Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

Tanking is completely logical. Even with constrains that don't exist in WIS (fan expectation, revenue etc) professional teams do it all the time. The NBA turned it into an art form.

Personal achievement = winning, does it not? The year I won 37 games, another team won 38. The 1st overall pick went to me by the slimmest margin. With that pick, I drafted a SP who, in his first full season last year, won the Cy Young. You think I care that I had to lose an extra dozen or so games to land him? I'll have him for 10 seasons. He's probably a Future HOF. I'm having a ton of fun with him on my team winning 110 games. I would 100% do it all over again if that was an option. You played this game for 4 months and you're enthralled by it, I get it. Come back here after you got 10 full seasons under your belt and you're still struggling to win a playoff series and tell me how much fun you're having.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

Tanking is completely logical. Even with constrains that don't exist in WIS (fan expectation, revenue etc) professional teams do it all the time. The NBA turned it into an art form.

Personal achievement = winning, does it not? The year I won 37 games, another team won 38. The 1st overall pick went to me by the slimmest margin. With that pick, I drafted a SP who, in his first full season last year, won the Cy Young. You think I care that I had to lose an extra dozen or so games to land him? I'll have him for 10 seasons. He's probably a Future HOF. I'm having a ton of fun with him on my team winning 110 games. I would 100% do it all over again if that was an option. You played this game for 4 months and you're enthralled by it, I get it. Come back here after you got 10 full seasons under your belt and you're still struggling to win a playoff series and tell me how much fun you're having.

Like this guy?   Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jimmy Powell

Won 71 games and grabbed him with the 3rd pick(4th won 73, 2nd won 70).    ROY and 4 straight CY.    And I don't have to say "I had to tank hard to get him."

I'd argue, and post players, but you're just yanking my chain.    So I'll suggest that you look at the players who got playing time after call-ups.    3 position players got about 200 combined AB and 3 pitchers got a total of 9 starts.    5 of them were 1st/2nd round picks and the other was an IFA.    You know, the kind of players you'd expect to get playing time after call-ups. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

Tanking is completely logical. Even with constrains that don't exist in WIS (fan expectation, revenue etc) professional teams do it all the time. The NBA turned it into an art form.

Personal achievement = winning, does it not? The year I won 37 games, another team won 38. The 1st overall pick went to me by the slimmest margin. With that pick, I drafted a SP who, in his first full season last year, won the Cy Young. You think I care that I had to lose an extra dozen or so games to land him? I'll have him for 10 seasons. He's probably a Future HOF. I'm having a ton of fun with him on my team winning 110 games. I would 100% do it all over again if that was an option. You played this game for 4 months and you're enthralled by it, I get it. Come back here after you got 10 full seasons under your belt and you're still struggling to win a playoff series and tell me how much fun you're having.

Like this guy?   Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jimmy Powell

Won 71 games and grabbed him with the 3rd pick(4th won 73, 2nd won 70).    ROY and 4 straight CY.    And I don't have to say "I had to tank hard to get him."

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):
As I said, some people are content to play Madden on rookie and see how many points they can score.   That's kind of how I look at tanking.   Everyone can tank and build a very good team if they're somewhat competent and don't mind losing for a calendar year or so.  But, when you're done, what did you accomplish?   Even in the very limited scope of "accomplishments" one can get while playing an internet game, doing what anyone can do has to rank pretty low.

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/16/2014 12:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

Tanking is completely logical. Even with constrains that don't exist in WIS (fan expectation, revenue etc) professional teams do it all the time. The NBA turned it into an art form.

Personal achievement = winning, does it not? The year I won 37 games, another team won 38. The 1st overall pick went to me by the slimmest margin. With that pick, I drafted a SP who, in his first full season last year, won the Cy Young. You think I care that I had to lose an extra dozen or so games to land him? I'll have him for 10 seasons. He's probably a Future HOF. I'm having a ton of fun with him on my team winning 110 games. I would 100% do it all over again if that was an option. You played this game for 4 months and you're enthralled by it, I get it. Come back here after you got 10 full seasons under your belt and you're still struggling to win a playoff series and tell me how much fun you're having.

At the rate I'm going, I'll have 10 seasons completed in about three months. At that point, I may or may not be winning in the playoffs. But if the game stops being fun, I'll just stop playing. I'm not going to embark on a long campaign to lose a ton of games. There's no way that can be fun. And, as others mentioned, it's unfair to other players, especially those who are new to the game and have not spent two calendar years gaming the system.

By the way, your example about the future HOF plays doesn't refute my argument. I said before that it doesn't take any real talent to stockpile players like that. All you need is $25 every three months for a year or two. It's far more laudable to do what Mike was talking about and find players who aren't obvious superstars who can contribute.

Posted by peanutjets on 4/16/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

Tanking is completely logical. Even with constrains that don't exist in WIS (fan expectation, revenue etc) professional teams do it all the time. The NBA turned it into an art form.

Personal achievement = winning, does it not? The year I won 37 games, another team won 38. The 1st overall pick went to me by the slimmest margin. With that pick, I drafted a SP who, in his first full season last year, won the Cy Young. You think I care that I had to lose an extra dozen or so games to land him? I'll have him for 10 seasons. He's probably a Future HOF. I'm having a ton of fun with him on my team winning 110 games. I would 100% do it all over again if that was an option. You played this game for 4 months and you're enthralled by it, I get it. Come back here after you got 10 full seasons under your belt and you're still struggling to win a playoff series and tell me how much fun you're having.

Like this guy?   Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jimmy Powell

Won 71 games and grabbed him with the 3rd pick(4th won 73, 2nd won 70).    ROY and 4 straight CY.    And I don't have to say "I had to tank hard to get him."

This kinda illustrates my point in two ways, and btw, I think the guy I got is better (rating wise).

1. I had to bottom out, the guy that got 2nd won 38 games. Last season, the team winning 71 games is drafting 11th (without any Comp Ds in the Top 10). 11th won't get you a SP1, most years 7th won't get you a legit SP1.

2. You turned a great player into someone of mythological proportions. 4 straight Cys? I think we can all agree that that's more of your coaching than his attributes. The guy I drafted is 5-3 with a 3.25 ERA and I can guarantee you that, on paper, my line up is much better than yours. If you had my team, you'd be winning 140 games a year. I'll probably win 95. I don't want to invest the time you invested into learning this game. I don't want to deal with statistical analysis, spread sheets or anything remotely close to that. That's not why I'm here. I want to watch my prospects develop and turn into world beaters. That's what makes this game fun for me. I'll never have 4 straight Cy Young winner, and I'm cool with that. I don't want to play in a world where there's a bunch of guys like you. That's not fun for me.

Posted by peanutjets on 4/16/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):
As I said, some people are content to play Madden on rookie and see how many points they can score.   That's kind of how I look at tanking.   Everyone can tank and build a very good team if they're somewhat competent and don't mind losing for a calendar year or so.  But, when you're done, what did you accomplish?   Even in the very limited scope of "accomplishments" one can get while playing an internet game, doing what anyone can do has to rank pretty low.

The way I look at it, some people spend a lot of hours playing Madden and get amazing at it. They're ranked online and get to go to tournaments. Some people throw Madden on once every few weeks when there's nothing good on TV and pretend they're their favorite's team HC. I haven't played Madden in probably 4 or 5 years. The last one I bought had either Vick or (in the Eagles uni) or McNabb on the cover and I played it less than a dozen times. If I go out and buy the new Madden, am I going to throw it on "Expert" and sit there for hours getting blown out by the SIM? No. I'm going to put in on "Rookie" and enjoy it. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 4:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/16/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):
As I said, some people are content to play Madden on rookie and see how many points they can score.   That's kind of how I look at tanking.   Everyone can tank and build a very good team if they're somewhat competent and don't mind losing for a calendar year or so.  But, when you're done, what did you accomplish?   Even in the very limited scope of "accomplishments" one can get while playing an internet game, doing what anyone can do has to rank pretty low.

The way I look at it, some people spend a lot of hours playing Madden and get amazing at it. They're ranked online and get to go to tournaments. Some people throw Madden on once every few weeks when there's nothing good on TV and pretend they're their favorite's team HC. I haven't played Madden in probably 4 or 5 years. The last one I bought had either Vick or (in the Eagles uni) or McNabb on the cover and I played it less than a dozen times. If I go out and buy the new Madden, am I going to throw it on "Expert" and sit there for hours getting blown out by the SIM? No. I'm going to put in on "Rookie" and enjoy it. 

Yeah, I can't help you here.   When I'm going to spend my free time doing something, I prefer it to be somewhat challenging.   You don't feel that way.   Different strokes, different folks. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 3:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/16/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by peanutjets on 4/15/2014 11:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

Tanking is completely logical. Even with constrains that don't exist in WIS (fan expectation, revenue etc) professional teams do it all the time. The NBA turned it into an art form.

Personal achievement = winning, does it not? The year I won 37 games, another team won 38. The 1st overall pick went to me by the slimmest margin. With that pick, I drafted a SP who, in his first full season last year, won the Cy Young. You think I care that I had to lose an extra dozen or so games to land him? I'll have him for 10 seasons. He's probably a Future HOF. I'm having a ton of fun with him on my team winning 110 games. I would 100% do it all over again if that was an option. You played this game for 4 months and you're enthralled by it, I get it. Come back here after you got 10 full seasons under your belt and you're still struggling to win a playoff series and tell me how much fun you're having.

Like this guy?   Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jimmy Powell

Won 71 games and grabbed him with the 3rd pick(4th won 73, 2nd won 70).    ROY and 4 straight CY.    And I don't have to say "I had to tank hard to get him."

This kinda illustrates my point in two ways, and btw, I think the guy I got is better (rating wise).

1. I had to bottom out, the guy that got 2nd won 38 games. Last season, the team winning 71 games is drafting 11th (without any Comp Ds in the Top 10). 11th won't get you a SP1, most years 7th won't get you a legit SP1.

2. You turned a great player into someone of mythological proportions. 4 straight Cys? I think we can all agree that that's more of your coaching than his attributes. The guy I drafted is 5-3 with a 3.25 ERA and I can guarantee you that, on paper, my line up is much better than yours. If you had my team, you'd be winning 140 games a year. I'll probably win 95. I don't want to invest the time you invested into learning this game. I don't want to deal with statistical analysis, spread sheets or anything remotely close to that. That's not why I'm here. I want to watch my prospects develop and turn into world beaters. That's what makes this game fun for me. I'll never have 4 straight Cy Young winner, and I'm cool with that. I don't want to play in a world where there's a bunch of guys like you. That's not fun for me.

1.   You can't "bottom out" in MWR worlds.   Or, perhaps, the bottom is more like 60-65 instead of 35.   At least, at that level, there's some "realism" in our fake game.

2.   You're greatly overestimating what I can do with a player.   I'd probably win 120 in your worlds because half of the owners aren't trying very hard to win.   You're also greatly overestimating how much time it takes to put together a good team without a horde of studs.    There are a plethora of worlds for all kinds of users.   But, as you noted, you seem to be in one that takes awhile to fill.   The type of world you enjoy is becoming a dinosaur.   In fact, your world is adjusting in hopes of not becoming extinct.   It may not be long before it's the type of world you won't like. 

Posted by arcticlegend on 4/15/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
I can't believe people are trying to argue that tanking is okay. On its face, it's completely contrary to common sense, decency, and sportsmanship. Not only that, but it's pretty much pointless.

It's one thing if your team isn't competitive and you don't try to contend (avoiding major free agents, playing a few AAAA guys after September callups, resting good players when there's nothing to play for, etc.). But to intentionally make your team worse than it is? That's terrible, and it's against the rules of What if Sports, regardless of what your league's rules are. Someone mentioned earlier that his team won only 37 games; the Fair Play guidelines state that a losing percentage of .250 or below is grounds for removal from any league.

Beyond that, how could it be any fun to win that way? I mean, the only real reason to play this game is personal achievement, since its no like you win money or anything. It doesn't take any great intellect to tank for 6 seasons and horde 90+ overall players then go on a 110 won rampage. Building a team with a couple stars and making clever decisions about a bunch of 70-79 players takes actual skill. If the only thing you're playing for is personal satisfaction, why not take the greater challenge?

WifS will not allow commishes to remove owners who have broken no rules.

That's also why I say having a "soft MWR" is problematic.    If one owner is kept and another is asked to leave under similar circumstances, WifS is very reluctant to remove said owner.    Their fear is it's just a matter of popularity or a personal vendetta.