Just to prove to myself that there's no reason to have a 50 win team, I joined the ridiculously imbalanced world of Foxx. My team was built from 8 FA signed off the discard pile(signed after FA ended), 5 WW claims, and 3 Rule 5 selections. Two of the other 9 were passed thru waivers. So 18 of my 25 players were unwanted by other teams. We're 32-31.

So, even though it's only one team in one screwed up world, I'm convinced there is absolutely no reason to put a 50 win team on the field.

Ok, now try doing that in one of the top worlds like, Coop or MG. You will probably find it to be much more difficult. Just saying.

That said, this is still noteworthy.

He is doing that to a point in MG. Just not quite as many of that type of players and the unwanted FAs he signs, he signs for top dollar for long term. Wonder what he's trying to prove with that version of his experiment.

You mean like Jerry Sedlacek who has an OPS of .873? Or Denny Davenport who hit over .300 in his first two seasons with .838 and .824 OPS while making the A/S team?

MLH, I agree that it would be more difficult in other worlds. The point is you don't have to wait until all FA are signed, load your team up with WW/R5 picks or send everyone who's out of options thru waivers to build a team. I took the absolute worst route to build a team and am over .500 sixty three games into the season.

I absolutely agree with your premise. Teams can and should be able to hit 50 wins even if they are 'hamstrung'.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on this issue, I am a little more understanding that sometimes owners have bad years even if they are doing everything right.

I have 3 seasons in which I lost under 60 games. Two of them are easy to explain: one was my first season ever further compounded by the fact that the team I inherited was just loaded with terrible contracts (Mays) and the other was a late-season replacement during the playoffs but I inherited the record (NABCL).

The last season (also in NABCL), however, is all on me. I put the best team I could, signed FAs, was hyper-vigilant about lineups. That season, it didn't matter how much effort I put in to turn things around, the team just plain sucked. We got pretty unlucky in 1-run games but the rest was the result of a poorly constructed team which falls on me. On the surface, it could look like a tank job but the truth was much different story. Quality leagues can really expose a bad team and there is little margin for error. I was pretty embarrassed about it then and now. But I won't make excuses, it was my fault.

And yes, I know, this post is too long.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 3/14/2010
Just to prove to myself that there's no reason to have a 50 win team, I joined the ridiculously imbalanced world of Foxx. My team was built from 8 FA signed off the discard pile(signed after FA ended), 5 WW claims, and 3 Rule 5 selections. Two of the other 9 were passed thru waivers. So 18 of my 25 players were unwanted by other teams. We're 32-31.

So, even though it's only one team in one screwed up world, I'm convinced there is absolutely no reason to put a 50 win team on the field.

Are you going to get the monkey to help you? Just in case.

What are the records of the other teams in the league? If there are a bunch of bad teams (as I suspect there are) that didn't go the route you did, it makes it a lot easier to win 1/2 of your games.

That said, I agree with you to a point. I have signed FAs on the last cycle or after FA in all of my leagues since I adopted the anti-tanking stance and have been able to win reasonable amounts of games while still rebuilding the teams to be better. It may take a little longer (it may not) but the end result is more rewarding.

I think WIS should create a tanking world where tanking is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Tanking works when few people do it...really, almost any strategy works when few people are doing it. I wonder what would happen if 1/2 the league was tanking?

Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 3/14/2010What are the records of the other teams in the league? If there are a bunch of bad teams (as I suspect there are) that didn't go the route you did, it makes it a lot easier to win 1/2 of your games.

That said, I agree with you to a point. I have signed FAs on the last cycle or after FA in all of my leagues since I adopted the anti-tanking stance and have been able to win reasonable amounts of games while still rebuilding the teams to be better. It may take a little longer (it may not) but the end result is more rewarding.

I think WIS should create a tanking world where tanking is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Tanking works when few people do it...really, almost any strategy works when few people are doing it. I wonder what would happen if 1/2 the league was tanking

Heck with half! How about all! They could give the trophy to the team with the fewest wins.

Foxx: 6 teams over .600(of those 6 one is over .700, one is over .800). 4 teams under .400(the worst is .312). The imbalance mostly lies at the top with some super teams. A bunch of us are packed in the middle and there are a couple of real turds. If you remove the top 2 and bottom 1, the world looks like most worlds.

Quote: Originally Posted By moosep on 3/14/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 3/14/2010
What are the records of the other teams in the league? If there are a bunch of bad teams (as I suspect there are) that didn't go the route you did, it makes it a lot easier to win 1/2 of your games.

That said, I agree with you to a point. I have signed FAs on the last cycle or after FA in all of my leagues since I adopted the anti-tanking stance and have been able to win reasonable amounts of games while still rebuilding the teams to be better. It may take a little longer (it may not) but the end result is more rewarding.

I think WIS should create a tanking world where tanking is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Tanking works when few people do it...really, almost any strategy works when few people are doing it. I wonder what would happen if 1/2 the league was tanking?

Heck with half! How about all! They could give the trophy to the team with the fewest wins.

Back in the day when you could still create new worlds, somebody tried to put together a world like that. Everybody would put up $10, and the jackpot would go to the team with the worst record at the end.

Quote: Originally posted by hartjh14 on 3/14/2010I think WIS should create a tanking world where tanking is not only allowed, it is encouraged. Tanking works when few people do it...really, almost any strategy works when few people are doing it. I wonder what would happen if 1/2 the league was tanking?

These exist - they are called "public" leagues.

Seriously, this is how to "fix" the tanker problem - keep them out of private leagues, make them all play together in public worlds, let WifS piddle away the unlucky n00bs who stumble into disasters like Foxx and Maris.

The only way anything changes is to make it have an economic impact on WifS; that's why the "charge to the rescue of World X!!" movement is long on heart and short on brains. Let these worlds be the cesspools they want to be, keep an eye on them so private world commishes keep the real, professional tankers out of their lives, and enjoy watching the shitshow.

"The only way anything changes is to make it have an economic impact on WifS; that's why the "charge to the rescue of World X!!" movement is long on heart and short on brains." - got that right

I agree with Mike about "residual" free agents - I want to puck every time some tanker says "I'm doing the best I can with a bad team" becuse there were Always usable free agents for cheap at the start of spring training. Since these teams Always have protected number 1 picks the most it is going to cost them is a #60+/- pick in the 2nd round to sign a type A. Since I have Never been in a league that good players were not available at the end of free agency/start of spring training I have to conclude that I have never been in a league without some relative tankers.

Why does anyone care what worlds other people join and/or the reason behind it? Using the "Let them rot" attitude should also apply to teams. If a world has let a team become a "scrap heap" team, let the world suffer by letting them sit when no one takes a "scrap heap project". They should have done a better job policing their world.

The problem with the "best I can" owners is that they paint themselves in a corner by cutting payroll to the bare minimum. They don't have the $$$ to pick up the scraps.

The problem with the "best I can" owners is that they paint themselves in a corner by cutting payroll to the bare minimum. They don't have the $$$ to pick up the scraps". -

I'll occasionally buy that argument from someone burdened with 100M+ payroll from a previous owner - but most of the "best I can" owners are transferring money from Payroll to Prospects to bid for international free agents. "Soft" tanking is the way to have the IFAs and good draft picks. Overt tanking and "soft" tanking ultimately have the same goal - load your minors with prospects to dominate later, meanwhile lose, lose, lose. Since there is no revenue/budget penalty for being consistently bad it is the "easy" way to build a team (no skill necessary except tricking the other owners into thinking you are not tanking). The "soft" tankers are being more devious about it than the overt tankers (and are often the most vocal about overt tankers) but they have the same goal and every league has them.

Ultimately the only weapon the league/commissioner has is to Yank the team from the chronically tanking owner just before it becomes good - and "waste" the tankers investment. Once a chronic tanking team is successful it will likely stay successful for many seasons. Dealing with the overt tankers is easy - they make themselves obvious - the chronic "soft" tankers are harder to spot.