The biggest problem are the teams that go 30-132, keep their young players in the minors to save on their years of service. The added power given to the commissioners will stop that from ever happening, if the world gives a crap.

Im against changing the draft to try and stop the subtle tankers that may see an opportunity to gain a couple spots in the draft. Doing this REALLY hurts the teams that legitmately suck and should have the top picks.

gotcha travis. I still wasnt accounting for the 2nd round loss of pick.

I'm not buying that only the 30 win tankers are a problem. The team that tanks for the first pick is a problem. The team that tanks for the 2nd pick is a problem. The team that tanks for the 10th pick is a problem.

Example. An owner fell out of contention. He dropped 18 straight while using 0(0) RP in virtually every game. He(or the new owner) will get the 7th pick. Had he gone 7-11 in those 18, he'd have gotten 9th pick. No big deal, right? Wrong. Those games were lost to someone. One of those teams swept him in a 4 game set. He beat another owner for the WC by 1 game despite being swept in the next to last series by the owner who lost the WC(and who had the tie-breaker). So those two draft slots kept an owner out of the playoffs. Maybe he wins the WS if he makes it.

Tanking is a problem. Period.

The thing about tanking is that the reward just isn't as great as people assume it would be, because people have different projections, value different things, etc.

For instance in No Quitters, this past draft:
My #1 guy went #2 overall
My #2 guy went #11
My #3 guy went #8
My #4 guy went #24 (wtf?)
My #5 guy went #22

I picked my #6 and 7 guys at 26 and 27 respectively.

Now, I have a HS Scouting budget of 0. So things are going to be a little different for people who are also seeing hs players. But really, there was no difference between me drafting 2nd or 11th, because I would draft the same guy at either spot. There was no difference between me drafting 4th or 24th, because I would have drafted the same guy at either spot.

Tanking is dumb because it makes the league less enjoyable. Tanking is also dumb because it doesn't really make a huge difference unless you are doing it on a grand scale, over several seasons.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/15/2010Example.  An owner fell out of contention. He dropped 18 straight while using 0(0) RP in virtually every game.   He(or the new owner) will get the 7th pick.  Had he gone 7-11 in those 18, he'd have gotten 9th pick.   No big deal, right?  Wrong.  Those games were lost to someone.  One of those teams swept him in a 4 game set.  He beat another owner for the WC by 1 game despite being swept in the next to last series by the owner who lost the WC(and who had the tie-breaker).   So those two draft slots kept an owner out of the playoffs.   Maybe he wins the WS if he makes it.Tanking is a problem.  Period.

Yeah, that's more along the lines of what I was trying to get at. Tanking isn't a problem because it creates super-teams, because the difference between picking #1 and picking #5 really isn't all that great. Trade rape is probably a bigger factor in creating super-teams and because it is also usually done by smarter owners whose teams are already good.

Tanking is a problem because it can potentially upset the fairness for other teams who get to play against the tanker and those who don't.

I think this is where people lose sight of the problem. I'll just call if "failure to give best effort under the circumstances."

I don't blame playoff teams for benching their starters when their seed is set. That doesn't mean they should sign TC pitchers to throw the last series because they'd rather their current opponent make the playoffs than another team. The result might be the same, the effort is not.

I don't blame non-playoff teams for benching long-term signees down the stretch. You don't want to ruin your future with an injury bomb to your best players who have 3 years . That doesn't mean you should be playing AA fodder who will never make the Bigs. Again, it's about the effort to win.

The scenarios change but making no effort to win is different than losing because you just weren't good enough.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/15/2010
I'm not buying that only the 30 win tankers are a problem. The team that tanks for the first pick is a problem. The team that tanks for the 2nd pick is a problem. The team that tanks for the 10th pick is a problem.

Example. An owner fell out of contention. He dropped 18 straight while using 0(0) RP in virtually every game. He(or the new owner) will get the 7th pick. Had he gone 7-11 in those 18, he'd have gotten 9th pick. No big deal, right? Wrong. Those games were lost to someone. One of those teams swept him in a 4 game set. He beat another owner for the WC by 1 game despite being swept in the next to last series by the owner who lost the WC(and who had the tie-breaker). So those two draft slots kept an owner out of the playoffs. Maybe he wins the WS if he makes it.

Tanking is a problem. Period.

If he was tanking-if he knows ahead of time that doing so will get him booted, he wouldnt tank--or not to the extreme.

If he just didnt care and didnt check the team, changing draft order, lottery, whatever wouldnt do a thing.

League policy and willingness to boot tankers (and WIS obliging) is sufficient to prevent tanking without making a crazy *** convoluted draft order solution.

No it isn't. I'm sure he was very aware that I'd attempt to have him removed(he voluntarily). But, he could have lost 18 games intentionally out of 25 without 0(0) pitching and without attracting attention. The result would have been the same if he dropped 4 in a row to one owner.

Then so be it.

To take the topic a little off the track..

The NFL is ok with it. Its worse in the opposite direction (or more obvious). Indy's tanking has cost many team's playoff chances. The NFL says they earned the right to rest their players, and that the teams on the fence should be better so they dont have to worry about the other teams.

Obviously, Im anti-tanking. But I am against re-vamping the draft in a way that greatly affects every single world to solve a problem, that (once you take away the obvious cases--where you can remove the owners) as far as I can tell, is not as huge an issue as you are playing it up to me.

Again, if no one notices it out of 31 other owners, its probably not that big of an issue.

One might believe that 31 other owners are tending to their teams. We don't have Chris Berman saying "dmurph hasn't played 7 of his starters for the last 6 games. What is he doing?" No one is going to notice that you're 1-5 in those 6 games. That doesn't mean those games aren't important because you're going to finish with 71 wins.

Again, the 30-132 team is obvious. The L18 is obvious. The 4-14 team with 66 wins is not. But it can be just as damaging.

we could just keep copying and pasting our posts when we debate. Will save time.

No, not all 31 other owners are tending to their teams--particularly at the end of the season. But the owner that is fighting for the playoffs surely is, and if someones tanking against his rival, he presumably would notice that. If that owner doesnt notice or care enough, then its not an issue worth blowing up the draft order for.

Not if it's done at games 123-129. No one cares then.

good. if no one cares, we dont need to blow up the draft.

My specialty on WIS is Hoops Dynasty.

Just this year I decided to give Hardball Dynasty a try...and I admit that I am not very good at it. I understand there is a learning curve for such a complex game, but my personal learning curve may be lengthy. I learn from my errors but some (bad FA signing, poor draft evaluation, etc) can have a profound negative result for seasons to come.

It's concerning to me about the tanking/non competitive removal discussions that have been circulating on the HBD forums. I never tank my teams and I try as best as I can to draft, develop, promote, budget, etc...however, based on my season records, I could see many owners in leagues I am in could perceive that I may be trying to "play" the system. I am not purposely finishing 60-102 every year. Unfortunately, that is the extent of my knowledge of this game at the moment.

I trust you experienced and successful HBD coaches realize that not all of us who end up habitually with bad records are purposely tanking and are trying our best to learn an extremely difficult game. My personal integrity would never stomach losing on purpose. I hope I am given the time to learn before having the plug pulled.

Take care, everyone.

this is whats of concern. I dont think anyone would look to get rid of you if you are putting forth an honest effort.

Wrigleyville	SF Wee Wee Kickapoos	1	$26.4M	36-126 (.222)	4	-
Wrigleyville	SF Wee Wee Kickapoos	2	$19.1M	29-133 (.179)	4	-
Wrigleyville	SF Wee Wee Kickapoos	3	$23.8M	83-79 (.512)	3	-
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	4	$40.6M	105-57 (.648)	1	-
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	5	$49.5M	115-47 (.710)	1	X
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	6	$70.1M	119-43 (.735)	1	X
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	7	$78.7M	126-36 (.778)	1	-
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	8	$91.3M	119-43 (.735)	1	-
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	9	$95.5M	117-45 (.722)	1	-
Wrigleyville	SF Kickapoos	10	-	46-18 (.719)	-	-
Duff Beer	SF Oogle Birds	1	$25.2M	55-107 (.340)	3	-
Wailing Onions	SF Slingers	1	$34.6M	53-109 (.327)	3	-
Wailing Onions	SF Slingers	2	$21.4M	37-125 (.228)	4	-
Wailing Onions	SF Slingers	3	$16.8M	52-110 (.321)	4	-
Wailing Onions	SF Slingers	4	$16.1M	62-100 (.383)	3	-
Wailing Onions	SF Slingers	5	$27.0M	79-83 (.488)	3	-
Wailing Onions	SF Oogle Birds	6	$22.5M	92-70 (.568)	2	-
Wailing Onions	SF Oogle Birds	7	$43.2M	102-60 (.630)	2	-
Wailing Onions	SF Oogle Birds	8	$62.4M	112-50 (.691)	2	X
Wailing Onions	SF Oogle Birds	9	-	118-44 (.728)	1	-
BIG LEAGUE	TAC Bee Ball	1	$23.1M	44-118 (.272)	4	-
BIG LEAGUE	TAC Bee Ball	2	$28.9M	39-123 (.241)	4	-
BIG LEAGUE	TAC Bee Ball	3	$18.8M	51-111 (.315)	4	-
BIG LEAGUE	TAC Bee Ball	4	$16.8M	54-108 (.333)	4	-
BIG LEAGUE	TAC Bee Ball	5	$30.9M	84-78 (.519)	2	-
BIG LEAGUE	OAK Bee Ball	6	$15.0M	106-56 (.654)	1	-
BIG LEAGUE	OAK Bee Ball	7	-	84-45 (.651)	-	-

Check out the player payroll for season 6.