team be a 0 win team if tanking is allowed.   Lessen the effect of the wins they're giving away.
Second, most of us would like somewhat realistic stats.   A team with a 9 ERA is wrecking that.
Third, once one tanker is allowed, others will follow.   Then you get the race to the bottom with 3-5 teams giving games away down the stretch.
Fourth, if done properly, a team willing to lose for 4-5 seasons becomes a powerhouse for twice that long(we control players for 10-11 seasons). 

IMO, #4 is the most damaging.   You have openings in a division with a team that just won his 3rd WS in the last 4 seasons with 115 wins.   His team is young and still relatively cheap.   I'm looking at the open team that has little to no talent and thinking "It might take me 5-6 seasons to even compete.   Do I want to dedicate 18 months to that or should I look at one of these other 22 worlds needing owners?"    And it's an easy answer.  

All in all, if I'm looking for a team, I'm dismissing worlds with 120 win teams, multiple repeat WS winners and 40 win teams.  I don't think the world has been well-run or policed to ensure a somewhat level playing field.   There are just plenty of other options.

"All in all, if I'm looking for a team, I'm dismissing worlds with 120 win teams, multiple repeat WS winners and 40 win teams. I don't think the world has been well-run or policed to ensure a somewhat level playing field. There are just plenty of other options."

well said

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):
The fact that you said it takes 3 months to fill would indicate that there is a problem.    I don't know what it is but I bet you do.    As death says, some people aren't enamored with 2-4 teams throwing their worst out there for half a season in hopes of a top pick.   And, since every loss = a win for someone else, it does affect the playoff picture.   I'd rather a 37-125 team go 0-162.   That way they only affect the playoff races for the other league(12 interleague giveaways).

The main problem was that our past commissioner didn't have time to recruit new owners and actively tried to pass the obligation on to someone else. We ended up getting a new commish this season, rebranded the world (because for the past few seasons we'd wait 3 days and then go public) and we filled relatively quickly after the change. The new commish is also lightning quick with replacing dead beats right away instead of waiting 40-50 games like in years past.

Posted by jb01 on 4/15/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):
It would seem to me that tanking, if left unchecked would cause a slinky effect of increasing amounts of disparancy which in turn creates a since of hopelessness in new owners which causes difficulty with filling the world. But I could be wrong.

It could bu it doesn't necessarily mean it will. Take a look at our world in my division. Kumbia tanked for 7 years. Got a boat full of prospects, and what happened? I came along towards the end of his tankapalooza, I tanked harder and now he's got to fight me every year. We got another guy now who looks like he's bottoming out and he'll probably compete within a few years. It's a cycle.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/15/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/15/2014 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Killebrew

NY2 Mutts

14

$40.8M

37-125 (.228)

Never denied that I tanked. To me, this is a dynasty game and in order to build a dynasty you need great prospects. Ill be milking my 4 tanked seasons for the next 8 highly competitive ones.

PS it wasn't easy. The 2nd worst team that year won 38 games.

Which is why you're against it.
No judgement, just let's get it out WHY you're against it.

Others, like myself, would find the race to the bottom a yawnfest, and the resultant award for it irritating.

To me, the appeal of this game is the building of a dynasty. I like to draft players and develop them into super stars. When I played GD, the fun part for me was the year to year growth. You take a player and turn him into someone who holds conference, franchise and even world records. That's exciting. I can't do that with HBD unless I'm drafting in the Top 5. To me, taking over a 80 win team and signing a few FAs to turn them into a 94 win team is boring. If I wanted to do that, I'd play one of the non-dynasty games.

GD rewards winning by letting you expand your vision with a formula that weighs recent win history. HBD rewards losing. Why else would the talent be so concentrated? There's hardly any "great" players drafted in the 8-15 range (unless they are 1B, DH or RP), hardly any good players drafted after 20 and you'd be hardpressed to find a single 2nd rounder on a 100 win team. Forget about the 3rd and on. The DITR players aren't worth anything either. Simply put, if you want sustainable success, you have to get to the front of the line. That's why tanking is so rampant.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
That's only if you vote on banishment.  If you say "Win 50 or beat it", it takes 3 seconds.

Isn't 50 MWR just window dressing? What's the difference between someone winning 50 games and someone else winning 40? Or 35? Or 55? Or 60? Those that want to tank will just tank to the newest threshold. The only reason I voted for it in our world is because it gives team that play these tankers an unfair advantage, but I'm not even sure it does. I think that every team within the AL and NL plays the other NL or AL teams (respectivley) the same amount of times.

The reason why I voted against a multiple year MWR is because I think it's unfair. Say I'm a new owner and I join your world. You got 100+ seasons under your belt. I bet 1/3 of the owners in your worlds are similar. That's an insane advantage over my 8. ****, it took me to just 3 weeks ago to figure out what "designated for assignment" meant. There's no way in hell that I'd be a playoff contender in a world with owners who are that much better. What should I do? Should i spend 20-30 seasons learning the nuances of the game while stuck in mediocrity? Or should I bottom out, grab a half dozen balls to the wall awesome players and meet you at a position of strength? It'll take me 1/5 the time to be as competitive. Why wouldn't I go with the latter option?

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=476493&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=2

That is an MWR league.
You're assumed to not be a newb; you are correct there..
You are also correct in that HBD rewards losing. The difference is enjoyment of the game. You enjoy sitting at the bottom and reaping that reward. MWR leagues love booting that tanker to the curb and having him watch all his good work go to someone else who took over his franchise.

Kind of like what happens in MLB when a GM rattles off 3 straight .300 seasons.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/15/2014 2:41:00 PM (view original):
http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=476493&TopicsTimeframe=30&TopicsPage=2

That is an MWR league.
You're assumed to not be a newb; you are correct there..
You are also correct in that HBD rewards losing. The difference is enjoyment of the game. You enjoy sitting at the bottom and reaping that reward. MWR leagues love booting that tanker to the curb and having him watch all his good work go to someone else who took over his franchise.

Kind of like what happens in MLB when a GM rattles off 3 straight .300 seasons.

This sounds like a circle jerk for guys that spend hours arguing about sabermetrics. Which is cool if you're into that, but I'm not.

Exactly, which is why every league isn't this.

But, it should be noted that the best of these leagues never have a wait to fill. Never. A competitive league = an interested league = a league that people line up to get into.

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
That's only if you vote on banishment.  If you say "Win 50 or beat it", it takes 3 seconds.

Isn't 50 MWR just window dressing? What's the difference between someone winning 50 games and someone else winning 40? Or 35? Or 55? Or 60? Those that want to tank will just tank to the newest threshold. The only reason I voted for it in our world is because it gives team that play these tankers an unfair advantage, but I'm not even sure it does. I think that every team within the AL and NL plays the other NL or AL teams (respectivley) the same amount of times.

The reason why I voted against a multiple year MWR is because I think it's unfair. Say I'm a new owner and I join your world. You got 100+ seasons under your belt. I bet 1/3 of the owners in your worlds are similar. That's an insane advantage over my 8. ****, it took me to just 3 weeks ago to figure out what "designated for assignment" meant. There's no way in hell that I'd be a playoff contender in a world with owners who are that much better. What should I do? Should i spend 20-30 seasons learning the nuances of the game while stuck in mediocrity? Or should I bottom out, grab a half dozen balls to the wall awesome players and meet you at a position of strength? It'll take me 1/5 the time to be as competitive. Why wouldn't I go with the latter option?

Responses like this is why there are different worlds for everybody.  Worlds for owners like you who want to tank their way to the bottom to collect the studs and dominate later on, and worlds for other owners where such activity will not be condoned, where success is defined by finding ways to get the slight advantage you need on an otherwise level playing field season after season.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/15/2014 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
That's only if you vote on banishment.  If you say "Win 50 or beat it", it takes 3 seconds.

Isn't 50 MWR just window dressing? What's the difference between someone winning 50 games and someone else winning 40? Or 35? Or 55? Or 60? Those that want to tank will just tank to the newest threshold. The only reason I voted for it in our world is because it gives team that play these tankers an unfair advantage, but I'm not even sure it does. I think that every team within the AL and NL plays the other NL or AL teams (respectivley) the same amount of times.

The reason why I voted against a multiple year MWR is because I think it's unfair. Say I'm a new owner and I join your world. You got 100+ seasons under your belt. I bet 1/3 of the owners in your worlds are similar. That's an insane advantage over my 8. ****, it took me to just 3 weeks ago to figure out what "designated for assignment" meant. There's no way in hell that I'd be a playoff contender in a world with owners who are that much better. What should I do? Should i spend 20-30 seasons learning the nuances of the game while stuck in mediocrity? Or should I bottom out, grab a half dozen balls to the wall awesome players and meet you at a position of strength? It'll take me 1/5 the time to be as competitive. Why wouldn't I go with the latter option?

Responses like this is why there are different worlds for everybody.  Worlds for owners like you who want to tank their way to the bottom to collect the studs and dominate later on, and worlds for other owners where such activity will not be condoned, where success is defined by finding ways to get the slight advantage you need on an otherwise level playing field season after season.

Right, and I joined a world where tanking "within the rules" was okay. I don't see why there's a Maidan now to become something else. I'm fine with waiting a few weeks to roll over. Last rollover was crazy because the commissioner walked away. Now we got a guy who is doing a bang up job, lets let him work and not turn this into something it wasn't meant to be.

For the record, in the 20 full seasons of our world, 2 owners have won the WS 3 times (JB & the ex commish). Neither won it on cosecutive years and this was during season 1-7. Three others won the WS twice, one of them 10 seasons apart. One time someone went back to back and he was routinely mocked for raping a few newbie teams to acquire his talent pool. His last WS win was 7 seasons ago and he's been gone from the league for 3 or 4 seasons now.