Thank you...but even an honest effort could get you removed for non-competitiveness.

Actually people do care if a tanker costs them a playoff spot. They're just not following the box scores for every team between games 123-129 to make sure no one is. Of course, you knew this but have chosen a contrarian stance.

Remove the incentive to finish with a bottom 9 record and people will attempt to finish with the 10th worst record. While this may not solve the problem, you'll see see less teams with 58 wins who pick first. Most likely, you'd create a logjam at 72-90 but, at that point, I think owners will stop fiddlefarting around with tanking and just try to win. After all, it's a lot of work to figure out what 7 other teams are doing at 72-88 and how the tie-breaker scenario would play out.

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/15/2010
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.

The owner in question is also the commissioner of two of those worlds.

That's one of the reasons why I one of his worlds. Most of the other owners not only condoned his behavior, they pretty much endorsed it and even congratulated him on his future success.

I (quietly) when it was clear that I didn't fit that world's general philosophy.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/15/2010
Actually people do care if a tanker costs them a playoff spot. They're just not following the box scores for every team between games 123-129 to make sure no one is. Of course, you knew this but have chosen a contrarian stance.

Remove the incentive to finish with a bottom 9 record and people will attempt to finish with the 10th worst record. While this may not solve the problem, you'll see see less teams with 58 wins who pick first. Most likely, you'd create a logjam at 72-90 but, at that point, I think owners will stop fiddlefarting around with tanking and just try to win. After all, it's a lot of work to figure out what 7 other teams are doing at 72-88 and how the tie-breaker scenario would play out.

I agree that any league would benefit stopping tanking of any extent. But, I dont see the mini-tanking as widespread as you do. And I certainly dont see it warrants an upheaval of the draft process which will hurt the teams the draft should be helping the most.

If anything, if a new player stumbles on this thread, they will be thinking that tanking provides a huge advantage given the attention we're all giving the situation.

I am kinda committed to the Majors since starting the new world--I am committed to not leaving my existing worlds.

I think tanking works. You were kind enough to post a fine example of it.

Quote: Originally Posted By jtrinsey on 4/15/2010The 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

Actually, with the 2nd pick you'd have gotten your #1 guy, so there is a difference between picks 2 and 11. And with picks 3-8 you'd have gotten your #3 guy instead of #4, so there is a difference between 4th and 24th. But I do get the overall point, and mostly agree with it.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/15/2010
I think tanking works. You were kind enough to post a fine example of it.

yeah. and that situation is the kind that absolutely can be stopped if a world cares just a little bit.

Its the less obvious tanking we differ on.

4-5 consecutive top 5 picks with payrolls around 30m who win 55 is the same thing as the team that does the same thing but wins 30.

Tanking exists in the MLB... their HAS to be a winner and a loser. Some teams will rarely "be competitive" for various reasons... The problem come when their is not even a reasonable attempt at winning 54 games.

Some stats from MLB:

Since MLB went to a 162 game season (1961 in the AL, 1962 in the NL), there have been only 15 teams that have won 54 or less games in a non-strike season. Eight of those teams have been expansion teams within their first 4 seasons of existance. Two of the remaining 7 won exactly 54 games, but had either one or two rainouts that were never made up. That leaves only five legitimate sub-55 game winners in nearly 50 years of MLB.

Yet some people don't blink or think anything is wrong when they see a 29 or 37 game winner in HBD.

It's called "rebuilding".

Both worlds I commish have instituted 4 year win minimums. 55/125/195/280. In any consecutive season, you have to achieve those minimums. Not sure if it will stop tanking but no one will be able to run 3 consecutive 60 win teams out there. And, if you play for the minimums, it's 55, 70, 70, 85, so you can get caught with an major injury. And, with 70 wins, you probably won't get a top 5 pick.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/16/2010Both worlds I commish have instituted 4 year win minimums. 55/125/195/280. In any consecutive season, you have to achieve those minimums. Not sure if it will stop tanking but no one will be able to run 3 consecutive 60 win teams out there. And, if you play for the minimums, it's 55, 70, 70, 85, so you can get caught with an major injury. And, with 70 wins, you probably won't get a top 5 pick.

This is a strong +1. Things happen in a single season. But by the 3-4 season mark, "rebuilding" becomes a euphamism for "being generally bad", I think. That's generally true for fans as well. New coaches generally get some honeymoon. Then fans expect results, usually by season 3 and 4. Few coaches are ever fired without getting 3 seasons.