Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I already said, there probably were better options than playing him at 3B.

And the .607 OPS was a negative outlier, especially when you take into account that he followed it up with .775 and .710 OPS seasons.

But you'd rather the owner not be called out for utilizing him at 3B, in that season, in the world chat, right?

Do you think the same owner getting caught using 0(0) pitchers the next season after being eliminated and after roster expansion, with plenty of cap room, was just a coincidence?

Do you think he was unjustly accused?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2016 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 3:07:00 PM (view original):
I already said, there probably were better options than playing him at 3B.

And the .607 OPS was a negative outlier, especially when you take into account that he followed it up with .775 and .710 OPS seasons.

But you'd rather the owner not be called out for utilizing him at 3B, in that season, in the world chat, right?

Not for the next FIVE ******* SEASONS.

I think the point was made.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/5/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Do you think the same owner getting caught using 0(0) pitchers the next season after being eliminated and after roster expansion, with plenty of cap room, was just a coincidence?

Do you think he was unjustly accused?

How many times do I need to answer this?

There is no valid justification for 0(0) pitchers after roster expansion with plenty of cap space.

Perhaps, if the owner hadn't said "I believe you should always try to get better" when he began enjoying the fruits of his tanking, it wouldn't have been brought up.

FWIW, if anyone is caught doing that in either world I commish, I hope 30 owners get on his *** every time he dares pop his head out of his tanking hole. I'd prefer he have the most miserable experience HBD has to offer and move on to another world that doesn't mind tanking all that much.

You'll answer as many times as you like.

I'm just curious why you're defending an owner that YOU KNOW was tanking. And was caught doing so in CONSECUTIVE seasons.

And, yes, I have a special place in my heart for willsauve. He was publicly bemoaning the fact that no world was worth joining because of the tanking. He was doing so in these forums. I directed him to Mantle that was due to roll in a couple of weeks. He joined and proceeded to do the thing he was complaining about. That's more annoying than you defending him right now. But not by much.

I'm not defending him, at least not for the 0(0) season and the 3-24 stretch or whatever the hell it was in some other season.

But if he was tanking in S36, why did he go 7-3 in his last 10 games, including winning his last 5? At the 152 game mark, he was 54-98. The second worst team was 56-96. When you only have a 2 game "lead" for #1 draft pick, does going 7-3 down the stretch seem like a good strategy if you're tanking?

So utilizing QE at 3B for an entire season was just a coincidence when we know he was tanking in future seasons?

And, oddly enough, he took over a team with a high pick and drafted a hard to sign guy in order to get the comp with a higher scouting budget.

Seriously?

This is awesome.

tec: "You see that winged animal over there waddling around and quacking? Some people think that's a duck. I have yet to see water roll off it's back so I submit to you that it is not a duck. We can't be sure just yet."

Posted by wylie715 on 5/4/2016 6:51:00 PM (view original):
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 think most people agree OVR needs an overhaul.

I don't think we should be required to have our top 25 OVR on our ML team. No matter how OVR is done, that would be bad idea.

If, for example, the comparison was limited to positions where the player would be above average on all D ratings, if you have 5 (not 1 or 2) in your MinL who could play above average D at a position in the ML, some of them almost certainly are better than what you've got in the ML.

There would be rare situations where great GMs would have to promote someone before they wanted to. That would take having 6 better OVR (who would be good fielders) in our minors. I don't see that happening very often. Even less if OVR was fixed to better reflect reality.

IMO, that's a reasonable trade off to reduce tanking. That's a problem in too many worlds.

Posted by sjpoker on 5/5/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):
I have an (un-named) fellow owner in one of my leagues that has racked up a pretty insane team. Here is his budget/records/fees over the last few seasons.

League rules are $110 over 2 and $170 over 3. That's pretty reasonable and consistent with the leagues I am in now, and the others I have been in previously. His team in my other leagues would - possibly - get bounced in one (all 100 loss teams get reviewed each season) and would (kind of) get restricted in another ($30 million cap on prospects), but I'd hazard to guess that he's good in 90% or more of leagues out there.

So the guy didn't break any of the rules. But its a pretty obvious tank job. How would any of you prevent this?

One man's tanking is another's rebuilding.

He hit the min win targets. If he didn't break any other rules, what you got there is first rate rebuilding. Good for him. I'd take him in any world I've ever been in. He's showed up for at least 6 seasons and didn't lose 120 games.

Posted by sjpoker on 5/5/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):
I have an (un-named) fellow owner in one of my leagues that has racked up a pretty insane team. Here is his budget/records/fees over the last few seasons.

League rules are $110 over 2 and $170 over 3. That's pretty reasonable and consistent with the leagues I am in now, and the others I have been in previously. His team in my other leagues would - possibly - get bounced in one (all 100 loss teams get reviewed each season) and would (kind of) get restricted in another ($30 million cap on prospects), but I'd hazard to guess that he's good in 90% or more of leagues out there.

So the guy didn't break any of the rules. But its a pretty obvious tank job. How would any of you prevent this?

Why does this need to be prevented?

Posted by tufft on 5/5/2016 6:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 5/5/2016 1:04:00 PM (view original):
I have an (un-named) fellow owner in one of my leagues that has racked up a pretty insane team. Here is his budget/records/fees over the last few seasons.

League rules are $110 over 2 and $170 over 3. That's pretty reasonable and consistent with the leagues I am in now, and the others I have been in previously. His team in my other leagues would - possibly - get bounced in one (all 100 loss teams get reviewed each season) and would (kind of) get restricted in another ($30 million cap on prospects), but I'd hazard to guess that he's good in 90% or more of leagues out there.

So the guy didn't break any of the rules. But its a pretty obvious tank job. How would any of you prevent this?

One man's tanking is another's rebuilding.

He hit the min win targets. If he didn't break any other rules, what you got there is first rate rebuilding. Good for him. I'd take him in any world I've ever been in. He's showed up for at least 6 seasons and didn't lose 120 games.

Can't you say "One man's tanking is another's rebuilding" to pretty much anything? Is 120 losses your benchmark? If it is, that's WifS' current benchmark. No changes necessary. But seasons of consecutive seasons of 43, 45, 44, 47, 52 wins is tanking or complete incompetence.