At what point is tanking cheating? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
"I was dealt a bad hand so I was playing with what I had.   I knew I couldn't compete so I was delaying promotions in order to delay arb/FA.  Owners do it all the time.  Why am I being singled out?"
11/24/2010 8:57 AM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/24/2010 8:57:00 AM (view original):
"I was dealt a bad hand so I was playing with what I had.   I knew I couldn't compete so I was delaying promotions in order to delay arb/FA.  Owners do it all the time.  Why am I being singled out?"
Hard to use the delay Arb/FA excuse 40 games into the season. 10 games yes, 15 games yes, 40 games no, and in this case he did not need to promote any rookies. Rules state quite simply, if you can field a better team at the same cost and time commitment and you choose not to then you are in violation. He had better players on his bench, that is the same cost and time commitment.
11/24/2010 9:29 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

"The standard waiting time is 20 games to delay arb/FA.   I had limited access for a week due to job committments and was unable to manage my team the way I had hoped.   In essence, I missed a week.  That's why it took me 40 games instead of 20.  Beyond that, very few players can play 162 games.  I was resting players early so I could play them all the time later in the year so I would be able to play my best, albeit still weak, team down the stretch when teams are making playoff runs.   I was hoping my bad team wouldn't affect the playoff races very much."

11/24/2010 9:56 AM
paul0613
Posts: 77 (0)
Hall of Famer
63 13 28
Prospect
*fairly new to HBD, but I have an opinion on everything.

If I could start my Sioux Fall team over, I would "unintentially" tank my first year or two.  Build the minors through IFA and the draft.  Fill the ML team with veterans left over after the Type A drops off, signing them to 1 or 2 year deals.  But instead I.....

Immediately promoted anyone 21 years old or over that had ML ready current ratings.  Now I am 2 years into the regime, been just below .500 both years and my service years just keep ticking away.  Finishing just below .500 gave me the middle round draft pick, so picking up more than one impact player is unlikely.  Now I have the youngest team in the majors, a thin minor league system, and big payroll looming for all the raises that are due.
11/24/2010 10:30 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You did cut payroll two seasons in a row.  Declining payroll and win totals are two indicators of "unintentional tanking".   Running a 44m payroll and losing 90 games isn't making a good case for "best effort to win."

But that's beside the point.   Owners who are unsuccessful often find it's difficult to join worlds that demand competent gameplay.   "Unintentionally tanking" is a poor way to every gain admittance into those types of worlds.
11/24/2010 11:02 AM
detlef
Posts: 160 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 15 11 26
Prospect
paul0613 - no one's saying that someone taking over a bad team should immediately promote his best possible player at each position regardless of age, but if you have the option of playing your 40 overall 2B (obviously "overall rating" is flawed, but you get my meaning) or signing a 70 overall 2B for $600k and you chose to go with the 40 overall, then it's pretty clear you're intentionally losing, which IS what I think existing owners have a right to complain about.

It is a shame that everyone gets the same budget in this game.  Obviously you'd want to start off new owners on fair ground, but if you're a returning owner and you won 40 games the previous year, your budget should be significantly less than an owner who fielded a somewhat competitive team and won 70 games (since fans wouldn't buy season tickets, etc, for a 40 win team that was clearly not even trying to compete).  In the interest of keeping things competitive, I'd say a team that won 110 games shouldn't get significantly more budget than a team that won 85, but I'd certainly try to discourage teams from fielding completely uncompetitive teams.
11/24/2010 12:41 PM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
Posted by paul0613 on 11/24/2010 10:30:00 AM (view original):
*fairly new to HBD, but I have an opinion on everything.

If I could start my Sioux Fall team over, I would "unintentially" tank my first year or two.  Build the minors through IFA and the draft.  Fill the ML team with veterans left over after the Type A drops off, signing them to 1 or 2 year deals.  But instead I.....

Immediately promoted anyone 21 years old or over that had ML ready current ratings.  Now I am 2 years into the regime, been just below .500 both years and my service years just keep ticking away.  Finishing just below .500 gave me the middle round draft pick, so picking up more than one impact player is unlikely.  Now I have the youngest team in the majors, a thin minor league system, and big payroll looming for all the raises that are due.
I wouldn't call your first strategy "unintentional tanking." I would what you actually did, "making rookie mistakes." I don't think it's "tanking" to leave a stud prospect in the minors until his 4th pro year to let him fully develop, while you sign stop-gap FAs. It's tanking to leave the stud prospect in the minors and throw out a crappy Rule V or waiver wire-quality guy. For example, in No Quitters, I have a guy who was a big-money IFA sign late in S16. Next year in S18, I could certainly bring him up and he would be a borderline All-Star. But I'm probably going to leave him down for one more year, because I don't NEED him next year, I'm trying to spread out my arb raises, I have the money to spend 5-8M on a decent FA (but might not in a couple seasons), etc.

I think it also has to do with how successful your ML team is. The above strategy (especially when you consider that I traded an in-his-prime All-Star OF to get that prospect), is a borderline "tanking" strategy, but I also won 99 games and went to the ALCS in S17. If you're winning 45 games and delaying prospects, I think you get closer to tanking. Just like in the real ML, if the Phillies or Yankees want to keep prospects down, they can do so. The Nationals, on the other hand, had to get Strasburg to the majors pretty quick.

So I think there's a lot of factors involved there.
11/24/2010 2:07 PM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/24/2010 11:02:00 AM (view original):
You did cut payroll two seasons in a row.  Declining payroll and win totals are two indicators of "unintentional tanking".   Running a 44m payroll and losing 90 games isn't making a good case for "best effort to win."

But that's beside the point.   Owners who are unsuccessful often find it's difficult to join worlds that demand competent gameplay.   "Unintentionally tanking" is a poor way to every gain admittance into those types of worlds.

To say someone is 'unintentionally tanking' is an oxymoron. Tanking has intent and by calling it unintentional you are acknowledging that the intent to lose is not there, therefor it is not tanking. This post clearly shows your inabilitly to grasp the fundamental concept of the word tanking that you throw out there on a very regular basis.

11/24/2010 4:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I'm guessing you don't understand the use of quotes on the internet.   That's OK.    Think of them as air quotes in the real world.  Hope that helps you understand a little better.
11/24/2010 5:38 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
For the record, I call "unintentional" tanking, "soft tanking".    It's not a blatant attempt to lose games but rather the complete disregard to win games at the BL level.  It's usually accompanied by "I"m doing the best with what I have without damaging the future of my franchise."   It means "I don't care if I win or lose big league games.   I found some AAAA players on the cheap, I'm keeping payroll low, I'll collect some high picks, sign some expensive IFA and hold back prospects in hopes of building a very cheap, very good team for a 4-6 season run.  Then I'll figure out what to do after that."
11/24/2010 5:38 PM
knucklebones
Posts: 741 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 1 18 29 122 11
Prospect
My answer to your question is whenever you decide you're not going to try to win games however you go about it.
11/24/2010 11:34 PM
tomhighway
Posts: 477 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 7 9 118 1
Prospect
I don't understand how anyone can win less than 50..Unless the world allows them to field players with ratings in the 20's.. Anyone with a "Decent" team should win over 50. The only time I see a team not winning that many games would be if it was abandoned for over half the season before the commish looked for a replacement. I have taken over 4 or 5 teams that had no chance at winning 50 games just to help them out by MAYBE signing a key IFA or promoting the guys so they didn't lose anyone.
11/25/2010 10:01 AM
timeprime71
Posts: 530 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
As a guy with over 200 seasons under my belt (as Primetime17) Im going to give my quick opinion.  I almost aways have a high payroll and I am trying to win.  I had a very few rebuilding projects (and Im not very good at it).

The rebuilding project I have now had a few real good players, but really was a train wreck.  What I did was trade the few good players for the best and the youngest I could get for them and played alot of young players on the ML level.  Although I was rebuilding I STILL SIGNED A COUPLE OF FA'S SO I WOULD BE COMPETITIVE.  I signed young cheap FA's after the FA period was over to 1 or the most 2 year contracts.  Call it pride but rebuilding or not I wasn't going to send out a shi! team game after game that couldn't win.  I cut salary, tried to dump old players and high contracts but at every step tried to win with what I had.

And I think thats the difference between tanking and rebuilding.

Happy Thanksgiving.
11/25/2010 10:38 AM
moethedog
Posts: 846 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 63
Prospect

Personally,

I think tankers should get one warning.....then they are out of the league, public or not.

If they don't like those rules...then don't enter your credit card number and hit the "pay" button.

 

11/25/2010 11:05 AM
pirateswin2
Posts: 108 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 25 2 175
Prospect
if your team is in last place with 20 games left and no chance to even sniff a wild card is it tanking to rest some of your top players and play your bench guys ( who are ML quality , just  they obviously have some holes) to avoid the risk of injury at the end of the season?
11/25/2010 12:05 PM
◂ Prev 123 Next ▸
At what point is tanking cheating? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.