Tanking Rule Change -- Feedback Wanted Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by caesari on 11/5/2011 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tufft on 11/5/2011 7:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I wasn't arguing.  I simply said I didn't read everything you wrote.  Brevity is key.

I don't care about borderline cases, random events or subjective exceptions.   Under my rules, I don't make decisions, nor do the other owners, on who gets to return.   You either reach the MWR or you don't.    That's why I have no issue with a program.   Don't make it  prom queen vote where the cheerleader wins, make it black and white.
Then that can be the rule in your world.

No need to pay a computer programmer to enforce it.
I second this. Mike is advocating a hard-line, no grace rule that I think overlooks the need for some human interpretation. In strenuous circumstances, should a longtime, reputed owner really be kicked out of a league based on something outside his control, especially if he can correct it by the next season?
How are you not in control of your own team?   

After 21 seasons, two owners left MG before S22 due to failure to reach the MWR.   I don't think they liked it, I know I didn't like seeing them go, but they knew what they signed up for.    If you start letting people who "really tried" but failed to stay because they were "longtime, reputed owners", it becomes a popularity contest.  Owner that is prickly and disagreeable is removed while Joe Friendly stays despite having the same record.
11/6/2011 6:23 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/6/2011 6:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 11/5/2011 7:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tufft on 11/5/2011 7:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2011 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I wasn't arguing.  I simply said I didn't read everything you wrote.  Brevity is key.

I don't care about borderline cases, random events or subjective exceptions.   Under my rules, I don't make decisions, nor do the other owners, on who gets to return.   You either reach the MWR or you don't.    That's why I have no issue with a program.   Don't make it  prom queen vote where the cheerleader wins, make it black and white.
Then that can be the rule in your world.

No need to pay a computer programmer to enforce it.
I second this. Mike is advocating a hard-line, no grace rule that I think overlooks the need for some human interpretation. In strenuous circumstances, should a longtime, reputed owner really be kicked out of a league based on something outside his control, especially if he can correct it by the next season?
How are you not in control of your own team?   

After 21 seasons, two owners left MG before S22 due to failure to reach the MWR.   I don't think they liked it, I know I didn't like seeing them go, but they knew what they signed up for.    If you start letting people who "really tried" but failed to stay because they were "longtime, reputed owners", it becomes a popularity contest.  Owner that is prickly and disagreeable is removed while Joe Friendly stays despite having the same record.
+1

When Mantle adopted a MWR, a number of folks wanted to put in some sort of "committee" to decide if somebody should stay or go if they failed to meet the requirement.  As commish, I insisted that it was going to be (and is) a "black and white" thing, for exactly the reasons Mike notes above.
11/6/2011 7:12 AM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 55 144 14
Prospect
I can totally agree with that, but I think at the same time certain situations call for special accommodations, and therefore I don't think that a computer program, or hard line rule, is necessarily the best way to do it.

Right now Diamondbacks is in the middle of this exact discussion as to how to do the minimum win rule. I firmly believe we need a committee that can overrule the ejection of someone, because that best fits the world and it's laid back feel. A universal rule could be detrimental to some private worlds.
11/6/2011 9:07 AM
philogenemay
Posts: 475 (0)
All Star
24 10
Prospect
If by detrimental, you mean consistent and fairly implemented, then yes it certainly could be.
11/6/2011 9:32 AM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 55 144 14
Prospect
Posted by philogenemay on 11/6/2011 9:32:00 AM (view original):
If by detrimental, you mean consistent and fairly implemented, then yes it certainly could be.
I mean that it could upset the ways some worlds work. I just don't agree that it should be universally applied.
11/6/2011 9:58 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

That's fine.  Just remember the prettiest cheerleader will never get booted and a chunky math major with a distaste for socialization will.    That's what happens when it becomes a popularity contest.

11/6/2011 10:10 AM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
I think people are confusing where the popularity contest happens.

MWR = black and white. It motivates owners to field a competitive team. Think of it as "the general public" in MLB, where if you throw up 3 seasons of 48 win ball, you will draw 6000 people a game.

"He's a really good guy" occurs the season after, when he reapplies for a team. Then you let him back in.
11/6/2011 10:42 AM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 55 144 14
Prospect
But you're missing my point. If I haven't made it clear, I apologize. This isn't a "vote on everyone who doesn't meet the requirements" deal, it's about overturning rulings in certain circumstances that warrant them. It's not about the popularity of the player.

Of course, you may still disagree. That's fine. There is more than one way to stuff a cat. I just firmly disagree with the idea that there is a solve all program code that could deal with each and every situation.
11/6/2011 1:58 PM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
I only skimmed through this thread, but apparently there's a chunky math major who stuffs cats? Gross...
11/6/2011 2:02 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
Posted by caesari on 11/6/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
But you're missing my point. If I haven't made it clear, I apologize. This isn't a "vote on everyone who doesn't meet the requirements" deal, it's about overturning rulings in certain circumstances that warrant them. It's not about the popularity of the player.

Of course, you may still disagree. That's fine. There is more than one way to stuff a cat. I just firmly disagree with the idea that there is a solve all program code that could deal with each and every situation.
We're not missing your point, we're saying that there isn't a circumstance that exists.

You probably gave up your team or don't care if you get it back in those circumstances, or welcome back next season!
11/6/2011 2:37 PM
caesari
Posts: 4817 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 55 144 14
Prospect
Posted by deathinahole on 11/6/2011 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 11/6/2011 1:58:00 PM (view original):
But you're missing my point. If I haven't made it clear, I apologize. This isn't a "vote on everyone who doesn't meet the requirements" deal, it's about overturning rulings in certain circumstances that warrant them. It's not about the popularity of the player.

Of course, you may still disagree. That's fine. There is more than one way to stuff a cat. I just firmly disagree with the idea that there is a solve all program code that could deal with each and every situation.
We're not missing your point, we're saying that there isn't a circumstance that exists.

You probably gave up your team or don't care if you get it back in those circumstances, or welcome back next season!
I'd say that is accurate 90% of the time, but I will concede the point. 
11/6/2011 2:43 PM
prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (1)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
My apologies if this has been suggested already (I didn't want to have to read through 6 pages of posts) but as a response to the original post, what about a mechanism that makes payrolls somewhat similar to real life by adjusting them based on team performance? I'm not saying make it so the worst teams have a $30 million budget and the best teams are at $200m, but maybe if you've lost more than 100 games multiple years in a row, the "fans" lose interest and you lose 10 or 15 million dollars until you're able to string together a couple decent seasons and win the fans back. Similarly, if you win a championship or string together a couple 100-win seasons or a few division titles, maybe you get a bonus of 10 or 15 million dollars due to increased national fan attention.

This would deter tanking to some extent and would also reward owners who have built dynasties and had real successes in the game. I also think the deterrent is mild enough so that it won't kill anybody but more severe than the prospect budget transfer penalty, which I think is a good balance (I think the prospect budget transfer penalty could potentially be added on top of this as well). Thoughts?
11/6/2011 2:50 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Making the rich richer isn't a good way to maintain a world. 
11/6/2011 3:20 PM
kahrtmen
Posts: 307 (0)
Hall of Famer
6 1 78
Prospect
Yeah, that would just lead to owners abandoning teams and then commishes being unable to find replacement owners to come in and run a bad team with only a 150m salary cap.
11/6/2011 4:15 PM
gregsimon
Posts: 229 (0)
Hall of Famer
83 5 18
Prospect
Cause I'm a numbers freak, I did a bit of research and found that since the 162 game season began 50 yrs ago, there has only been ONE instance of a manager being allowed to stay after failing to meet the MWR proposed by Mike (55/125/195/280)

This does not include teams starting out from scratch:
WASH Senators 1961-62
NY Mets 1962-65
MON Expos 1969
SD Padres 1969-71
SEA Mariners 1977-78

Tom Kelly Minnesota Twins 1997-2000 (68/70/63/69) or (68/138/201/270)

In 2001 he went 85-77, then resigned, citing burnout.

I know nobody will care, but I thought it showed pretty well how those RL managers failing to meet that requirement were all fired, with the one exception.
11/17/2011 6:33 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7 Next ▸
Tanking Rule Change -- Feedback Wanted Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.