Shtickless - Unless Being Dead Is A Shtick Topic

sergei91
Posts: 5950 (0)
Hall of Famer
13 2 2 275 115
Prospect
i need to see one of those big picture pyramids that the fuzz uses to figure out who answers to who in the mafia. name and face and then a little blurb beneath em all so i know what the differences are, what they are known for
7/27/2010 12:36 PM
r0b0t
Posts: 3048 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 3 5 2 35 133
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
I wish I still had that Coyote:Bret post kicking around.
It's lost in the purge.
7/27/2010 12:36 PM
sergei91
Posts: 5950 (0)
Hall of Famer
13 2 2 275 115
Prospect
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by sergei91 on 7/27/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):
i feel like jim carrey in liar liar every time i post in here
you feel like you want to stop making funny movies?
and jumping on the 'my kid is a corky cause of the drug companies' bandwagon
7/27/2010 12:36 PM
tisi29
Posts: 683 (0)
Hall of Famer
34 306 1 234 11 152
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hugenuge42 on 7/27/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I have fielded teams with no chance of winning a bunch of times.  I don't play players out of position, promote my best prospects to the majors, or sign anything better than the dregs of FA on one-year contracts.  My worst 6 seasons (with those requirements), in wins: 64, 64, 60, 50, 61, 59.
So it is possible to win less than 60.  But each of those teams was a playoff contender 2-3 years later.  So maybe it should be something like "if you win under 120 combined in 2 consecutive years, you must win 155 or make the playoffs in the next 2."

I like this idea, or some variation on it

Yeah, me too.
I think combining this with focused ridicule, mocking, and shunning; as well as budgetary constraints would go wonders to keeping everyone in line, and maybe even improving our median funny
Ok I'm on board if we do this retroactively....anyone who has done this at any point is out of the league.

Seee ya booby, hope you win 91 this year herz
See, this is my point.  This is such a ridiculously conservative standard (still higher than TM's BS) that despite my outright tanking, I still would have cleared it without a problem.
See, that is the point.  You did not clear and would have been kicked out.
7/27/2010 12:37 PM
hugenuge42
Posts: 550 (0)
Hall of Famer
64 72 1 19
Prospect
You guys really are a bunch of ***********.  I've been the biggest anti-tanking advocate we've had in this league, but rules for the sake of rules after 17 ******* seasons are just ridiculous.  If we think someone is being a ****, call them out or kick them out.  Stop being such ******* faggots.
7/27/2010 12:37 PM
r0b0t
Posts: 3048 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 3 5 2 35 133
Prospect
Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by larry_jew on 7/27/2010 12:27:00 PM (view original):
50% of alcheez posts are "shutup moy" and both those shofers should get callin gout from sergei.  Let's boot them too.
That number has to be wrong.

37% - "shut up moy"
28% - Phillies talk
12% - nuzzling up to TM like that cat tracyr fingerfucked
9% - CBS comedies
8% - concurring with things people say about HBD
5% - new forum rankings
1% - bailing on SHoFer gatherings

Far too much work went into this post.
I came up with the categories before I did the math.
7/27/2010 12:37 PM
r0b0t
Posts: 3048 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 3 5 2 35 133
Prospect
Posted by sergei91 on 7/27/2010 12:36:00 PM (view original):
i need to see one of those big picture pyramids that the fuzz uses to figure out who answers to who in the mafia. name and face and then a little blurb beneath em all so i know what the differences are, what they are known for
I would make that my desktop.
7/27/2010 12:38 PM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 489 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by hugenuge42 on 7/27/2010 12:37:00 PM (view original):
You guys really are a bunch of ***********.  I've been the biggest anti-tanking advocate we've had in this league, but rules for the sake of rules after 17 ******* seasons are just ridiculous.  If we think someone is being a ****, call them out or kick them out.  Stop being such ******* faggots.
Good rule
7/27/2010 12:38 PM
r0b0t
Posts: 3048 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 3 5 2 35 133
Prospect

You should never use "the point is" or some variation thereof in your thesis statement. It's redundant. If you articulate, we'll get the gist of what you're saying. No need to clarify and reclarify indignantly and repeatedly and calling it an argument.

7/27/2010 12:40 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hugenuge42 on 7/27/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I have fielded teams with no chance of winning a bunch of times.  I don't play players out of position, promote my best prospects to the majors, or sign anything better than the dregs of FA on one-year contracts.  My worst 6 seasons (with those requirements), in wins: 64, 64, 60, 50, 61, 59.
So it is possible to win less than 60.  But each of those teams was a playoff contender 2-3 years later.  So maybe it should be something like "if you win under 120 combined in 2 consecutive years, you must win 155 or make the playoffs in the next 2."

I like this idea, or some variation on it

Yeah, me too.
I think combining this with focused ridicule, mocking, and shunning; as well as budgetary constraints would go wonders to keeping everyone in line, and maybe even improving our median funny
Ok I'm on board if we do this retroactively....anyone who has done this at any point is out of the league.

Seee ya booby, hope you win 91 this year herz
See, this is my point.  This is such a ridiculously conservative standard (still higher than TM's BS) that despite my outright tanking, I still would have cleared it without a problem.
See, that is the point.  You did not clear and would have been kicked out.
He never won fewer than 120 in consecutive seasons.
7/27/2010 12:40 PM
AceCards
Posts: 262 (0)
Hall of Famer
171 1 1 571 64 309
Prospect
Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by AceCards on 7/27/2010 12:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 10:35:00 AM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 10:29:00 AM (view original):
I have been below average on D for a couple of seasons in HR and have done extremely well.  If I remember correctly, I think dherz was pretty shoddy on D last season as well.  1st and 2nd best records in the AL.
Obviously park, pitching staff, and personnel can make up for it.

San Francisco was 29th in D last season in $ and we were lucky enough to win the WS.

And you beat an owner who had mastered complex HBD correlation analysis.  This flies in the face of logic.  The sim is broken.
Heh, well played.
7/27/2010 12:41 PM
r0b0t
Posts: 3048 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 3 5 2 35 133
Prospect
If the point of the league is to be Shtickless, it's counterproductive to force requirements onto people. Especially when those terrible franchises most likely to tank are the same one's we've been struggling to find a consistent owner to take over for the long term.
7/27/2010 12:42 PM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
I think your math is off, Tisi...I never won less than 60, let alone less than 120 in two combined years.

Besides, Nuge is right, anyway...all I ever gave a **** about was the ridicule...which was non-existant.  And that was before Shtickless sucked.
7/27/2010 12:42 PM
hugenuge42
Posts: 550 (0)
Hall of Famer
64 72 1 19
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by hugenuge42 on 7/27/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 12:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I have fielded teams with no chance of winning a bunch of times.  I don't play players out of position, promote my best prospects to the majors, or sign anything better than the dregs of FA on one-year contracts.  My worst 6 seasons (with those requirements), in wins: 64, 64, 60, 50, 61, 59.
So it is possible to win less than 60.  But each of those teams was a playoff contender 2-3 years later.  So maybe it should be something like "if you win under 120 combined in 2 consecutive years, you must win 155 or make the playoffs in the next 2."

I like this idea, or some variation on it

Yeah, me too.
I think combining this with focused ridicule, mocking, and shunning; as well as budgetary constraints would go wonders to keeping everyone in line, and maybe even improving our median funny
Ok I'm on board if we do this retroactively....anyone who has done this at any point is out of the league.

Seee ya booby, hope you win 91 this year herz
See, this is my point.  This is such a ridiculously conservative standard (still higher than TM's BS) that despite my outright tanking, I still would have cleared it without a problem.
See, that is the point.  You did not clear and would have been kicked out.
He never won fewer than 120 in consecutive seasons.
All that means is that you can't institute a rule to stop tanking.  The only thing a 120/2 or 140/2 win threshold will do is weed out bad owners...which in turn will make owners such as myself realize that we really only win because there are so many retards in the league.
7/27/2010 12:44 PM
bret2775
Posts: 1641 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 137 78
Prospect
bot-  i dropped my payroll by $10mil from last season....increased my HS scouting by 4mil (maxed from last season) and should've dropped my Int'l budget to get the college scouting up, but didn't.  And really had I even split the difference and went to 17 in college and 18 in advanced, how big of a change would I have seen.  Becaue based on the draft collusion talks in here it doesn't look like there has ever been that big of a discrepancy between pre/post draft ratings.......I made an effort to improve these areas knowing I had those picks and yet there is still something wrong with that?????   Hell, hasn't the biggest ***** about my team over the past up-teen seasons been the lack of production/wins with an overinflated payroll on a team of scrubs?  So I go out and begin minimizing ridiuclous contracts and getting many of my prospects up (gratned players still not up to "acceptable coach" standards but well enough to keep my payroll down for long enough to build through the draft and maybe some trades here and there.  If there is a 2nd manifesot to read than I am all for it, but in the mean time, pick one area to ***** about regarding my team and stick to it.
7/27/2010 12:44 PM
â—‚ Prev 1...538|539|540|541|542...1824 Next â–¸
Shtickless - Unless Being Dead Is A Shtick Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.