the draft is also different in that in hbd you know what a guy will pretty much turn into. the mlb draft is much more of a crapshoot. if you draft #1 in any hbd draft, you are getting a great player unless you don't know how to rank for ****.
3/12/2012 2:04 PM
Posted by sergei91 on 3/12/2012 2:00:00 PM (view original):
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?
Your analysis is only partially correct.  The part that is correct is about spending X dollars.  The reason I don't like it is, if you read what I wrote, that even if you spend $5M on a veteran it doesn't guarantee you anything cause wins can be impacted by luck.  I might still fall short and get booted cause the league is to lazy to see that I was doing my due diligence and building a team the right way.
And as for teams emplying the same strategy.  So be it, it I am consistently .500 during a rebuild, and drafting in the middle of the pack.  I will deal with that (and I've done that).
What I don't like is being forced into making decisions about my team to meet some minimum that is hardly a reflection of whether or not I am managing my team correctly.
3/12/2012 2:06 PM
It's a reflection on how competitive you are.
3/12/2012 2:09 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
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.
1.  You may not have the resources at that point to build a better team.  Or it may not make sense to use the resources you do have to try and ensure an 80 win team cause it may cost you 90 win team later.
2. No it would be boring.  Great teams make great leagues.  it is why having teams like the Yankees and Boston is good for baseball.
3. See #1
4. Its not all about luck, when your drawing distinct line, but it can be the margin of error.
5. No, you can clearly identify if someone is employing a strategy to lose on purpose.  Your a, b, scenarios are short sighted, at best.
3/12/2012 2:09 PM
Posted by sergei91 on 3/12/2012 2:04:00 PM (view original):
the draft is also different in that in hbd you know what a guy will pretty much turn into. the mlb draft is much more of a crapshoot. if you draft #1 in any hbd draft, you are getting a great player unless you don't know how to rank for ****.
yes, that is true.  But in the real world there are a lot more opportunities to draft a future star.  i.e. Mike Piazza was drafted in the 60th round.
3/12/2012 2:11 PM
1.  It makes sense to build a better team RIGHT NOW if you want to stay in the world.   
2.  32 teams battling for 12 playoff spots on the last day of the season?  That sounds pretty exciting to me.
3.  Playing to win when losing is the "better" play is more important to me than next season.
4.  If you're walking that close to the line, you get what you deserve.
5.  Then clearly define tanking for me.   Then I'll tell you how you're wrong.
3/12/2012 2:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 2:00:00 PM (view original):
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.

Here, I'll save some time.  Just a few ways one can better their chances of losing. 

3/12/2012 2:22 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
1.  It makes sense to build a better team RIGHT NOW if you want to stay in the world.   
2.  32 teams battling for 12 playoff spots on the last day of the season?  That sounds pretty exciting to me.
3.  Playing to win when losing is the "better" play is more important to me than next season.
4.  If you're walking that close to the line, you get what you deserve.
5.  Then clearly define tanking for me.   Then I'll tell you how you're wrong.
1.  Here in lies my issue with it.  Your playing to meet some requirement, as opposed to making the best decisions for the long term success of your team.
2. 32 mediocre teams, that sounds pretty awful.
3. This goes back to 1.  But also, playing to win long term and a lot is more important to me than being mediocre
4. You may not have  a choice but to walk that close to the line depending on the compensation of the team
5.  What is tanking, I've described it time and time again.  But tanking is trying to lose.  Which is different then not focusing on winning.  Evidence of tanking (again): Playing people way out of position (i.e. catcher in CF), playing rookie league players, pitching 0% players, even keeping minor league players in the minors way longer than they should be (ie. not promoting top prospects at a minimum one level a season, meaning they should be in the pros by their 5th season).
3/12/2012 2:44 PM
Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
1.  It makes sense to build a better team RIGHT NOW if you want to stay in the world.   
2.  32 teams battling for 12 playoff spots on the last day of the season?  That sounds pretty exciting to me.
3.  Playing to win when losing is the "better" play is more important to me than next season.
4.  If you're walking that close to the line, you get what you deserve.
5.  Then clearly define tanking for me.   Then I'll tell you how you're wrong.
1.  Here in lies my issue with it.  Your playing to meet some requirement, as opposed to making the best decisions for the long term success of your team.
2. 32 mediocre teams, that sounds pretty awful.
3. This goes back to 1.  But also, playing to win long term and a lot is more important to me than being mediocre
4. You may not have  a choice but to walk that close to the line depending on the compensation of the team
5.  What is tanking, I've described it time and time again.  But tanking is trying to lose.  Which is different then not focusing on winning.  Evidence of tanking (again): Playing people way out of position (i.e. catcher in CF), playing rookie league players, pitching 0% players, even keeping minor league players in the minors way longer than they should be (ie. not promoting top prospects at a minimum one level a season, meaning they should be in the pros by their 5th season).
Here's what I don't think you understand, yanks.  MWR are not meant to prevent tanking.  They are meant to do MORE than that.  They are meant to prevent an apathy to winning.  It prevents the strategy of focusing ENTIRELY on the future, which, for many of us, is undesirable out of our owners.

I don't think I've ever been in a world where I saw people playing C in CF, starting Tryout Camp SP in the ML, etc.  That is blatant and obvious tanking, and I would leave a world where anything like that was going on.  But a team that is committed to winning now, at least to a certain threshold, cannot focus entirely on its future, setting up some 10-year super run wherein they win 8 WS in 10 years.
3/12/2012 2:50 PM
Posted by soursurfer on 3/12/2012 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 2:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):
1.  It makes sense to build a better team RIGHT NOW if you want to stay in the world.   
2.  32 teams battling for 12 playoff spots on the last day of the season?  That sounds pretty exciting to me.
3.  Playing to win when losing is the "better" play is more important to me than next season.
4.  If you're walking that close to the line, you get what you deserve.
5.  Then clearly define tanking for me.   Then I'll tell you how you're wrong.
1.  Here in lies my issue with it.  Your playing to meet some requirement, as opposed to making the best decisions for the long term success of your team.
2. 32 mediocre teams, that sounds pretty awful.
3. This goes back to 1.  But also, playing to win long term and a lot is more important to me than being mediocre
4. You may not have  a choice but to walk that close to the line depending on the compensation of the team
5.  What is tanking, I've described it time and time again.  But tanking is trying to lose.  Which is different then not focusing on winning.  Evidence of tanking (again): Playing people way out of position (i.e. catcher in CF), playing rookie league players, pitching 0% players, even keeping minor league players in the minors way longer than they should be (ie. not promoting top prospects at a minimum one level a season, meaning they should be in the pros by their 5th season).
Here's what I don't think you understand, yanks.  MWR are not meant to prevent tanking.  They are meant to do MORE than that.  They are meant to prevent an apathy to winning.  It prevents the strategy of focusing ENTIRELY on the future, which, for many of us, is undesirable out of our owners.

I don't think I've ever been in a world where I saw people playing C in CF, starting Tryout Camp SP in the ML, etc.  That is blatant and obvious tanking, and I would leave a world where anything like that was going on.  But a team that is committed to winning now, at least to a certain threshold, cannot focus entirely on its future, setting up some 10-year super run wherein they win 8 WS in 10 years.
No, I do understand that, and if you've read everything I've written, it shows that not only understand that, but I also don't think it accomplishes that.  I in no way support losing on purpose.  I do believe a team should try and field a competitive team each season.  What I am mean by that is make a conserative effort to put a decent player at each position.

However, as I've looked at leagues with MWR's they don't offer a more competitive league as some state.  They also don't keep teams from remaining at the bottom that some seem to think.  They also, can force teams into longer rebuilds and result in teams being mediocre longer.  A team that is forced to meet a certain threshold could very likely be stuck in mediocrity significantly longer.  And I don't think that is better for the league.
3/12/2012 2:54 PM
1.  Here in lies my issue with it.  Your playing to meet some requirement, as opposed to making the best decisions for the long term success of your team.

GMs in MLB have to balance winning now vs rebuilding. Minimum win rules force HBD owners to do the same. GMs have to balance re-building with being competitive enough to fill in the seats. The easiest way to guarantee long term succes in HBD is to do an all out tank, but if every world had a few superteams that won the game and those worlds would be horrific.

"32 mediocre teams, that sounds pretty awful."

Disagree. Worlds with no 100 win teams and no 100 loss teams are generally very competitive. Competitive=Good World

5.  What is tanking, I've described it time and time again.  But tanking is trying to lose.  Which is different then not focusing on winning.  Evidence of tanking (again): Playing people way out of position (i.e. catcher in CF), playing rookie league players, pitching 0% players, even keeping minor league players in the minors way longer than they should be (ie. not promoting top prospects at a minimum one level a season, meaning they should be in the pros by their 5th season).

With a hard minimum win rule (no comittee) It doesnt matter what tanking is, or if you are tanking. If your team isnt performing at the ML level, you lose your job. The same way as it is in MLB.
3/12/2012 2:55 PM
Do you think being in a world with this being allowed is a good situation?

http://wisjournal.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/FranchiseHistory.aspx?fid=5216
3/12/2012 3:00 PM
Posted by dmurphy104 on 3/12/2012 3:01:00 PM (view original):
Do you think being in a world with this being allowed is a good situation?

http://wisjournal.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/FranchiseHistory.aspx?fid=5216
i'm thinking yes, as long as it's his team that looks like that
3/12/2012 3:03 PM
He's won 6 world series in 9 seasons. I think thats quite a bit more boring than a league with parity.

Also, he only just now hit $100M in payroll. But, if an owner managed to develop this team while skirting the minimum win rules, at least they be forced to start letting some players go at this point.
3/12/2012 3:04 PM
Sorry yanks, you're out to lunch on this one.  If you don't like MWR, don't join worlds that have them.  Building a "dynasty" by losing is the easiest strategy in this game.  That's why over time, many worlds have enacted MWR.  That's also why, over time, worlds that have teams winning 40 games for 3 seasons and later becoming dominant are now considered "'tard worlds".  Worlds have added MWR because it has an overall net positive effect.  Everybody wants to win for 10 seasons.  Not everyone can do it.  There are many strategies not even addressed here (see the "Tanking 101" thread).

The bottom line is that a good owner can turn around a franchise, sometimes very quickly, even with good competition (I do know this first hand).  Teams win WS with 80 wins.  I've seen it happen.  The idea that owners want to be sure they can win 108 before even calling up guys from AAA who are better than their MLB players is what decreases the enjoyment level in a world.  No one is saying you shouldn't use the arbitration system to your advantage, or that you should rush every prospect before they're ready.  But if you're transferring 40M (+20 to the Prospects Budget) every season and hanging with a 40M or less payroll, you are tanking, pure and simple.  Can you get away with that in a MWR world?  Sure, but not for long.  Nor should you.  What HBD doesn't have is the natural feedback of fan support and profits (or lack thereof).  There are no consequences to it, which is why it works.  Worlds that have MWR have put in a process, an imperfect one, but a process that encourages competition.  It's better than the alternative, and the worlds that have them, by and large, are far more healthy than those that don't.

Again, if you don't like MWR, don't join a world that has them.  If your world adopts them, you can always go somewhere else....
3/12/2012 3:05 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸

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.