You can't employ the 50 win/23m payroll "strategy" in MWR worlds.  That's why everyone doesn't do it.     But it works.   I'll bump a thread.

Bumped the Tanking 101 thread for you, yanks.   It works.

Initially in Keny Powers we had a soft anti-tanking policy. last season we implemented MWR. No comittee, no debate. I look at it this way. If a GM IRL loses 90-100 games ever y season, eventually they will be fired. I don't care about the reason for losing that many games. Maybe you really were trying and not intentionally tanking--I look at it more as a GM getting fired for not improving.

I like the MWR coupled with a salary cap. The WMR helps tanking, and the salary cap keeps FA prices down. With a $100M cap, one owner cant generally load ip on the top FA's. And eventually, if someone still manages to acquire tons of talent, they wont be able to afford them, and will have to move some of those guys.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.

I didn't say subjective.  I said the league needs to define clear evidence of tanking.  Which from my experience is quite clear.  Things like rookie league players at the ML level, Catchers playing CF, 0% pitchers, etc.  It is not hard to identify clear evidence of tanking.  By identifying these rules it will force owners to player at the very least mediocre players at the ML.  Meaning teams won't be losing 125 games each year.

Teams losing that many games already run afoul of WIS's bare minimum policy for fielding a competative team.  If that's your standard for tanking, then I can understand why you don't like MWR, but you're probably not going to get far around here.

From my Tanking 101 thread:

4.  During S1, make sure you've built the worst team possible.  You don't have to play fielders out of position or use pitchers of AA quality.   Other teams are trying to win so, if you have a team that can't score, you will lose.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
1.  I guess I was responding when you posted.  Yep, I'm the commish and I'll lose my team if I have "bad luck".   As per my previous post, I made a conscious decision.  
2.  Collecting high priced IFA and high draft picks isn't "rebuilding", it's tanking for the sure thing.
3.  If you know you have a win minimum, you adjust to it while rebuildling.  Plain and simple.
4.  There is a fine line.  But you should be competitive.  If you have a win minimum, you play for it.   If that means paying 6m to a FA instead of transferring 3m to prospect, you do it.
5.  I don't know about you but I don't want to play against an owner who can't average 70-92 over 4 seasons.   But I don't play Madden on easy either.  I want some competition.  I do SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the worlds I commish with 50/125/195/280 MWR.   I don't get smarter in my other worlds or dumber in the ones I commish.   The owners are either A) better or B) trying harder to win.
6.  No, I'm not wrong.  If an owner stays at the bottom in a MWR world, he is removed.  Worlds without a MWR can have the same last place teams season after season.  

1. Again, this is just stubborn foolishness.
2. How is going after the best player available tanking?  Again, tanking is the art of losing on purpose.  Doing everything you can to lose.  Rebuilding is the art of focusing resources on the future.  If my team wins 75 games while I am rebuilding so be it, if it wins 65 games while I am rebuiding no big deal.  I am in no way condoning losing on purpsose
3. Ok, the point being win minimums take away the focus of rebuilding
4. Competitive is a fine line is a 63 win team less competitive than a 68 win team.  You'll say yes.  I'll say the difference in wins could very well be things outside your control.  And the difference is negligible
5. That same owner, might have averaged 85 wins over 15 seasons, but had a 4 year run in which he average say 65 wins.  Does that make him a bad owner.  Short answer no.  Something I didn't address, using a small sample size to judge an owner.  Another reason why MWR doesn't work.
6. So can an MWR.  If the average win total is 70 wins, why can't a team just stay at the bottom in that league as well?  All they have to do is just fluctuate with a mediocre season every 4 years.  Most progressive MWRs don't go past 3-4 seasons, don't average much better than the 70 wins you mentioned.  There is a reason why teams in MWR and teams in non MWR, DO NOT stay at the bottom forever.  Cause committed owners want to win.  They are competitive and don't pa $25 a season to just be in last place.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.

I didn't say subjective.  I said the league needs to define clear evidence of tanking.  Which from my experience is quite clear.  Things like rookie league players at the ML level, Catchers playing CF, 0% pitchers, etc.  It is not hard to identify clear evidence of tanking.  By identifying these rules it will force owners to player at the very least mediocre players at the ML.  Meaning teams won't be losing 125 games each year.

Teams losing that many games already run afoul of WIS's bare minimum policy for fielding a competative team.  If that's your standard for tanking, then I can understand why you don't like MWR, but you're probably not going to get far around here.

I put 125 losses in there to exaggerate the point.  The point was tanking is clearly definable if you know what you are looking for.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
1.  I guess I was responding when you posted.  Yep, I'm the commish and I'll lose my team if I have "bad luck".   As per my previous post, I made a conscious decision.  
2.  Collecting high priced IFA and high draft picks isn't "rebuilding", it's tanking for the sure thing.
3.  If you know you have a win minimum, you adjust to it while rebuildling.  Plain and simple.
4.  There is a fine line.  But you should be competitive.  If you have a win minimum, you play for it.   If that means paying 6m to a FA instead of transferring 3m to prospect, you do it.
5.  I don't know about you but I don't want to play against an owner who can't average 70-92 over 4 seasons.   But I don't play Madden on easy either.  I want some competition.  I do SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the worlds I commish with 50/125/195/280 MWR.   I don't get smarter in my other worlds or dumber in the ones I commish.   The owners are either A) better or B) trying harder to win.
6.  No, I'm not wrong.  If an owner stays at the bottom in a MWR world, he is removed.  Worlds without a MWR can have the same last place teams season after season.  

1. Again, this is just stubborn foolishness.
2. How is going after the best player available tanking?  Again, tanking is the art of losing on purpose.  Doing everything you can to lose.  Rebuilding is the art of focusing resources on the future.  If my team wins 75 games while I am rebuilding so be it, if it wins 65 games while I am rebuiding no big deal.  I am in no way condoning losing on purpsose
3. Ok, the point being win minimums take away the focus of rebuilding
4. Competitive is a fine line is a 63 win team less competitive than a 68 win team.  You'll say yes.  I'll say the difference in wins could very well be things outside your control.  And the difference is negligible
5. That same owner, might have averaged 85 wins over 15 seasons, but had a 4 year run in which he average say 65 wins.  Does that make him a bad owner.  Short answer no.  Something I didn't address, using a small sample size to judge an owner.  Another reason why MWR doesn't work.
6. So can an MWR.  If the average win total is 70 wins, why can't a team just stay at the bottom in that league as well?  All they have to do is just fluctuate with a mediocre season every 4 years.  Most progressive MWRs don't go past 3-4 seasons, don't average much better than the 70 wins you mentioned.  There is a reason why teams in MWR and teams in non MWR, DO NOT stay at the bottom forever.  Cause committed owners want to win.  They are competitive and don't pa $25 a season to just be in last place.

No, but there are plenty who will pay that to be in last place for 4-5 seasons so they can be in first place for the next 10.  And they can easily do that without doing anything that you would qualify as tanking.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
From my Tanking 101 thread:

4.  During S1, make sure you've built the worst team possible.  You don't have to play fielders out of position or use pitchers of AA quality.   Other teams are trying to win so, if you have a team that can't score, you will lose.

This is not what I was saying to do.  If you clearly define what is tanking, then it will force teams to build a team that is relatively competitive.  If you use pitchers that are mediocre and position players that are mediocre you can very easily win 65 games.  I've won 80 games with a team I though probably would sniff 70 wins.  And I've done that multiple times.  Again, there is a fine line between tanking and playing to win in the future.  A very fine line.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:11:00 PM (view original):
1.  I guess I was responding when you posted.  Yep, I'm the commish and I'll lose my team if I have "bad luck".   As per my previous post, I made a conscious decision.  
2.  Collecting high priced IFA and high draft picks isn't "rebuilding", it's tanking for the sure thing.
3.  If you know you have a win minimum, you adjust to it while rebuildling.  Plain and simple.
4.  There is a fine line.  But you should be competitive.  If you have a win minimum, you play for it.   If that means paying 6m to a FA instead of transferring 3m to prospect, you do it.
5.  I don't know about you but I don't want to play against an owner who can't average 70-92 over 4 seasons.   But I don't play Madden on easy either.  I want some competition.  I do SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the worlds I commish with 50/125/195/280 MWR.   I don't get smarter in my other worlds or dumber in the ones I commish.   The owners are either A) better or B) trying harder to win.
6.  No, I'm not wrong.  If an owner stays at the bottom in a MWR world, he is removed.  Worlds without a MWR can have the same last place teams season after season.  

1. Again, this is just stubborn foolishness.
2. How is going after the best player available tanking?  Again, tanking is the art of losing on purpose.  Doing everything you can to lose.  Rebuilding is the art of focusing resources on the future.  If my team wins 75 games while I am rebuilding so be it, if it wins 65 games while I am rebuiding no big deal.  I am in no way condoning losing on purpsose
3. Ok, the point being win minimums take away the focus of rebuilding
4. Competitive is a fine line is a 63 win team less competitive than a 68 win team.  You'll say yes.  I'll say the difference in wins could very well be things outside your control.  And the difference is negligible
5. That same owner, might have averaged 85 wins over 15 seasons, but had a 4 year run in which he average say 65 wins.  Does that make him a bad owner.  Short answer no.  Something I didn't address, using a small sample size to judge an owner.  Another reason why MWR doesn't work.
6. So can an MWR.  If the average win total is 70 wins, why can't a team just stay at the bottom in that league as well?  All they have to do is just fluctuate with a mediocre season every 4 years.  Most progressive MWRs don't go past 3-4 seasons, don't average much better than the 70 wins you mentioned.  There is a reason why teams in MWR and teams in non MWR, DO NOT stay at the bottom forever.  Cause committed owners want to win.  They are competitive and don't pa $25 a season to just be in last place.

No, but there are plenty who will pay that to be in last place for 4-5 seasons so they can be in first place for the next 10.  And they can easily do that without doing anything that you would qualify as tanking.

How is that worse than being in the middle for 10 seasons?  This kind of thing happens in real life all the time.  The Rays are a prime example, the Nats are the next example.  Bottom line is in a game where there is a set budget, winning and losing is cyclical.

How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

1.  No, it's me making a decision and living with it.   No amount of "bad luck" will cost me my team.
2.  Every loss is a win for someone else.   That affects the entire world.   If you're not trying to win, regardless of your sitiation, you're trying to lose.  Avoid 108 losses isn't much to ask of an owner.
3.  No, it does not.  It just forces you to focus on winning some games.  I don't see how that's a bad thing.
4.  Every loss is a win for someone else.  That affects the entire world.    If you're not trying to win, regardless of your sitiation, you're trying to lose.  Avoid 108 losses isn't much to ask of an owner.   If you know your number, you make it.
5.  If an owner averaged 85 wins over 15 seasons and suddenly averages 97 losses for the next 4 seasons, something is amiss.   Bad owner, not necessarily.  Not competitive, absolutely.  
6.  Because every world has a limited number of wins/losses.    The same team can't win 62 every season.   Winning 70 every season would keep you in my worlds.  And you'd get 5th-6th pick every year while picks 1-4 go to different owners every season.    But don't have any "bad luck" because you might win 69.  And you're gone.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/12/2012 1:21:00 PM (view original):
From my Tanking 101 thread:

4.  During S1, make sure you've built the worst team possible.  You don't have to play fielders out of position or use pitchers of AA quality.   Other teams are trying to win so, if you have a team that can't score, you will lose.

This is not what I was saying to do.  If you clearly define what is tanking, then it will force teams to build a team that is relatively competitive.  If you use pitchers that are mediocre and position players that are mediocre you can very easily win 65 games.  I've won 80 games with a team I though probably would sniff 70 wins.  And I've done that multiple times.  Again, there is a fine line between tanking and playing to win in the future.  A very fine line.

What I suggested would not appear to be tanking.  It would just be a bad offense.   Clearly define tanking.   

And it's worse for the league if you've got a bunch of teams that aren't concerning themselves with winning now - it's skews everything.  It also really limits the options of those teams stuck in the middle.

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.