Tanking is a pretty subjective thing and there seems to be a lot of discussion about it.

The blatant stuff is pretty straight forward. By blatant, I'm talking about:

Owner's team has a .230 winning percentage along with a $20 million payroll.
Owner has a top 5 worst team but has 3-4 ML ready prospects sitting in AAA.
etc....

but defining what it really is  as far as rules go, and being able to challenge an owner on it can be difficult if it doesn't fit the blatant stuff.

So, If you had to define tanking, and how to definitively spot it, what would it be?

Here's my perspective:  I play in a world with many longtime owners, no MWR, everybody "knows" everybody.  Most owners have gone through "rebuilds" and no one says much of anything.  A new owner came in, saw the lay of the land, stripped his already-poor team to the ground.  Fine.  But last season he got called out for it, and it looked like the tipping point was fielding a roster of players in the majors who clearly didn't belong there, while hoarding his best in the minors.

Defining tanking is simple: Intentionally losing games in order to improve draft position and/or free up money to sign players who will help in the future.

Doing something about it is another matter. You can minimize it with good rules, but can't eliminate it. If you have a MWR of 55, anyone can tank his way to 56 wins. It might eliminate a $20M payroll but not a $40M. One person's out-of-position is another's experiment to see how defense matters. One person's "better players in AAA" is another's "maximizing development." You could set a minimum payroll of $50M, and someone would be damned sure to not go over $50.1, maybe signing a mop-up guy to a 1-year $20M deal to do so.

"Players in the majors who clearly don't belong there" is unenforceable.

The new fuzziness seems iikely to help, and you can institute rules to discourage it or make it less attractive.

It's like porn.  I know it when I see it.

You create minimum win rules.   Multi-season minimum win rules.   That stops the blatant ****.   If you see someone doing it, like willsauve in Mantle, after meeting the MWR, you bust his balls.   Over and over again.    That may not prevent it but it's brought to everyone's attention.   While this may or may not matter to willsauve, if/when he starts to win, everyone will say "Bigfuckingdeal, tanker.   You play the game like a ******* retard.   Anyone can win that way."    And, since we're playing a silly fake internet baseball game that no one in the real world cares about, have you really "accomplished" anything when your peers say "Bigfuckingdeal, tanker"?

yes



















or maybe no

I assume you're referring to the NQ problem.   Yes, that owner is tanking.   He's using a ****** pitcher that he knows is ******.   No redeeming qualities and he's using him every 5th day.   He's actively trying to lose every 5th game.   And, if you know he's doing that, what is he doing that you don't know about to lose other games?

He's using this guy at SS for one:  Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Duke Spehr   I guess his .684 OPS makes up for his horrible fielding?

I suppose you could say "He's just not good at HBD" but, when he was winning, he was using a legit SS.   So he knows. 

Posted by joshkvt on 9/2/2015 11:43:00 AM (view original):
Defining tanking is simple: Intentionally losing games in order to improve draft position and/or free up money to sign players who will help in the future.

Doing something about it is another matter. You can minimize it with good rules, but can't eliminate it. If you have a MWR of 55, anyone can tank his way to 56 wins. It might eliminate a $20M payroll but not a $40M. One person's out-of-position is another's experiment to see how defense matters. One person's "better players in AAA" is another's "maximizing development." You could set a minimum payroll of $50M, and someone would be damned sure to not go over $50.1, maybe signing a mop-up guy to a 1-year $20M deal to do so.

"Players in the majors who clearly don't belong there" is unenforceable.

The new fuzziness seems iikely to help, and you can institute rules to discourage it or make it less attractive.

I guess I am thinking along the same lines here. MWR helps, but if an owner is - I dunno - 'good' enough at cheating the system, he can assure he ends up at (+)1 wins or better and get that top draft pick. If he can manage that with an ultra-low payroll, then he can plow that cash into high ceiling IFAs.

But if it isn't blatant, even if every owner suspects its tanking, I just don't know if its enforceable.

Using the issue in NQ as an example, sockless_joe has lost between 92 and 98 games the last 4 years. Ok, not great. But if you look at his recent drafts -

Assuming a 3-4 year development cycle -

Season 31 draft picks - All 1st rounders (4) in the majors
Season 32 draft picks - #7 overall pick in in the majors. Other 4 players are in AAA and all are seemingly developing.
Season 33 draft picks - #3 overall is in the majors (The player Mike mentions that is probably out of position). The other viable BL prospect is in AA.
Season 34 draft picks - #3 overall is already at AA. Other top picks are at HiA or LowA.

So doesn't look like he's holding back prospects.

In the same time period he's signed one IFA over $5 (at $5.2 million), plus he's maintained a budget of $60 to $85 million. So it doesn't look like he's positioning himself for that.

So I don't see how one could legitimately take an owner like this one and say "You're Tanking" and write a rule that says "Get out!". But I'm interested to hear what everyone's opinions are.

Do you think he's tanking?   You know who he's using at SS and you know he knows better.   You know who's getting a start every 5th game and you know he knows better.     Is there a way to police that?   No.   But he's doing his best to lose games.

Here, I'll make it easy.   I'm not doing very much in the way of trying to make the playoffs in Moonlight Graham.   I had my very unsuccessful run and have/had some bad contracts that had to come off the books.   But anyone can examine my roster, say "Why is this guy playing?" and I can tell you why.    And it won't be "Because I'm trying to lose."

Laffey would be the one I'd question.   Except he just got called up due to injury, has 1 AB and can play any position(although I'd be reluctant to use him at SS).   He got the call-up because he was making BL money already.   I must have been drinking when I gave him 805k to be in AAA.