I don't want to hijack another thread, so I'm moving Mike's comment here.

I agree with Mike on this today. But that's only because WIS won't take it on directly. It would not take a massive recoding of HBD to build in reasonable anti-tanking logic.

Every world has a rolling 3 season minimum win requirement. Private worlds could make those harder to hit, but never easier. A GM falls below that number of wins, they lose that team. (i.e. they are fired.) No reviews. No exceptions. They are welcome to take another team in any world they can get into.

A few times during the season, Simmy Commissioner coding looks at every team. If there are 5 players in the MinL better (use OVR) than players who play those positions in the ML, GM gets a message that they must promote from (list of players) to the ML team in the next 40 days or they will be fired at the end of the season. If Simmy Commissioner code can send us a message that tells us players who are out of position and list our top players at every MinL level, they can do this.

Enforce min fielding requirements at every position. You start a C at SS more than 5 games, you get a message. Do it 5 more times, and you're fired at the end of the season. They could reduce minimum fielding ratings. Lots of winning MLB teams have played weak armed RF. And LF with pretty low range. But none of them have played a no range C anywhere by 1B (and that's never worked out.)

A few hours of coding, and the most common ways to blatantly tank try to benefit from it in a few seasons are eliminated.

It's not a good idea to prevent a GM from rebuilding. There will always be cases where one GMs rebuilding is another's tanking. This wouldn't end all debates, but it would reduce them by a lot.

telling a GM who to promote will not work. I know I have some players in the minors with better OVR than some of the players in the majors, but they are there for a reason. It could be I don't think they are read for the majors yet. It could be the guy in front of them is still performing well, despite his worse OVR. I've also had guys with better OVR perform like crap in the majors after tearing it up in the minors. OVR really doesn't mean much.

I'm strongly opposed to what tufft is proposing. It's up to each world to determine the rules that it wants to play by, and how those rules should be enforced. If a world and all the owners within are perfectly OK with tanking, then let 'em tank. If you're in such a world and don't like the tanking going on around you, then move on . . . find another world that has stronger rules that fit your preference.

WifS has a ridiculously low standard for tanking(.250). But, if you stay on them, they will enforce it in public worlds. If they raised that to 50 games, with owners getting three strikes in a league, it would at least limit it. And by three strikes I mean 50, 49, 39, 55, 62, 75, 99, 99, 102, 47. Of course, the owner brings in an alias and it doesn't matter.

As for the rest of that, no. I don't want SIMAI telling me when to promote or who I can play where. If I want to play 8 slugging 1B in Coors while trying to win games 19-17, that's my business. When I drop below a win threshold, then there's a problem.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/4/2016 7:48:00 PM (view original):
WifS has a ridiculously low standard for tanking(.250). But, if you stay on them, they will enforce it in public worlds. If they raised that to 50 games, with owners getting three strikes in a league, it would at least limit it. And by three strikes I mean 50, 49, 39, 55, 62, 75, 99, 99, 102, 47. Of course, the owner brings in an alias and it doesn't matter.

As for the rest of that, no. I don't want SIMAI telling me when to promote or who I can play where. If I want to play 8 slugging 1B in Coors while trying to win games 19-17, that's my business. When I drop below a win threshold, then there's a problem.

Interesting perspective.

So if an owner plays a 3B who makes 44 errors and 18 minus plays but makes the MWR, you're saying that should be his business?

Sure if he's winning and/or the player produces at the plate. Do you have an example of a winning owner doing that or was the guy such a good hitter he was worth the poor defense?

In my experience those guys generally drop 100 or more games. A good commish wouldn't put up with that **** because it affects competitive balance.

I mean, really, it's the expectations of the world. If the world wants to put up with that nonsense, so be it. Sounds like a 'tard world to me. I'd probably win multiple worlds series in a place like that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/4/2016 9:12:00 PM (view original):
Sure if he's winning and/or the player produces at the plate. Do you have an example of a winning owner doing that or was the guy such a good hitter he was worth the poor defense?

In my experience those guys generally drop 100 or more games. A good commish wouldn't put up with that **** because it affects competitive balance.

Well, if the team meets the MWR target, it sounds like it's OK.

Do you agree? Or should other owners ***** about it and blow up the World Chat every season for the next five seasons or so?

I'm just trying to get a handle on the protocol that should be followed.

As I said, it's the expectations of the world. If the world is fine with a team blatantly trying to lose, either by playing players out of position or holding back top players, but still making the MWR, then so be it. We had a guy in MG doing that. As the commish of MG, I was all over him. So were several other owners. We even developed a term for someone doing that. He eventually up and quit.

That said, if the world doesn't care and the commish doesn't care, then let them have at it.

I look at a guy like beachboy71 in Piazza who tanked his way to 245 wins in the last two seasons (with a $50 million payroll). Was it worth the 4-5 seasons of sucking to get to that point? Who knows. He hasn't won any titles. Yet I see other owners win a lot more without tanking. So idk.

tec, as a commish, how do you feel about owners using 0(0) pitchers after roster expansion with plenty of cap space to rectify the situation? Assuming, of course, the owner reaches the MWR.

tec, let's say you're a commish. How would you feel about a 65-70 owner going 3-24 to finish the season but still making the MWR? OK with you?

TEC!!! I just realized you ARE a commish. Please tell the people of WifS what sort of tanking you'll tolerate in order to preserve the sanctity of your precious world chat. Because I, for one, know I can't wait to see which overpriced, fading veteran can be had for a solid prospect package.

I just find it odd that you can claim that it's "your business" if you play a lineup of 1B as long as you make the MWR, but you're all over somebody else for the next five seasons for playing one guy out of position, when that owner made the MWR.

Seems a bit inconsistent to say it's OK for you to do, but not OK for somebody else to do.

The other two situations that you listed above (at 7:08am and 8:41am) are worthy of being called out.

I think you misconstrued by comment. I'll post it and explain it.

"As for the rest of that, no. I don't want SIMAI telling me when to promote or who I can play where. If I want to play 8 slugging 1B in Coors while trying to win games 19-17, that's my business. If I want to play 8 slugging 1B in Coors while trying to win games 19-17, that's my business. When I drop below a win threshold, then there's a problem."

1. As for the rest of that, no. I don't want SIMAI telling me when to promote or who I can play where. You don't seem to have a problem with this so no point in addressing it.

2. If I want to play 8 slugging 1B in Coors while trying to win games 19-17, that's my business. The key part here is "while trying to win games". If I play guys grossly out of position because I think it provides me the best opportunity to win, I don't want to here anyone ******** about it. In your "hypothetical", do you think that owner was trying to win? You never answered if the inept 3B carried a bat to warrant the weak fielding.

3. When I drop below a win threshold, then there's a problem. You seem to think this meant minimum win requirement. It did not. As evidenced by my 7:08 AM and 8:41 AM posts, owners can make the MWR and still be blatantly tanking and affecting playoff races. That is unacceptable in my opinion.

Again, if a world accepts those situations as "strategy", so be it. Do you remember if I was the only owner to call out the owner who was blatantly trying to lose? Were you OK with his actions?