Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Nats never won fewer than 59 games.  Rays won 55 once - rest of seasons won at least 61.

MWR makes this game more realistic.

At the end of the day, a MWR forces owners to care about winning when losing might be the "better" play.    In the real world, players are always playing to win.   I don't know if the front office is always on board with that(at least not in the NFL/NBA/NHL).    However, in this game, it's just a better game when the owners want to win now and in the future. 

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Wrong question, how many owners lost their jobs when those teams were losing?

Posted by opie100 on 3/12/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Nats never won fewer than 59 games.  Rays won 55 once - rest of seasons won at least 61.

MWR makes this game more realistic.

Right - they weren't as bad as a lot of "rebuilding" HBD teams get, and I'm still sure both went through multiple GM and manager changes in the interim.

There's several other differences between HBD and real life here.  The draft is a completely different ball game in real life - you can lose forever and never really reload - see Pittsburgh.   In HBD, unless you're a complete moron, if you're pulling in top 5 picks every year and having big money in IFA, you're going to get a ton of top flight talent over a 4-5 year stretch.  Also, prolonged losing in real life leads to ramifications in your available resources because revenues drop.  In HBD, if you aren't investing in your ML team, you get the same 180 million as everyone else and have lots to push over for IFAs.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Wrong question, how many owners lost their jobs when those teams were losing?

You're more than just the owner in HBD. 

And owners don't necessarily lose their teams when they suck, but they do take a hit in their pocketbook - something that isn't replicated in HBD.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
1.  No, it's me making a decision and living with it.   No amount of "bad luck" will cost me my team.
2.  Every loss is a win for someone else.   That affects the entire world.   If you're not trying to win, regardless of your sitiation, you're trying to lose.  Avoid 108 losses isn't much to ask of an owner.
3.  No, it does not.  It just forces you to focus on winning some games.  I don't see how that's a bad thing.
4.  Every loss is a win for someone else.  That affects the entire world.    If you're not trying to win, regardless of your sitiation, you're trying to lose.  Avoid 108 losses isn't much to ask of an owner.   If you know your number, you make it.
5.  If an owner averaged 85 wins over 15 seasons and suddenly averages 97 losses for the next 4 seasons, something is amiss.   Bad owner, not necessarily.  Not competitive, absolutely.  
6.  Because every world has a limited number of wins/losses.    The same team can't win 62 every season.   Winning 70 every season would keep you in my worlds.  And you'd get 5th-6th pick every year while picks 1-4 go to different owners every season.    But don't have any "bad luck" because you might win 69.  And you're gone.

1. False.  If you need 70 wins to keep your team, you build a team that you think can win 75 wins without sacrificing the teams future, but that team only wins say 67, but your pythag says you should've won 74 based on runs scored and runs allowed.  Thank you just lost your team cause of bad luck.  Someones intent in this case is more important than the outcome.
2. Yes it is, so would a world of 81-81 teams be the best world?
3. See #1
4. No again, luck can impact whether you make that number or not.  intent again, in this case, is more important than outcome.
5. Flat out wrong, here.  The 85 wins include the 4 bad seasons.  All that tells me about an owner, is he had four bad seasons, if their intent is evident, and no tanking is evident.  Than there is nothing to see here move on.
6.  See # 2 again.  Just as I don't believe you can plan a team to win 70 wins cause luck can fluctuate it, you can't plan a team to win 62 games unless you do things that are akin to tanking.  If have true intent, your team during rebuilding can fluctuate in wins in a reasonable range.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:32:00 PM (view original):
And it's worse for the league if you've got a bunch of teams that aren't concerning themselves with winning now - it's skews everything.  It also really limits the options of those teams stuck in the middle.

So in the real world is MLB, NBA, or any other ML sport worse off cause teams aren't focused on winning now?  That is ludicrous in league as winners and losers, and it is typically cyclical.  Especially in a world were overall spending is equal.  As I said in another post, is a world with all 81-81 teams a good world?

from what i'm reading, yanks focus is entirely on winning just enough to not get booted, yet maximizing the 'return' his team gets from not winning. in other words the argument against mwr is 'why should i spend X amount of $ to sign a free agent who will only help my team win 5 more games. the argument against that is why can't you spend relatively little to meet the minwin requirement and still be able to get as much bang for your buck in draft picks and intls as possible? nobody's gonna sign a player to a $10 or $15 mill contract just to meet mwr's. all it would take is a couple mill or so.
the other thing is: do you really want a majority of the teams (the ones not considered the best teams in the league) applying the same strategy as you? what if there are 15 other teams who end up with a record with less wins than your team yet not by blatantly tanking? they could conceivably have the same opportunity/budget to go after the same intls you are and also get the added bonus of having higher draft picks than you. doesn't that also 'slow down' your rebuild and cause you to have to do the same for even more seasons? what would be the cutoff as far as how many seasons they could do that? until the guys they've been stockpiling finally make the big league team over .500?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:35:00 PM (view original):
I started a MWR because of a situation in Coop.   We had a 55 single season win requirement.    At the A/S break, I was 44-47.   And about 15 games out of a playoff spot.   There was no reason for me to be a buyer because I wasn't making up those games. The 2nd half of the season was a race to the bottom for about 6 AL teams.   Win more than 55 but one less than the guy in front of you.   That's a stupid way to play the game.

That depends on how you executed it.  Did you purposely put guys out there that would lose you the game?  That would be tanking.  But if you just decided that you weren't going to use resources you could use to help win in the future and decided to keep the status quo of your current team then that is just sound financial mgmt.  The situation you described was teams losing on purpose, which as I said can be easily identifiable and should be dealt with.

1.  Incorrect.   Don't build a 75 win team if you need 70 wins.   You're gaming the MWR and, if you lose your team, you get what you deserve.
2.  It would be the most competitive from top to bottom.
3.  See #1.
4.  No, you're making decisions.  If the game is all about luck, why bother playing?
5.  The same owner averaged 97 losses for 4 consecutive season.   Only one person knows if an owner is tanking.  And the guy averaging 97 losses over 4 seasons is either A) tanking or B) incapable of competing.  Either way, I don't need him in my world.
6.   See #2 again.   And #1 again.   And #4 again.

Posted by opie100 on 3/12/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Nats never won fewer than 59 games.  Rays won 55 once - rest of seasons won at least 61.

MWR makes this game more realistic.

I am not saying teams should only win say 40 games.  But the Tigers won just 43 in one season.  Was their owner booted from the MLB?  My suggestion is that a Hard MWR might boot the wrong owners.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Wrong question, how many owners lost their jobs when those teams were losing?

You're more than just the owner in HBD. 

And owners don't necessarily lose their teams when they suck, but they do take a hit in their pocketbook - something that isn't replicated in HBD.

This is a fallacy as well.  Pittsburgh perennially has turned a profit despite losing.  Hence why then haven't really invested money in winning.  Cause from a business aspect they are doing fine.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:35:00 PM (view original):
I started a MWR because of a situation in Coop.   We had a 55 single season win requirement.    At the A/S break, I was 44-47.   And about 15 games out of a playoff spot.   There was no reason for me to be a buyer because I wasn't making up those games. The 2nd half of the season was a race to the bottom for about 6 AL teams.   Win more than 55 but one less than the guy in front of you.   That's a stupid way to play the game.

That depends on how you executed it.  Did you purposely put guys out there that would lose you the game?  That would be tanking.  But if you just decided that you weren't going to use resources you could use to help win in the future and decided to keep the status quo of your current team then that is just sound financial mgmt.  The situation you described was teams losing on purpose, which as I said can be easily identifiable and should be dealt with.

Teams losing on purpose are hard to indentify IF they're not doing it blatantly.    Everyone has to rest starters.   You can steal when you know your team isn't capable.  You can give the quick hook to your good pitchers and leave the bad ones out there.  You can bat the better hitters in lesser spots.  You can quickly sub in your bench during the game.   You can avoid using defensive replacements.  There are dozens of unrecognizable ways to increase your chances of losing without being obvious.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 3/12/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Nats never won fewer than 59 games.  Rays won 55 once - rest of seasons won at least 61.

MWR makes this game more realistic.

Right - they weren't as bad as a lot of "rebuilding" HBD teams get, and I'm still sure both went through multiple GM and manager changes in the interim.

There's several other differences between HBD and real life here.  The draft is a completely different ball game in real life - you can lose forever and never really reload - see Pittsburgh.   In HBD, unless you're a complete moron, if you're pulling in top 5 picks every year and having big money in IFA, you're going to get a ton of top flight talent over a 4-5 year stretch.  Also, prolonged losing in real life leads to ramifications in your available resources because revenues drop.  In HBD, if you aren't investing in your ML team, you get the same 180 million as everyone else and have lots to push over for IFAs.

Again, this is just false.  It makes logical sense but it is false.

yes, the draft is different.  I've mentioned that but.  In real life teams with top picks usually have better farms systems, its how the rays became a good team.  Pittsburgh remained bad cause they were morons.  Not because of the complete randomness of amatuers in real life.  For a long time they just didn't spend the money necessary on the draft to ever become good.  Recently that has changed and if you study real life minor leagues, they are a team that is on the rise.

And again prolonged losing in real life baseball does not gurantee hurting your pocket.  Some of the most profitable teams in baseball (in terms of margins) are teams that lose.  That is just a fact.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):
At the end of the day, a MWR forces owners to care about winning when losing might be the "better" play.    In the real world, players are always playing to win.   I don't know if the front office is always on board with that(at least not in the NFL/NBA/NHL).    However, in this game, it's just a better game when the owners want to win now and in the future. 

It goes back to this.    65 wins isn't much different than 60.   But it could be 3-4 spots in the draft.   I don't want owners shooting for draft picks.   I want them shooting for wins.