Anti-Tanking Ideas Topic

silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Here are some anti-tanking ideas that I think, with probably a fair amount of work, be incorporated into the sim-engine:

1. When an owner transfers more than a certain amount of money to prospects from player payroll, all players in the entire org take a ratings hit. (This would be akin to playing for a team that refuses to compete and the players in the org realizing that their org is not "in it to win it"). The more that is transferred, the bigger the hit.

2. When an owner allows pitchers below a designated fatigue level to continue to start games, the remaining players will take ratings hits.

3. When an owner plays a player out of position for x number of games, the player takes a ratings hit.

There could be others, but I would call these basically a "morale modifiers". This morale modifier would also directly affect the willingness of anyone to negotiate with the franchise.

I'm just thinking there may be some more ways to prevent obvious tanking than having these ridiculous loopholes in the 'fair play guidelins'.

When tanking has legitimate costs associated, owners might think twice about how to go about building for the future.

Right now, the only penalties in the engine are budgetary and deal with transfers. The morale modifier would penalize those actions that are clearly intended to increase draft position or intentionally lose games.
4/9/2010 10:40 AM
hurricane384
Posts: 23 (0)
Hall of Famer
38 26 97
Prospect
While I can't get on board with 1 or 2...I kind of like 3 tho.
4/9/2010 10:46 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 4/09/2010
Here are some anti-tanking ideas that I think, with probably a fair amount of work, be incorporated into the sim-engine:

1. When an owner transfers more than a certain amount of money to prospects from player payroll, all players in the entire org take a ratings hit. (This would be akin to playing for a team that refuses to compete and the players in the org realizing that their org is not "in it to win it"). The more that is transferred, the bigger the hit.

No. Then the random dude who comes in with the intent of blowing up a league has an easier way to do it.

2. When an owner allows pitchers below a designated fatigue level to continue to start games, the remaining players will take ratings hits.

No. Then the random dude who comes in with the intent of blowing up a league has an easier way to do it.

3. When an owner plays a player out of position for x number of games, the player takes a ratings hit.

sounds ok, but should only relate to fielding

There could be others, but I would call these basically a "morale modifiers". This morale modifier would also directly affect the willingness of anyone to negotiate with the franchise.

I'm just thinking there may be some more ways to prevent obvious tanking than having these ridiculous loopholes in the 'fair play guidelins'.

When tanking has legitimate costs associated, owners might think twice about how to go about building for the future.

Right now, the only penalties in the engine are budgetary and deal with transfers. The morale modifier would penalize those actions that are clearly intended to increase draft position or intentionally lose games.

4/9/2010 10:46 AM
prezuiwf
Posts: 315 (0)
All Star
15 3 27
Prospect
Your intentions seem noble, but all 3 of these seem like disastrous ideas. For one thing, #1 and #3 could easily apply to teams that are very good. You've never seen a team with a $50 million payroll handily win a division and still have money to burn on IFA's? Plus #3 is ridiculously easy to get around, you just change a player's position. And as for #2, usually the only time pitchers below fatigue levels start is when an owner goes AWOL which usually precedes him being replaced anyway. Now you're going to tell replacement owners they have to deal with a team that's had their ratings decimated by the last owner? That sort of goes for all 3, actually.

The best way to combat tankers is to have good comissioners.



Edit: I'm surprised anyone is on board with #3. Maybe it doesn't make sense to play a 1B at SS, but you've really never seen a LF get put into RF and do a decent job? Hell, I currently start a SS at 2B, would I get a hit for that too?
4/9/2010 10:47 AM
silentpadna
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
148
Prospect
Good counters, obviously. Regarding 'out of position', I'm talking about a guy that's going to commit 100 errors a season, not what you're talking about. Proabably hard to code, but not impossible.

The engine can take into account how the team performs relative to their payroll. We've all seen teams whose players underperform when ownership refuses to compete. We're playing games where everything depends on ratings. The human aspects of a player include things like how ownership treats them, what their focus is, etc. should influence a player's ability to perform. Any fortune 500 org performs best with a top-down philosophy. Why do teams like the Red Sox always have great prospects? I would submit that it has to do with scouting, but also with organizational philosophy.

Anyhow, good counters guys. I obviously wouldn't want to make things worse - just thinking out loud.
4/9/2010 10:58 AM
WiredTiger
Posts: 503 (0)
Hall of Famer
10 43 18 209 11
Prospect
draft lottery. All teams that don't make the playoffs go into draw for the draft picks the following year.

Cap on the amount of money you can pay an Intl FA. After the max is reached then it goes to tie-breakers.
4/9/2010 11:00 AM
gumbercules
Posts: 1619 (0)
Hall of Famer
68 11 1 55
Prospect
I'm not a computer guy, but I don't think it would be hard to code. If a player's defensive ratings is a certain level below the average for that position (as posted on the roster management screen when you click on a player's defensive position), he takes a hit by playing there.

The best way to combat tanking was the commisioner. Up until yesterday.

4/9/2010 11:05 AM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
I didn't really like any of the suggestions silentpadna. Hard to fill a team when an owner has ruined ratings of players through bad management. Under your suggestions, an owner could come in do some bad things, have his players take all kinds of ratings hits and then just leave.

I like caps on IFA bonuses/prospect budgeting. Im tired of seeing teams budget $80M for player payroll, while only paying say 40M. They let their own FAs walk, don't bother to sign any FAs before the season starts and during the season transfer over that balance they are carrying (40M which transfers to 20M). They then just blow cash on IFAs. Oh yeah, they are only winning 30-something games per season.

I would prefer they change the Type A compensation assignment. Current system only favors tanking.

Minimum of 41 games a season is way too low, private or public league. Even in the example that WIS gave in the Fairplay Guidelines, they think 50 wins is pretty easy to accomplish.

There should be some kind of way to limit cash transfers in trades. MLB doesn't allow buying/selling players and doesn't allow salary dumps. Should be an easy enough fix to not allow cash involved in trades to exceed say 10-20% of salary costs.



Would be some good starts

4/9/2010 11:15 AM
brewsbrother
Posts: 18 (0)
Hall of Famer
47 16 134
Prospect
The answer is simple. Don't allow tankers to reap the benefits of their actions.
4/9/2010 11:22 AM
dmurphy104
Posts: 2299 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 137 12 101
Prospect
They need to be removed swiftly. To allow them to tank for 4 seasons, and remove them right before they hit paydirt would be bad form.
4/9/2010 11:23 AM
skipdawg
Posts: 6 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
I'm in my first season, NoQuitters. Now as a complete newb I'm learning more each day. So some of the things that I do are from just not being seasoned enough to know better, but at 24-40something I don't feel like I'm tanking. I don't do anything except try and put out a team that can play. I'm making mistakes. I've done #1 on this list, because it seemed like I wouldn't have enough to pay my draftees, but I ended up not needing to do it. Does that mean I should have a penalty against me?
4/9/2010 11:31 AM
brewsbrother
Posts: 18 (0)
Hall of Famer
47 16 134
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By skipdawg on 4/09/2010I'm in my first season, NoQuitters. Now as a complete newb I'm learning more each day. So some of the things that I do are from just not being seasoned enough to know better, but at 24-40something I don't feel like I'm tanking. I don't do anything except try and put out a team that can play. I'm making mistakes. I've done #1 on this list, because it seemed like I wouldn't have enough to pay my draftees, but I ended up not needing to do it. Does that mean I should have a penalty against me?
If the world is private, it should be to the comish and the rest of the league to decide.
4/9/2010 11:38 AM
ucfknights37
Posts: 0 (0)
Pro
14
Prospect
How about if owner does these things franchise takes budget hit? Keeping budgets the same while owners do this is what allows them to buy, draft, and rebuild quickly.

Would fans continue to watch, buy merchandise, would teams get TV rights, etc if they were consistent losers? No. So having the same budget as the WS winner is wrong.
4/9/2010 11:44 AM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
All of these ideas are dumb. The only measure of tanking that you need to see is wins. If somebody is losing a lot of games, then you look to see:

a.) Are they tanking?
b.) Are they a new owner who's still learning?

It's not that complicated. These ideas are bad because they will wreck a franchise way more than tanking could.

I think blindly putting a cap on transfers or IFA fees is silly. If somebody has 30M in prospects and only won 50 games, then that's tanking. But if somebody has 30M in prospects and is a playoff contender, then that could just be excellent budgeting. Or maybe they were intending to bid on a top FA and he went for 18M when they only had 15 to spend. They can fill that spot with 2-3M and have 12M to transfer. Why waste the extra?

I just think they should put the standard for winning higher. Lose 113 games in one season and you're done. Lose 216 in two seasons and you're done. Lose 300 in three seasons and you're done. That would solve all of the most ridiculous forms of tanking.
4/9/2010 11:58 AM
jtrinsey
Posts: 237 (0)
All Star
1 4 2 30
Rookie
Quote: Originally posted by ucfknights37 on 4/09/2010How about if owner does these things franchise takes budget hit?  Keeping budgets the same while owners do this is what allows them to buy, draft, and rebuild quickly.Would fans continue to watch, buy merchandise, would teams get TV rights, etc if they were consistent losers?  No.  So having the same budget as the WS winner is wrong.

No, because that has the potential to hurt the league long-term. The tanking owners should be penalized (by being booted out of the league), but no sanctions should be imposes that would hurt the franchise, because it will be that much harder to recruit a new owner.
4/9/2010 11:59 AM
1|2|3...8 Next ▸
Anti-Tanking Ideas 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.