Online Leagues - "Rebuilding", Tanking, Win Later, Lose Now - Page 9

Goody · 06-13-2003, 03:19 PM

"besides this thread was supposed to be about tanking based on the strategies employed in an initial draft - since most people disagreed with you, you've seemed to turn it into tanking via trades IMO"

No it wasn't. Kurtis turned it into that.

What makes you say "most people disagreed with you"?

This post started about tanking via trades. The initial draft thing was just an example of extreme tanking.

I'm glad I'm not an Indians fan.

twins15 · 06-13-2003, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goody

I'm glad I'm not an Indians fan.

Just curious, what is your favorite team?

lynchjm24 · 06-13-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goody
"I'm glad I'm not an Indians fan.

Yeah I'd hate to follow a team that won their division so many times in a row.

I'd much rather see my team build the way the Indians have then the silly way that teams like the Rangers and Mets attempt to improve.

The reason why you don't see OOTP like dumping in the major leagues is because:

A. Teams can't trade draft picks
B. GM's don't have a long enough shelf life to dump players for prospects who are so far away from the majors. No reason to acquire players for an organization that you won't be employed by.

Goody · 06-13-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by twins15
Just curious, what is your favorite team?

Mariners.

Woodchuck · 06-14-2003, 04:22 AM

I think the real culprit is the speed of the game, rather than job security. The best way to stop tanking or what some view as excessive rebuilding out of the gate would be to sim a game per real life day. I doubt many GMs would draft 5-blue-star 18 year olds in a starter draft if they'd be playing OOTP 12 when the kid gets called up. I also doubt most of us would want in a league that slow.

Personally, I prefer owners with a long range plan over the ones that go for broke and leave if they don't win. And if the initial draft strategy utilized by Kurtis and Dean is so effective the pendulum will swing as 90% of a league will be going young and an astute GM can clean up on vets at bargain prices.

CommishJoe · 06-14-2003, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goody
I guess if my favorite team did that I would no longer be a fan.

Ok ok...MLB teams throw seasons to rebuild. That doesn't mean I can't have the imaginination to realize how it should be...in a world where competition is king over selling a product.

Yep, you're right. That's the great thing about this game. You can run your league anyway you want. My only suggestion would ensure your rulebook states this clearly so owners that don't agree know to steer clear.

If my favorite team did it (Yankees), I'd pat them on the back

I'd be more then happy to support them in a couple of losing seasons to know they are trying to build a team that could repeat the success of the '96 crew. With Steinbrenner around though, it'll never happen

Dean Gordon · 06-14-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

You've got a 35 year old starter...its the trade deadline and you're at .450....By all means trade him. But don't trade your 29 year old all-stars for a 2nd round draft pick, just because you want the 1st round pick for the next 2 years.

In the EBL and the GMC, this has effectively been shutdown by using the AWR.... chances are, a team at .450 by the All-Star break is staring into the abysss of the AWR hammer and will trade FOR players to try to improve his team in the 2nd half...

Killebrew · 06-20-2003, 11:18 AM

Late to the party - some questions:
Instead of penalizing online teams for doing poorly why not add more incentives to win? At a certain point though you'll have to accept the fact that certain GM's may want to employ a different strategy than you might, and as long as it follows the league rules then acceptance would be the best policy. Making devel even more random than it is in OOTP5 already is a weak design decision, I truly hope that does not occur

.

The time when I could see tanking being a most serious issue are when a GM forms an awful team and then quits well before the draft seeds sprout. That is more an issue of poor judgement in allowing that GM in the league in the first place though.

blmeanie · 06-20-2003, 01:01 PM

I agree with Killebrew. How about more incentives, not only for single season results but over multiple seasons?

Treches · 06-20-2003, 01:14 PM

The thing I like the most about the AWR is that it goes both ways. Penalizes teams that underperform and forces trades, and rewards those who exceed expectations.

Applecorey · 06-20-2003, 06:40 PM

What if every team in a league tried the rookie first style draft?

What if every team in a league tried to dump players in order to get the first round pick?

One heck of a competitive league I think. At least a few years down the road it would be.

It seems that leagues that are concerned about this issue have the simple problem of lopsided ownership talent.

Maybe they could have a limit on the number of championships in a row a team is allowed before they are ineligble for the playoffs.

You win 2 in a row you become ineligable for the playoffs for 5 years. You also pick last in the draft for those five years.

This plan would discourage teams from trying to become too good. Thus the league would have it's parity.

Just a thought.

JimboGM · 06-20-2003, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Applecorey
Maybe they could have a limit on the number of championships in a row a team is allowed before they are ineligble for the playoffs.

You win 2 in a row you become ineligable for the playoffs for 5 years. You also pick last in the draft for those five years.

This plan would discourage teams from trying to become too good. Thus the league would have it's parity.

Just a thought.

Sounds good to me. This would certainly help me in the LBA.

KBLover · 06-22-2003, 05:13 PM

Personally, I have a "problem" (meaning I don't agree with it) with a team that would trade a 28 year-old allstar for a #2 pick.

Trade the guy for a couple #1's or a high #1 and some top-notch prospects.

I think the problem is with the team offering up their talented players for cheap. Would I jump on a 28 year old that could help me now if it only cost me a #2? Sure would. Some here might argue that I'm "part of the problem" but if I see a chance to make my team better for a low price and I can afford the salary, etc. I'm jumping on it.

The only time I really take apart my teams that are contending is usually if I fear too many retirements and want to "take a few years off" to restock the farm so I can get some more talent up to the big club, or if I decide to just run run run with the team until they all collapse and I turn into a loser team due to attrition.

But either way, I go all out. If I'm competing, I'm continuing to compete. If I'm starting rebuilding, I'm going all out with the draft-and-trade type strategy. (I normally avoid the FA markets because all that usually becomes is a hot-bed for paying players 40% more than they are worth

)

I basically run my teams as if I was in the pre-FA era of sports in general. Draft, trade, develop in-house when you can. If that's considered an "exploit" then so be it. Takes longer, but that's my way. I'm more than willing to put up with losing seasons as long as the kids are working up. My rebuildings usually take 8 years, and I don't know how everyone else avoids the fan hits, but I feel them hard...and yes they are game issued, not the result of a commish-made rule.

I also have a team were I drafted prospects out of the initial draft. I had no players over 30 and only a few over 26. I sucked (but did win 60 games) then won 77. Then in the third year I won 99, but I did it by using the excesses in the farm to get MLB talent to add when I saw WISE trades to make and pieces to add at the deadline when I saw my team was looking like they wanted to compete. This league uses OOTP2 (which, to me, seems like the most unpredictable player development of any in the series)

Drafting prospects does take skill. If it didn't, you could just pick any joe and turn into a winner. So I don't understand that argument that rebuilding/developing with prospects doesn't take any skill.

I also don't agree that a team should be forced to play a kid before he's within his talent ratings. If a kid a 5/Brilliant across the board, and I'm in rebuilding mode, why rush him and risk hurting his growth. That kid was drafted to be the centerpiece when he's ready, but at those ratings, he's not ready. Plus, you start the clock on him earlier, and for what? For him to bat .230? How is that any more right?

Tanking, I don't agree with, but I don't think any attempt at rebuilding or "making moves I wouldn't make" should be regarded as tanking. I wouldn't trade a 26 year old SS that was dominating at his position in almost an A-Rod like fashion (in fact the SS I have I gave an 18 mil extension to make her sign with my team!), but most of the other owners would probably have traded her to a winner and got picks, or if the team was competitive (I wasn't and the player likes winning teams, part of the reason why it took so much money), they'd probably keep her and run for the title and hope to resign in the FA period.

I've long thought that OOTP needed to put "Prestige" or something on the players to denote real star power (or I guess go by ratings, but OOTP5 seems too HR-favoring in its star ratings, at least in my opinion and the way the players perform).

Having checked out the AWR of the one league that mentioned it, I think that's a pretty interesting idea. At least that league is trying to quantify expectations and came up with a system to implement it. It might not be perfect, but at least it's something.

I think comparing a fantasy league to the real MLB is a lost cause. There's too many subtle things that go on in real life that haven't been simulated in a game. OOTP has no concept of who's "real life good" so using the position of "it happens/doesn't happen in real life" isn't a good idea, imo, because OOTP doesn't use that when doing many of things it does.

That's why we all still love/follow the real game even if we're avid sim baseball players.

06-13-2003, 03:19 PM	#161
Goody Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South Korea Posts: 3,530	"besides this thread was supposed to be about tanking based on the strategies employed in an initial draft - since most people disagreed with you, you've seemed to turn it into tanking via trades IMO" No it wasn't. Kurtis turned it into that. What makes you say "most people disagreed with you"? This post started about tanking via trades. The initial draft thing was just an example of extreme tanking. I'm glad I'm not an Indians fan. __________________ In the past: Laseron Baseball Association creator. Present: I am Rezulm on PT and OOTP Discord. Future: I wish it was the past.

06-20-2003, 11:18 AM	#168
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	Late to the party - some questions: Instead of penalizing online teams for doing poorly why not add more incentives to win? At a certain point though you'll have to accept the fact that certain GM's may want to employ a different strategy than you might, and as long as it follows the league rules then acceptance would be the best policy. Making devel even more random than it is in OOTP5 already is a weak design decision, I truly hope that does not occur. The time when I could see tanking being a most serious issue are when a GM forms an awful team and then quits well before the draft seeds sprout. That is more an issue of poor judgement in allowing that GM in the league in the first place though.

06-20-2003, 01:01 PM	#169
blmeanie All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,044	I agree with Killebrew. How about more incentives, not only for single season results but over multiple seasons? __________________ blmeanie email me at blmeanie Above link works for some email client programs but not all, email me at blmeanie33@earthlink.net

06-20-2003, 01:14 PM	#170
Treches Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Damned Hell Posts: 2,147	The thing I like the most about the AWR is that it goes both ways. Penalizes teams that underperform and forces trades, and rewards those who exceed expectations. __________________ The Computer Baseball League

06-20-2003, 06:40 PM	#171
Applecorey Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 307	What if every team in a league tried the rookie first style draft? What if every team in a league tried to dump players in order to get the first round pick? One heck of a competitive league I think. At least a few years down the road it would be. It seems that leagues that are concerned about this issue have the simple problem of lopsided ownership talent. Maybe they could have a limit on the number of championships in a row a team is allowed before they are ineligble for the playoffs. You win 2 in a row you become ineligable for the playoffs for 5 years. You also pick last in the draft for those five years. This plan would discourage teams from trying to become too good. Thus the league would have it's parity. Just a thought. __________________ www.boardgamegeek.com

06-14-2003, 04:22 AM	#165
Woodchuck Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 39	I think the real culprit is the speed of the game, rather than job security. The best way to stop tanking or what some view as excessive rebuilding out of the gate would be to sim a game per real life day. I doubt many GMs would draft 5-blue-star 18 year olds in a starter draft if they'd be playing OOTP 12 when the kid gets called up. I also doubt most of us would want in a league that slow. Personally, I prefer owners with a long range plan over the ones that go for broke and leave if they don't win. And if the initial draft strategy utilized by Kurtis and Dean is so effective the pendulum will swing as 90% of a league will be going young and an astute GM can clean up on vets at bargain prices.

06-22-2003, 05:13 PM	#173
KBLover All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 580	Personally, I have a "problem" (meaning I don't agree with it) with a team that would trade a 28 year-old allstar for a #2 pick. Trade the guy for a couple #1's or a high #1 and some top-notch prospects. I think the problem is with the team offering up their talented players for cheap. Would I jump on a 28 year old that could help me now if it only cost me a #2? Sure would. Some here might argue that I'm "part of the problem" but if I see a chance to make my team better for a low price and I can afford the salary, etc. I'm jumping on it. The only time I really take apart my teams that are contending is usually if I fear too many retirements and want to "take a few years off" to restock the farm so I can get some more talent up to the big club, or if I decide to just run run run with the team until they all collapse and I turn into a loser team due to attrition. But either way, I go all out. If I'm competing, I'm continuing to compete. If I'm starting rebuilding, I'm going all out with the draft-and-trade type strategy. (I normally avoid the FA markets because all that usually becomes is a hot-bed for paying players 40% more than they are worth ) I basically run my teams as if I was in the pre-FA era of sports in general. Draft, trade, develop in-house when you can. If that's considered an "exploit" then so be it. Takes longer, but that's my way. I'm more than willing to put up with losing seasons as long as the kids are working up. My rebuildings usually take 8 years, and I don't know how everyone else avoids the fan hits, but I feel them hard...and yes they are game issued, not the result of a commish-made rule. I also have a team were I drafted prospects out of the initial draft. I had no players over 30 and only a few over 26. I sucked (but did win 60 games) then won 77. Then in the third year I won 99, but I did it by using the excesses in the farm to get MLB talent to add when I saw WISE trades to make and pieces to add at the deadline when I saw my team was looking like they wanted to compete. This league uses OOTP2 (which, to me, seems like the most unpredictable player development of any in the series) Drafting prospects does take skill. If it didn't, you could just pick any joe and turn into a winner. So I don't understand that argument that rebuilding/developing with prospects doesn't take any skill. I also don't agree that a team should be forced to play a kid before he's within his talent ratings. If a kid a 5/Brilliant across the board, and I'm in rebuilding mode, why rush him and risk hurting his growth. That kid was drafted to be the centerpiece when he's ready, but at those ratings, he's not ready. Plus, you start the clock on him earlier, and for what? For him to bat .230? How is that any more right? Tanking, I don't agree with, but I don't think any attempt at rebuilding or "making moves I wouldn't make" should be regarded as tanking. I wouldn't trade a 26 year old SS that was dominating at his position in almost an A-Rod like fashion (in fact the SS I have I gave an 18 mil extension to make her sign with my team!), but most of the other owners would probably have traded her to a winner and got picks, or if the team was competitive (I wasn't and the player likes winning teams, part of the reason why it took so much money), they'd probably keep her and run for the title and hope to resign in the FA period. I've long thought that OOTP needed to put "Prestige" or something on the players to denote real star power (or I guess go by ratings, but OOTP5 seems too HR-favoring in its star ratings, at least in my opinion and the way the players perform). Having checked out the AWR of the one league that mentioned it, I think that's a pretty interesting idea. At least that league is trying to quantify expectations and came up with a system to implement it. It might not be perfect, but at least it's something. I think comparing a fantasy league to the real MLB is a lost cause. There's too many subtle things that go on in real life that haven't been simulated in a game. OOTP has no concept of who's "real life good" so using the position of "it happens/doesn't happen in real life" isn't a good idea, imo, because OOTP doesn't use that when doing many of things it does. That's why we all still love/follow the real game even if we're avid sim baseball players. Last edited by KBLover; 06-22-2003 at 05:17 PM.