MWR Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
dedel, he's also made 13 trades that involved him moving around 30 players(8 trades in his first three seasons).   I'm guess those were njohnson's players.  I'm sort of familiar with the situation as the previous owner of my Hamilton acquired some good young players.  I dealt a lot of them but he left me a good base to build on also.
3/12/2012 12:34 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.
3/12/2012 12:36 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro

Is WIS even willing to enforce MWR that are "soft" if there's a dispute over them?

3/12/2012 12:40 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
They're reluctant to remove them when there is a hard MWR.   I understand why.   Giving owners an "out" with a committee is just giving them ammunition to not remove an owner.
3/12/2012 12:50 PM
opie100
Posts: 1673 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 68
Prospect
There should be a baseline MWR to play HBD.  55 games or whatever.   Keeps it more realistic.  Never heard a good argument against it.  And no committees.  Just man up and decide how close you want to play it.  
3/12/2012 12:59 PM (edited)
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Blanket rules are for large populations.

30 people is not a large population and has the luxury of being run situationally.  MWR are a good measure, but shouldn't be a decisive consideration in an ideal HBD world.
3/12/2012 12:59 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.
100% disagree.  Why is it bad to keep the popular guy and boot the jackass? If that's a deciding factor, then it's a deciding factor.

As long as a committee can back up their decision, there's no slippery slope to speak of. It's just decision making.
3/12/2012 1:02 PM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
HBD worlds only have the luxury of being run situationally if no one who gets booted ever gets ****** and cries to WIS about about it.
3/12/2012 1:03 PM
yanks21
Posts: 47 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 36 39 449
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 12:23:00 PM (view original):
1.  Don't build 60 win teams when you have a MWR.
2.  IFA and draft classes shouldn't affect your current situation for 3-4 seasons.
3.  Rebuilds don't have to take 5 seasons.   I can show you plenty of examples.
4.  Not sure I see your point unless it's "I have to draft in the top 5 and sign 28m IFA."    Which is just another way to say "I have to tank in order to rebuild."  Which is untrue.
5.  If an owner can't win 55/125/195/280 over the course of 4 seasons(which equates to losing an average of 92+ games over 4 seasons), he's not keeping up.   He may need a change of scenery because he's not getting it done.
6.  There is a variance.   The number of wins/losses are the same in every world.   However, the same team can't stay at the bottom forever.   That's the variance.

If an owner can't compete at league standards, he needs to find another league with lesser standards and/or competition. 
1.  Obviously you missed the point on this first bullet.  I wasn't saying you intentionally build a 60 win team, but in rebuilding it happens.  This comment is a little hypocritical as you are on your way to a 60 win team in Moonlight Graham, a MWR league.  The point is if your hovering around the MWR during a rebuild (depending on how strict the MWR is) bad luck could cause you to lose your team.  The point, is strict MWRs don't work in this regard.
2. Maybe, but it will prolong your rebuilding process.  And if your forced to spend funds on veteran owners to try and meet an MWR, when the time comes the draft or IFA are good, you may not be in a position to grab a player of need.  Put your team in a worse position
3. You odviously missed the point again.  You don't need to show me examples, I've successfully rebuilt teams in two seasons, others its taken longer.  But that is the whole point I was making.  Not all rebuilds are created equal, it depends on a lot of factors, some in your control others not.  A progressive MWR, assumes all rebuilds are created equal, that is where it fails.
4.  Again, there is a fine line between Tanking (which ignorant folks think winning only 59 games means you tanked) and focusing resources for the future.  This is not to say you don't take some money and find decent veteran fill ins, or use some fingy ML players who are stashed in AAA to be more competitive.  I am in no way condoning losing on purpose to draft in the top 5, but I also don't suggest investing too much money in trying to ensure your team wins 65 games as opposed to 60.
5. This is just pure BS.  No other way to say it.  Again, you assume all rebuilds take the same path.  They don't, plain and simple.  You can be successfully be rebuilding then a few bad breaks, some bad luck can cause you to miss the MWR.  It is not as simple as standardizing rebuilding
6. Again, I was counting wins loses as a league whole.  What I saw was very little variance.  In fact, the league without the MWR was more competitive in terms of how close division winners were.  And in terms of how many bad teams, mediocre teams, good teams there were, it was exact.  So your wrong there.
3/12/2012 1:04 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
FWIW, a MWR doesn't stop the nonsense.  It just limits it and, sometimes, catches an owner who's "gaming the system". 

I could be a potential victim of my own MWR.   I knew I had a bad season coming and, after missing out on a couple of FA who might have put me into playoff contention(which is 82-83 wins in a MWR world), I decided that throwing money at 2nd/3rd tier FA wasn't the route to take.    I'm not tanking but I'm 26-46.   Hopefully, I'll get a good IFA.  I'll definitely get a top 5 pick.    That said, I'll be very active in the FA market next season because I won't be able to win 65 games for the next 3 seasons. 
3/12/2012 1:04 PM
yanks21
Posts: 47 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 36 39 449
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 12:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 9:33:00 AM (view original):
What you'll find, from owners who hate MWR, is that they want to win 50, 50, 52, 58, 61 while budgeting 23m in payroll.   Which means they can transfer 50m(to make 45m) to prospect.  They get one big IFA, one mid-range IFA and a top 3 pick for 3-5 seasons.   Then they'll have a 10 season run with those players OR trade one-two per season to another bottom feeder for a top pick to keep their payroll low.   It works.
BTW, yanks, this fits you like a glove.    I noticed the loudest voice was yours after I peeked at the WC.
There's two obvious reasons for this:

1. I feel strongly that MWRs has a hard and fast rule do not work
2. Reino asked me to post in this thread.  If you had read the WC, you would've seen that.
3/12/2012 1:05 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:03:00 PM (view original):
HBD worlds only have the luxury of being run situationally if no one who gets booted ever gets ****** and cries to WIS about about it.
Well, that's a whole other story.

I still might say though, that if you can back up your reasoning to WIS, they'll back you in return.
3/12/2012 1:07 PM
yanks21
Posts: 47 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 36 39 449
Prospect
Posted by dedelman on 3/12/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
Yanks-- I used to feel as you feel, for the same reasons.  The problem is that it's just way too easy to rebuild without an MWR; anyone can do that, so it becomes the dominant strategy in the game.  No game should have a clearly dominant strategy.

Mike-- I was wrong to concede that discussion to you on that count; kcden's been in Wichita for 7 seasons now.  He has exactly 2 players drafted or signed by njohnson78 on his ML roster (although one of them is a stud).  But he's also not going to win 110 games this season or any time soon, and that's partly due to the MWR (and partly due to the quality of the Coop competition). 
If there is 1 standard easy way to rebuild, how come every owner doesn't employ it.  And if they did then it would be a level playing field.  MWR was created cause some folks feel it is not a level playing field.

Secondly, I thoroughly disagree that there is a 1 easy way to rebuild.  Smart owners, know and understand the value of certain ratings, but beyond that they know what positions they value more than others, they understand defense vs. Offense value, they understand the value of SP vs. RP.  SO they make the right choices when comes to draft ranking, IFAs, and trade targets.  As well as how to invest in what free agent, when the time comes.

3/12/2012 1:09 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
1.  I guess I was responding when you posted.  Yep, I'm the commish and I'll lose my team if I have "bad luck".   As per my previous post, I made a conscious decision.  
2.  Collecting high priced IFA and high draft picks isn't "rebuilding", it's tanking for the sure thing.
3.  If you know you have a win minimum, you adjust to it while rebuildling.  Plain and simple.
4.  There is a fine line.  But you should be competitive.  If you have a win minimum, you play for it.   If that means paying 6m to a FA instead of transferring 3m to prospect, you do it.
5.  I don't know about you but I don't want to play against an owner who can't average 70-92 over 4 seasons.   But I don't play Madden on easy either.  I want some competition.  I do SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the worlds I commish with 50/125/195/280 MWR.   I don't get smarter in my other worlds or dumber in the ones I commish.   The owners are either A) better or B) trying harder to win.
6.  No, I'm not wrong.  If an owner stays at the bottom in a MWR world, he is removed.  Worlds without a MWR can have the same last place teams season after season.  
3/12/2012 1:11 PM
yanks21
Posts: 47 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 36 39 449
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.
I didn't say subjective.  I said the league needs to define clear evidence of tanking.  Which from my experience is quite clear.  Things like rookie league players at the ML level, Catchers playing CF, 0% pitchers, etc.  It is not hard to identify clear evidence of tanking.  By identifying these rules it will force owners to player at the very least mediocre players at the ML.  Meaning teams won't be losing 125 games each year.
3/12/2012 1:12 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...8 Next ▸
MWR 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.