Posted by MikeT23 on 11/27/2013 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Find one person, in this thread who's against tanking, who'll say "No, that wasn't tanking" and I'll reconsider my uneducated, shortsighted opinion. 

<-- Done.

I would also like to add that my long-term goal would be to win (or at least make the playoffs) at every single level in the same season. For some people, the ML is the only thing that gives them a thrill, and that's fine. If you're one of those people, you are going to think that users like jwynn and I are tankers. So be it.

I don't believe anyone in here ever said tanking doesn't work. Obviously it works.

I particularly like the angle that the goal is to win at all levels, a proactive defense against criticism for winning 110 games in AAA and AA while the ML team stinks. Clever.

"and wonder why they haven't made the playoffs since Griffey.  "

Yeah those 116-46, Griffey-less 2001 Mariners were a lousy bunch, eh.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 12/6/2013 8:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/27/2013 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Find one person, in this thread who's against tanking, who'll say "No, that wasn't tanking" and I'll reconsider my uneducated, shortsighted opinion. 

<-- Done.

Yeah, not so much.

I recognize that you've probably learned a lot in your first season but what you're doing is tanking.   This game is designed to allow owners to compete immediately or almost immediately.  Unless you picked up a team full of 37 y/o players with 4 years remaining on huge contracts, you can build a competitive team with the same 185m that everyone else has.    I'll point to my Happy Jack and Hamilton teams.    Two different situations but neither required me losing 100+ games for several seasons to build WS winners.  Losing 100+ is hard to do if you're a semi-competent owner.   Unless you're tanking.

Posted by btoy1975 on 12/7/2013 12:49:00 AM (view original):
"and wonder why they haven't made the playoffs since Griffey.  "

Yeah those 116-46, Griffey-less 2001 Mariners were a lousy bunch, eh.

ey thanks for pointing that technicality out to me, bro. Griffey's last seattle season was 1999, but whatever, that magical season was still 12 years ago. That was my point. You pointing out that it was 2001 is like when a cop pulls you over for speeding and asks how fast you were going and you say "I dunno, 60?" and he says "aaactually, 61." If the 2009 Mariners were 116-46 then you could criticize me, but the point is that they're lousy and will probably be for the next 10 years because they're doing it wrong

>> My question is - what is wrong with losing 100+ games? <<

1st  season - Nothing unless there's a clear effort to lose as much as possible. Long list of examples in this thread. Players out of position. Playing players that belong in the low MinL. Keeping better players in the MinL past 4 seasons. Etc.

2nd season in a row - Could be OK. Applying the same rules as the 1st season.

3rd season in a row - Any league that wants to be around a while and have less trouble keeping and bringing in new GMs should kick out anyone who's team is still this bad after 3 seasons. Either the person isn't spending any time on their team, isn't going to get HBD, or they are building a team that's going to impact the competitiveness of the world for many seasons.

Yeah, I got a little technical on the Griffey / M's point.  I just remember how everyone thought they were going to decline when Griffey left and then they made the playoffs the first two years he was in Cin.
--
There are different ways to go about building a team.  I believe you can try to win now and rebuild at the same time. 

You might not be going all out "tank" mode- (example playing guys out of position) but some call what you describe as "soft tanking".

I'm in my 4th season and still learning.  You might feel differently in a few seasons.

Houston Astros, guys.

They had a MLB salary level a fraction of many other teams.  They lost 111 games.  I would have no problem with a HBD GM losing 111 games, w/o going to the FA market if they approached it like the 'stros.  They decided that this was going to be their year to roll their young players out there day after day...and let them develop.

But they did it at the MLB level and not at the AAA level.  They didn't stash talent in OKC and wait, they rolled their best guys (all young) out in Houston, on a daily basis.  Heck, they only had two players at the AAA level play more than 91 games.  One was in his 4th full AAA season and the other isn't very good.  I admire what they did.  They kept payroll down, but played their very best players, all young guys, in the majors.  

Do that, and you're not tanking.

I still think the HBD draft is majorly messed up....it's too predictable. Players shouldn't grow on such a predictable schedule.  The IFA market is messed up, too.  Too many great players come around each and every year.  The incentive for many GMs is to stash the max in that line item and wait.  The IFA solution would be to have no projections on them, until they are signed.  Your Int. budget would just locate IFA's, but not give you much/anything in terms of projected growth.  

I think I would also make a team forfeit their 1st two Draft  picks if they haven't manually established their own top 64 ratings.  What kind of team lets the computer choose their top two picks?  Teams cherish those.

Leagues should institute an anti-tanking draft policy where you lose your top pick if 66% (or 60%...or 50%...pick the appropriate %) of the league's owners agree that tanking has taken place.

De-incentivise  the predictability of the IFA market.  Makes GM's invest time in the draft (and make it a pit less predictable).  Deny draft picks to tankers and gamers.

There you go.   

Make the draft and IFA less "predictable" and the smart owner invests 0 in them.   He just signs FA with his bloated payroll.   And, hell, since you have to put 6m in prospect, maybe you get lucky in signing IFA because no one else knows if they're any good or not either.

But that is exactly what they are doing with IFA's: Bloating that budget to buy a known quantity free agent.  

And there is always a bit of "luck" in real life drafting.  

Posted by jlinchec on 11/24/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Another thing - if you are unhappy if the worst teams getting the best players in the draft, the solution isn't to randomize the prospects -- the solution is to randomize the draft order.  Move to a lottery for the draft order with all of the non-playoff teams.

Not everything in HBD matches up to real life baseball.  (Salary cap)  So you could move to the NBA-style draft lottery and take care of the perceived issue.  Suddenly, a team who missed the playoffs by one game could get the top pick in the draft and the worst team could draft in the teens.  Make it weighted or non-weighted.  Maybe even let each league be different - pick how you handle the draft order yourself: Standard, weighted lottery, non-weighted lottery.  Be a reason for people to have more then one team.

I really like this idea.  A lottery draft eliminates the race to the bottom.    The fall out would be legit owners of really bad teams potentially missing out on top draft  picks but I think the game affords that situation other means to rebuild though.    Eliminating the race to the bottom is the real issue and a lottery draft would seem to address that quite well.

>> Houston Astros, guys. <<

I looked back about 20 years of MLB history. This is the only team I can find that has lost this many games over 2-3 seasons where the GM has not been fired.

So for HBD to be the most accurate MLB simulation possible, teams that lose 100+ games back-to-back seasons should be forced to change their GM. Which is us.