Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 12:07:00 PM (view original):
Nah, I won 55 in MLB/Erff last year by just not trying to do any optimization in-season and not doing any in-season signings to replace injured guys.  Yes, I could have won 60 easily, but why would/should I, and what's the real benefit of making someone do that?

I don't think you understand my supposed misunderstanding as well as you think you do, or at least that's my understanding.

OK.  With the understanding that we'd want a conservative estimation of tanking, I'd be good with a single season total of 55...or combined totals of 120.  But the real question is where we define the standard.  Is it, "what a team could reasonably be expected to win while doing nothing to harm their long-term outlook" or "what a team could reasonably be expected to win while miminally affecting their long-term outlook."  I'm saying that it should be the second...small price to pay for not having some of those Scottsdale teams kicking around.

If someone is actively getting better by acquiring top talent through whatever means they use, I won't judge. I can't ridicule someone who will probably beat my team down the line.

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by larry_jew on 7/27/2010 12:27:00 PM (view original):
50% of alcheez posts are "shutup moy" and both those shofers should get callin gout from sergei.  Let's boot them too.

That number has to be wrong.

37% - "shut up moy"
28% - Phillies talk
12% - nuzzling up to TM like that cat tracyr fingerfucked
9% - CBS comedies
8% - concurring with things people say about HBD
5% - new forum rankings
1% - bailing on SHoFer gatherings

Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 10:57:00 AM (view original):
I never thought of a formula, but I would think something like 2/3rds +/-, 1/6 FPCT and 1/6 CS%...  or something like that...  without looking too much into it.  There may be some additional data in the extended stats that would be a more effective in looking at it.  FPCT is not the answer though.

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):

If someone is actively getting better by acquiring top talent through whatever means they use, I won't judge. I can't ridicule someone who will probably beat my team down the line.

Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tisi29 on 7/27/2010 12:13:00 PM (view original):
I have fielded teams with no chance of winning a bunch of times.  I don't play players out of position, promote my best prospects to the majors, or sign anything better than the dregs of FA on one-year contracts.  My worst 6 seasons (with those requirements), in wins: 64, 64, 60, 50, 61, 59.
So it is possible to win less than 60.  But each of those teams was a playoff contender 2-3 years later.  So maybe it should be something like "if you win under 120 combined in 2 consecutive years, you must win 155 or make the playoffs in the next 2."

Makes sense.

Really, that seems to totally contradict your philosophy of making excuses for the most ****** of players?  Not surprisingly, I'd totally endorse it.

Posted by bret2775 on 7/27/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):
bot-  i dropped my payroll by $10mil from last season....increased my HS scouting by 4mil (maxed from last season) and should've dropped my Int'l budget to get the college scouting up, but didn't.  And really had I even split the difference and went to 17 in college and 18 in advanced, how big of a change would I have seen.  Becaue based on the draft collusion talks in here it doesn't look like there has ever been that big of a discrepancy between pre/post draft ratings.......I made an effort to improve these areas knowing I had those picks and yet there is still something wrong with that?????   Hell, hasn't the biggest ***** about my team over the past up-teen seasons been the lack of production/wins with an overinflated payroll on a team of scrubs?  So I go out and begin minimizing ridiuclous contracts and getting many of my prospects up (gratned players still not up to "acceptable coach" standards but well enough to keep my payroll down for long enough to build through the draft and maybe some trades here and there.  If there is a 2nd manifesot to read than I am all for it, but in the mean time, pick one area to ***** about regarding my team and stick to it.

Posted by bret2775 on 7/27/2010 12:44:00 PM (view original):
bot-  i dropped my payroll by $10mil from last season....increased my HS scouting by 4mil (maxed from last season) and should've dropped my Int'l budget to get the college scouting up, but didn't.  And really had I even split the difference and went to 17 in college and 18 in advanced, how big of a change would I have seen.  Becaue based on the draft collusion talks in here it doesn't look like there has ever been that big of a discrepancy between pre/post draft ratings.......I made an effort to improve these areas knowing I had those picks and yet there is still something wrong with that?????   Hell, hasn't the biggest ***** about my team over the past up-teen seasons been the lack of production/wins with an overinflated payroll on a team of scrubs?  So I go out and begin minimizing ridiuclous contracts and getting many of my prospects up (gratned players still not up to "acceptable coach" standards but well enough to keep my payroll down for long enough to build through the draft and maybe some trades here and there.  If there is a 2nd manifesot to read than I am all for it, but in the mean time, pick one area to ***** about regarding my team and stick to it.

I hadn't looked at your year to year budgetting in regards to high school scouting. That's at least progress. Do what you want with budgeting, but if I had that high of a pick I'd want to make sure I was getting the best possible player. I'm sure you know from experience what it's like picking an inferior player above someone who went on to win many awards...

You have a strategy, keep up with it. And way to stand behind it.

This is why ridiculing needs to be employed.

Posted by larry_jew on 7/27/2010 12:18:00 PM (view original):
tm should be kicked out of $.  He tries really hard, and is all careful with trades, but still sucks a fat ****.  Something doesn't add up.  And then he goes and tries to sneak his garbage closers in the HOF.  Personally I've had enough.

Posted by AceCards on 7/27/2010 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by larry_jew on 7/27/2010 12:27:00 PM (view original):
50% of alcheez posts are "shutup moy" and both those shofers should get callin gout from sergei.  Let's boot them too.

That number has to be wrong.

37% - "shut up moy"
28% - Phillies talk
12% - nuzzling up to TM like that cat tracyr fingerfucked
9% - CBS comedies
8% - concurring with things people say about HBD
5% - new forum rankings
1% - bailing on SHoFer gatherings

you forgot that 15% of his posts call Bret an idiot

Posted by AceCards on 7/27/2010 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by r0b0t on 7/27/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by larry_jew on 7/27/2010 12:27:00 PM (view original):
50% of alcheez posts are "shutup moy" and both those shofers should get callin gout from sergei.  Let's boot them too.

That number has to be wrong.

37% - "shut up moy"
28% - Phillies talk
12% - nuzzling up to TM like that cat tracyr fingerfucked
9% - CBS comedies
8% - concurring with things people say about HBD
5% - new forum rankings
1% - bailing on SHoFer gatherings

you forgot that 15% of his posts call Bret an idiot

Posted by larry_jew on 7/27/2010 12:21:00 PM (view original):

forfuckssake, he just listed a pitcher with 37 control in the world chat as a trade asset.

boot him.