Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by opie100 on 3/12/2012 1:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 1:30:00 PM (view original):
How many people lost their jobs with the Nats and Rays while they were losing?

Nats never won fewer than 59 games.  Rays won 55 once - rest of seasons won at least 61.

MWR makes this game more realistic.

Right - they weren't as bad as a lot of "rebuilding" HBD teams get, and I'm still sure both went through multiple GM and manager changes in the interim.

There's several other differences between HBD and real life here.  The draft is a completely different ball game in real life - you can lose forever and never really reload - see Pittsburgh.   In HBD, unless you're a complete moron, if you're pulling in top 5 picks every year and having big money in IFA, you're going to get a ton of top flight talent over a 4-5 year stretch.  Also, prolonged losing in real life leads to ramifications in your available resources because revenues drop.  In HBD, if you aren't investing in your ML team, you get the same 180 million as everyone else and have lots to push over for IFAs.

Again, this is just false.  It makes logical sense but it is false.

yes, the draft is different.  I've mentioned that but.  In real life teams with top picks usually have better farms systems, its how the rays became a good team.  Pittsburgh remained bad cause they were morons.  Not because of the complete randomness of amatuers in real life.  For a long time they just didn't spend the money necessary on the draft to ever become good.  Recently that has changed and if you study real life minor leagues, they are a team that is on the rise.

And again prolonged losing in real life baseball does not gurantee hurting your pocket.  Some of the most profitable teams in baseball (in terms of margins) are teams that lose.  That is just a fact.

Posted by dmurphy104 on 3/12/2012 3:06:00 PM (view original):
You're not in that world, surfer. I understand the confusion. I think he has at least 2 other teams in that same mold.

Posted by dmurphy104 on 3/12/2012 3:06:00 PM (view original):
You're not in that world, surfer. I understand the confusion. I think he has at least 2 other teams in that same mold.

Posted by silentpadna on 3/12/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Sorry yanks, you're out to lunch on this one.  If you don't like MWR, don't join worlds that have them.  Building a "dynasty" by losing is the easiest strategy in this game.  That's why over time, many worlds have enacted MWR.  That's also why, over time, worlds that have teams winning 40 games for 3 seasons and later becoming dominant are now considered "'tard worlds".  Worlds have added MWR because it has an overall net positive effect.  Everybody wants to win for 10 seasons.  Not everyone can do it.  There are many strategies not even addressed here (see the "Tanking 101" thread).

The bottom line is that a good owner can turn around a franchise, sometimes very quickly, even with good competition (I do know this first hand).  Teams win WS with 80 wins.  I've seen it happen.  The idea that owners want to be sure they can win 108 before even calling up guys from AAA who are better than their MLB players is what decreases the enjoyment level in a world.  No one is saying you shouldn't use the arbitration system to your advantage, or that you should rush every prospect before they're ready.  But if you're transferring 40M (+20 to the Prospects Budget) every season and hanging with a 40M or less payroll, you are tanking, pure and simple.  Can you get away with that in a MWR world?  Sure, but not for long.  Nor should you.  What HBD doesn't have is the natural feedback of fan support and profits (or lack thereof).  There are no consequences to it, which is why it works.  Worlds that have MWR have put in a process, an imperfect one, but a process that encourages competition.  It's better than the alternative, and the worlds that have them, by and large, are far more healthy than those that don't.

Again, if you don't like MWR, don't join a world that has them.  If your world adopts them, you can always go somewhere else....

Where did I say I want to join and MWR league.  I am not arguing all leagues have to agree with me and get rid of MWR.  I am in this thread, cause Reino asked me to post here, cause he has a commisioner is trying to implement said rule in a league I've been in a long time

People added MWR, not to get politcal cause way to may people buy into socialistic views.  Me personally, I think a good owner, who knows what they are doing can win in any circumstance.  I think most owners in HBD, including a few in this thread, don't do a very good job of judging ratings and understand values of certain positions vs. others.  So I don't think you need an MWR to make a good world.  In fact, I've been in enough worlds some with MWR, some without, and the competitive level is not any different.

"But if you're transferring 40M (+20 to the Prospects Budget) every season and hanging with a 40M or less payroll, you are tanking, pure and simple"

This is a flat out ignorant comment.  That is not a hard and fast rule.  This can be just as much proper player management as it could be sign of tanking.  Again, hard and fast rules like this are a sign of ignorance.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.

I didn't say subjective.  I said the league needs to define clear evidence of tanking.  Which from my experience is quite clear.  Things like rookie league players at the ML level, Catchers playing CF, 0% pitchers, etc.  It is not hard to identify clear evidence of tanking.  By identifying these rules it will force owners to player at the very least mediocre players at the ML.  Meaning teams won't be losing 125 games each year.

Of course a committee would be subjective.  Three (or five) owners deciding what's tanking or what isn't.  If it's blatant tanking, then it's obvious.  But if it's soft-tanking (i.e. "indifference to winning", or "not making a reasonable effort"), then it absolutely becomes subjective . . . what might be OK with one committee member might not be for another committee member.

As others have said . . . if you (or anybody) has a problem with MWR rules, then don't play in worlds that have them.  There are 160+ worlds out there, many of which don't have MWR rules.  Don't feel obliged that you should be allowed to play by your own rules in any world you choose.

Posted by tufft on 3/12/2012 3:27:00 PM (view original):
yanks - you make some good points. Some people will agree. Some will disagree. Your opinions are your opinions. Stating them over and over again doesn't make them facts.

If you don't like the rules of a particular private world, don't play in that world.  You can make you're case to change the rules, but if you can't convince enough other players, live with it or move on.

If you think you have a better set of private world rules, start a new world.

I haven't played the game all that long, but it seems that Mike's min win model over 4 seasons works OK.  I haven't heard of it destroying any worlds. Seems a lot of people like being in worlds with min win requirements. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/12/2012 12:36:00 PM (view original):
"I believe a soft MWR, with a small comittee of veteran owners (3 or 5) review teams that fall under the MWR to see if they had any clear evidence of tanking.  The league should define what type of evidence identifies tanking, and then the committe votes on it."

Once you make it subjective, i.e. a "committee decision", then you're asking for trouble.  When you get into a situation where two owners fall short with similar stories, and one gets booted while the other one stays, then you're sliding down the slippery slope.  Especially when the guy who stays is the popular owner who everybody likes and the guy who got the boot was the troublesome jackass.  Then the "committee" approach is little more than a farce, it's a popularity contest.

I didn't say subjective.  I said the league needs to define clear evidence of tanking.  Which from my experience is quite clear.  Things like rookie league players at the ML level, Catchers playing CF, 0% pitchers, etc.  It is not hard to identify clear evidence of tanking.  By identifying these rules it will force owners to player at the very least mediocre players at the ML.  Meaning teams won't be losing 125 games each year.

Of course a committee would be subjective.  Three (or five) owners deciding what's tanking or what isn't.  If it's blatant tanking, then it's obvious.  But if it's soft-tanking (i.e. "indifference to winning", or "not making a reasonable effort"), then it absolutely becomes subjective . . . what might be OK with one committee member might not be for another committee member.

As others have said . . . if you (or anybody) has a problem with MWR rules, then don't play in worlds that have them.  There are 160+ worlds out there, many of which don't have MWR rules.  Don't feel obliged that you should be allowed to play by your own rules in any world you choose.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I've played in worlds with both, and no, you don't have to have MWR to have a good world.  All other things being equal, however, your odds of having a consistently competetive one, I think, increase if you do. 

We can go back and forth on what the exact ramifications are, but the fact of the matters is that there are negative ramifications to an organization from losing big time for a number of seasons that just don't exist in HBD.  In HBD, absent a MWR, if you don't have a team that can make a run at the playoffs, the best thing you can do for the long term health of your franchise is bottom out with it.  That's not true of real teams, because bottoming out has consequences that extend beyond just that season.

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I've played in worlds with both, and no, you don't have to have MWR to have a good world.  All other things being equal, however, your odds of having a consistently competetive one, I think, increase if you do. 

We can go back and forth on what the exact ramifications are, but the fact of the matters is that there are negative ramifications to an organization from losing big time for a number of seasons that just don't exist in HBD.  In HBD, absent a MWR, if you don't have a team that can make a run at the playoffs, the best thing you can do for the long term health of your franchise is bottom out with it.  That's not true of real teams, because bottoming out has consequences that extend beyond just that season.

Again, what are those ramifications.  Cause the truth is in MLB, those teams that are profitably typically remain profitable winning or losing, while those that are not typically don't.

You're seriously questioning whether there are negative ramifications of long term, rampant losing on an organization in real-life?  Profitability is hardly a metric here, because it simply measures how much you spend.   You can be profitable no matter what your revenue if you keep expenses low enough.  Pittsburgh, for instance, turned a profit of 25 million last year according to Forbes.   Looks great, but then, they only had a 35 million dollar payroll, so had they invested all that profit in payroll, they could have had... 60 million good for like 25th in the league.  And let's just say they suddenly still did have a wealth of resources - if they want to get a big time talent to come there, it's either not going to happen, or they are going to have to massively overpay because they don't win and they've poisoned their fanbase.

You want to hold up the Rays - sure, they lost for a while and got a ton of talent - and they can't keep it because they spent the first 10 years of their existance killing off any chance they had of developing a fanbase.

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by yanks21 on 3/12/2012 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by AlCheez on 3/12/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
I've played in worlds with both, and no, you don't have to have MWR to have a good world.  All other things being equal, however, your odds of having a consistently competetive one, I think, increase if you do. 

We can go back and forth on what the exact ramifications are, but the fact of the matters is that there are negative ramifications to an organization from losing big time for a number of seasons that just don't exist in HBD.  In HBD, absent a MWR, if you don't have a team that can make a run at the playoffs, the best thing you can do for the long term health of your franchise is bottom out with it.  That's not true of real teams, because bottoming out has consequences that extend beyond just that season.

Again, what are those ramifications.  Cause the truth is in MLB, those teams that are profitably typically remain profitable winning or losing, while those that are not typically don't.

You're seriously questioning whether there are negative ramifications of long term, rampant losing on an organization in real-life?  Profitability is hardly a metric here, because it simply measures how much you spend.   You can be profitable no matter what your revenue if you keep expenses low enough.  Pittsburgh, for instance, turned a profit of 25 million last year according to Forbes.   Looks great, but then, they only had a 35 million dollar payroll, so had they invested all that profit in payroll, they could have had... 60 million good for like 25th in the league.  And let's just say they suddenly still did have a wealth of resources - if they want to get a big time talent to come there, it's either not going to happen, or they are going to have to massively overpay because they don't win and they've poisoned their fanbase.

You want to hold up the Rays - sure, they lost for a while and got a ton of talent - and they can't keep it because they spent the first 10 years of their existance killing off any chance they had of developing a fanbase.