Tanking Part Deux

Jestre · 01-29-2004, 12:03 AM

Just to throw my 2 cents into the tanking question; toss him, do not pass go do not collect $200. The MLBC has been simming since OOTP2 and is in its 30th simmed season, so far one owner has been tossed....you guessed it he was tanking.... no 2nd chances no explanations.... don't let the door hitchya... Bottom line, its cheating.

holyroller · 01-29-2004, 12:10 AM

I think he was already tossed.

Karen Lutz · 01-29-2004, 12:16 AM

tanking is a touchy subject, and very relivant to this forum, so this conversation certainly has a place here.

Though the previous one did get too childish for my taste, I was enjoying it until page 3. Just so anyone knows, this will remain here unless it does what the last one did.

My thoughts on tanking is that a person joins a league to do his best, not his worst. There is a certain difference between rebuilding and tanking. I think Joe said it simply and best:

Quote:

Originally posted by CommishJoe
Putting your star players in AAA and/or cutting them is plain wrong. Trading them for kiddies .. good kiddies, not just to deal them, is Ok IMO. He crossed the line by demoting/cutting them.

Oakjefferson · 01-29-2004, 12:21 AM

we have several owners rebuilding in the league. Absolutly 6 ways to tuesday nothing wrong with that. A healthy league has a good mix of teams going for it, teams looking 2/3 years down the road and 1 team from baltimore*brian* spinning its tires for 6 seasons

SpaceNinja · 01-29-2004, 12:36 AM

There's a very fine line between tanking and rebuilding though.

Say you have a 24 year old five star back-catcher prospect. He's got good-brilliant-brilliant talents, and his ratings are 6-5-6. He's clearly major league ready, and quite a bit better than the 5-3-3 scrub catcher you have in the majors.

However, your team is terrible. Horrid. The difference between bringing up your superstud prospect and keeping your current catcher is the difference between losing 105 games and losing 102. Is it really fair for your commissioner to say that you have to field the best team possible, when bringing up Studly McBackstop will have the net effect of costing you a year's worth of his service time and dropping your pick next year from first overall to second?

How exactly can a commish justify forcing one of his owners to make a decision that is clearly detrimental to his team in every way? Especially when it's hardly unrealistic or unprecedented for a team to keep a clearly ready prospect in the minors for 'seasoning' or because their spot is filled by a veteran with load of intangibles. See Choi, Hee Sop.

Oakjefferson · 01-29-2004, 12:38 AM

sometimes it's a fine line that doesn't need to be judged, and other times it's the great wall of china.

holyroller · 01-29-2004, 12:39 AM

A very legit point Space. In the leagues I run I have never had a problem with it, but I would take action if it was obviously tanking for no other reason than a high draft pick. To use your hypothetical example, say that instead of Studly McBackstop you have a 32 yeard old one star backup in the minors with 3-1-1 ratings and you bring him up and send the 5-3-3 scrub to the minors. To me, that is tanking.

Jestre · 01-29-2004, 08:23 AM

Nobody has supported borderline cases. All the cases mentioned for tanking were 'in your face' tanking. The owner tossed from the MLBC had moved three 9 and 10 ranked starting pitchers to the bullpen or minors and replaced them with 3 and 2's. He had benched his 3-4-5 hitters and replaced them in the same spot in the lineup with 2's and 1's. This was a team that was a contender the year before and a definite above .500 team. Coincidentally the upcoming draft featured Babe Ruth and Harry Heilmann....

P.S. The owner kicked out has also been kicked out of at least one other league for tanking.

Rebuilding by divesting your team of veteran players in trades for youth or draft picks is fine with me, I do it myself, just don't bury them somewhere in your organization.

The NHL had a minor crisis the year Mario Lemieux was in the draft when the Pens were accused of tanking, it eventually led to the lottery system being used in the NHL.

slugger21 · 01-29-2004, 09:08 AM

I consider tanking almost anything that they would NOT do in MLB

Killebrew · 01-29-2004, 03:41 PM

I prefer league rules that encourage winning/discourage tanking to making a judgement whether someone is purposefully losing or making honest strategic decisions. For the SpaceNinja example above - I think even if the player was ready for the majors that the decision is up to the GM, no way I would accept the league butting in there. Those kind of decisions are what makes the game fun, will he get a little better with 3 more months in AAA? Is sitting your top starters tanking? What about if you are 8 games up and it's the last week of the season - lots of GM's make this decision to avert pre-playoff injuries to key players. What if the 8 AR SP was going into free agency and you wanted to give younger players a chance to develop? In most cases there is too much subjective speculation required to judge if a team is tanking, and those kind of disagreements kill leagues.

Personally I would prefer that the game was able to handle this kind of competitive team encouragement with much more financial system depth, but until that time it is possible to create various work around rules. In particular enhancing the value of money in the game will allow many interesting rules to restrict tanking. It's a balancing act between encouraging winning with enabling powerhouse dynasties that just continue to get better & better, but it is possible.

Jestre · 01-29-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killebrew
I prefer league rules that encourage winning/discourage tanking to making a judgement whether someone is purposefully losing or making honest strategic decisions. For the SpaceNinja example above - I think even if the player was ready for the majors that the decision is up to the GM, no way I would accept the league butting in there. Those kind of decisions are what makes the game fun, will he get a little better with 3 more months in AAA? Is sitting your top starters tanking? What about if you are 8 games up and it's the last week of the season - lots of GM's make this decision to avert pre-playoff injuries to key players. What if the 8 AR SP was going into free agency and you wanted to give younger players a chance to develop? In most cases there is too much subjective speculation required to judge if a team is tanking, and those kind of disagreements kill leagues.

Personally I would prefer that the game was able to handle this kind of competitive team encouragement with much more financial system depth, but until that time it is possible to create various work around rules. In particular enhancing the value of money in the game will allow many interesting rules to restrict tanking. It's a balancing act between encouraging winning with enabling powerhouse dynasties that just continue to get better & better, but it is possible.

As stated previously we are talking about obvious moves to increase ones draft position at the expense of league fairness and realism. A pennant clinching team resting starters for the playoffs is not what we are talking about. If you need an example look back at my example in a previous post.

Killebrew · 01-29-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jestre
As stated previously we are talking about obvious moves to increase ones draft position at the expense of league fairness and realism. A pennant clinching team resting starters for the playoffs is not what we are talking about. If you need an example look back at my example in a previous post.

I fully realize that, but 'obvious' moves are rarely obvious to everyone, hence my describing these judgements as subjective speculation. If you make a rule that you cannot tank, how will you define tanking? IMO this is not an intelligent way to solve the problem since I do not believe it is possible to come up with accurate guidelines on what tanking is.

holyroller · 01-29-2004, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killebrew
I fully realize that, but 'obvious' moves are rarely obvious to everyone, hence my describing these judgements as subjective speculation. If you make a rule that you cannot tank, how will you define tanking? IMO this is not an intelligent way to solve the problem since I do not believe it is possible to come up with accurate guidelines on what tanking is.

Nope, it's not. It's a judgment call, always. Sometimes that judgement does need to be made.

Oakjefferson · 01-29-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by holyroller
Sometimes that judgement does need to be made.

exactly,

that's why we have commish's and not just 24 owners doing their own thing.

Jestre · 01-29-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Killebrew
I fully realize that, but 'obvious' moves are rarely obvious to everyone, hence my describing these judgements as subjective speculation. If you make a rule that you cannot tank, how will you define tanking? IMO this is not an intelligent way to solve the problem since I do not believe it is possible to come up with accurate guidelines on what tanking is.

You can split hairs and spin any which way you want... fact remains you know as well as I what tanking is. INTENTIONALLY manipulating your lineup to lose games and gain a better draft position, simple as that. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize blatant tanking... You seem to want to justify tanking by giving a bunch of non-tanking or borderline situations. I'm a commish, if the possible tanking is not blatant I don't question it, simple as that. In the 30 sim seasons and approx 5 years of the league there has been one expulsion and approx 4 warnings.... Tanking is cheating, simple as that.

Killebrew · 01-29-2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jestre
You can split hairs and spin any which way you want... fact remains you know as well as I what tanking is. INTENTIONALLY manipulating your lineup to lose games and gain a better draft position, simple as that. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize blatant tanking... You seem to want to justify tanking by giving a bunch of non-tanking or borderline situations. I'm a commish, if the possible tanking is not blatant I don't question it, simple as that. In the 30 sim seasons and approx 5 years of the league there has been one expulsion and approx 4 warnings.... Tanking is cheating, simple as that.

Can we at least agree that we can't define tanking

? I am not justifying tanking, I just prefer reducing judgement calls by commishes. I think this averts serious headaches and arguments for commishes as well as online GM's and I posted exactly that opinion. In some cases these kind of arguments kill leagues so I believe finding a less controversial solution is a wise road to travel. The leagues I am involved in either do not have a rule about tanking or have created league rules to reduce the benefits of tanking. In future versions of OOTP I hope to see the games financial logic at least partially responsible for this role to mirror what would happen in real life.

Edit: Hmm, that sounds funny, to clarify: Can we at least agree that we can't define the intentions behind what appears to be tanking (whoa).

JoshSamBob · 01-29-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Can we at least agree that we can't define the intentions behind what appears to be tanking (whoa).

Sorry, I don't think so. When a team says, "I am dropping this good, cheap, in-his-prime player with the intention of getting the #1 overall pick in the draft," I think we can say that his intention is to tank.

Do you disagree?

Henry · 01-29-2004, 06:30 PM

IRL a number of things woud happen if the team's best players were benched or sent to the minors to gain a draft position...

1. Fans would go balistic
2. Fan interest would go down
3. That would affect income
4. That would create bad PR
5. The loyalty of the players involved would tank
6. If none of the above turned things around, the Commissioner would get involved.

I think OOTP needs to have the "cause-and-effect" of items 1-5 built in. Once that was done, the disadvantages would far outweigh the advanatages.

Let the game decide what tanking is...

Henry

sporr · 01-29-2004, 06:40 PM

I have to agree Henry. The more decisions that the game can make (so that a commissioner doesn't have to) the better, as long as it's handled adequately and realistically. Plus, this would add a whole new complexity for the solo gamer as well.

satchel · 01-29-2004, 11:04 PM

Henry, your points 1-4 are all Fan Interest-controlled, and I agree that Fan interest should be modeled accurately. On point 5, I don’t think an organization’s treatment of a player would permanently decrease his Loyalty rating. I could see a Loyal player getting unhappy with a particular team or GM, but that shouldn’t change his personality.

01-29-2004, 12:10 AM	#2
holyroller Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: OTBL Forums Posts: 3,532	I think he was already tossed. __________________ Back to work, but not drawing a paycheck. TonyJ et. al.'s alias “I confused it with the chicken’s neck,” Mocanu, who was admitted to the emergency hospital in Galati, was quoted as saying. “I cut it ... and the dog rushed and ate it.”

01-29-2004, 12:39 AM	#7
holyroller Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: OTBL Forums Posts: 3,532	A very legit point Space. In the leagues I run I have never had a problem with it, but I would take action if it was obviously tanking for no other reason than a high draft pick. To use your hypothetical example, say that instead of Studly McBackstop you have a 32 yeard old one star backup in the minors with 3-1-1 ratings and you bring him up and send the 5-3-3 scrub to the minors. To me, that is tanking. __________________ Back to work, but not drawing a paycheck. TonyJ et. al.'s alias “I confused it with the chicken’s neck,” Mocanu, who was admitted to the emergency hospital in Galati, was quoted as saying. “I cut it ... and the dog rushed and ate it.”

01-29-2004, 08:23 AM	#8
Jestre All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: North Smithfield,Ri,USA Posts: 612	Nobody has supported borderline cases. All the cases mentioned for tanking were 'in your face' tanking. The owner tossed from the MLBC had moved three 9 and 10 ranked starting pitchers to the bullpen or minors and replaced them with 3 and 2's. He had benched his 3-4-5 hitters and replaced them in the same spot in the lineup with 2's and 1's. This was a team that was a contender the year before and a definite above .500 team. Coincidentally the upcoming draft featured Babe Ruth and Harry Heilmann.... P.S. The owner kicked out has also been kicked out of at least one other league for tanking. Rebuilding by divesting your team of veteran players in trades for youth or draft picks is fine with me, I do it myself, just don't bury them somewhere in your organization. The NHL had a minor crisis the year Mario Lemieux was in the draft when the Pens were accused of tanking, it eventually led to the lottery system being used in the NHL. __________________ My eyes perceive the present, but my roots are imbedded deeply in the grandeur of the past. "Chief Meyers" Last edited by Jestre; 01-29-2004 at 08:28 AM.

01-29-2004, 09:08 AM	#9
slugger21 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 106	I consider tanking almost anything that they would NOT do in MLB __________________ ULB -Cleveland Indians GM AHBA -Cleveland Indians GM

01-29-2004, 06:30 PM	#18
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	IRL a number of things woud happen if the team's best players were benched or sent to the minors to gain a draft position... 1. Fans would go balistic 2. Fan interest would go down 3. That would affect income 4. That would create bad PR 5. The loyalty of the players involved would tank 6. If none of the above turned things around, the Commissioner would get involved. I think OOTP needs to have the "cause-and-effect" of items 1-5 built in. Once that was done, the disadvantages would far outweigh the advanatages. Let the game decide what tanking is... Henry Last edited by Henry; 01-29-2004 at 06:32 PM.

01-29-2004, 12:03 AM	#1
Jestre All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: North Smithfield,Ri,USA Posts: 612	Tanking Part Deux Just to throw my 2 cents into the tanking question; toss him, do not pass go do not collect $200. The MLBC has been simming since OOTP2 and is in its 30th simmed season, so far one owner has been tossed....you guessed it he was tanking.... no 2nd chances no explanations.... don't let the door hitchya... Bottom line, its cheating. __________________ My eyes perceive the present, but my roots are imbedded deeply in the grandeur of the past. "Chief Meyers"

01-29-2004, 12:21 AM	#4
Oakjefferson Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 108	we have several owners rebuilding in the league. Absolutly 6 ways to tuesday nothing wrong with that. A healthy league has a good mix of teams going for it, teams looking 2/3 years down the road and 1 team from baltimorebrian spinning its tires for 6 seasons

01-29-2004, 12:36 AM	#5
SpaceNinja Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 92	There's a very fine line between tanking and rebuilding though. Say you have a 24 year old five star back-catcher prospect. He's got good-brilliant-brilliant talents, and his ratings are 6-5-6. He's clearly major league ready, and quite a bit better than the 5-3-3 scrub catcher you have in the majors. However, your team is terrible. Horrid. The difference between bringing up your superstud prospect and keeping your current catcher is the difference between losing 105 games and losing 102. Is it really fair for your commissioner to say that you have to field the best team possible, when bringing up Studly McBackstop will have the net effect of costing you a year's worth of his service time and dropping your pick next year from first overall to second? How exactly can a commish justify forcing one of his owners to make a decision that is clearly detrimental to his team in every way? Especially when it's hardly unrealistic or unprecedented for a team to keep a clearly ready prospect in the minors for 'seasoning' or because their spot is filled by a veteran with load of intangibles. See Choi, Hee Sop.

01-29-2004, 12:38 AM	#6
Oakjefferson Banned Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 108	sometimes it's a fine line that doesn't need to be judged, and other times it's the great wall of china.

01-29-2004, 03:41 PM	#10
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	I prefer league rules that encourage winning/discourage tanking to making a judgement whether someone is purposefully losing or making honest strategic decisions. For the SpaceNinja example above - I think even if the player was ready for the majors that the decision is up to the GM, no way I would accept the league butting in there. Those kind of decisions are what makes the game fun, will he get a little better with 3 more months in AAA? Is sitting your top starters tanking? What about if you are 8 games up and it's the last week of the season - lots of GM's make this decision to avert pre-playoff injuries to key players. What if the 8 AR SP was going into free agency and you wanted to give younger players a chance to develop? In most cases there is too much subjective speculation required to judge if a team is tanking, and those kind of disagreements kill leagues. Personally I would prefer that the game was able to handle this kind of competitive team encouragement with much more financial system depth, but until that time it is possible to create various work around rules. In particular enhancing the value of money in the game will allow many interesting rules to restrict tanking. It's a balancing act between encouraging winning with enabling powerhouse dynasties that just continue to get better & better, but it is possible.

01-29-2004, 06:40 PM	#19
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	I have to agree Henry. The more decisions that the game can make (so that a commissioner doesn't have to) the better, as long as it's handled adequately and realistically. Plus, this would add a whole new complexity for the solo gamer as well.

01-29-2004, 11:04 PM	#20
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith Ark. USA Posts: 2,681	Henry, your points 1-4 are all Fan Interest-controlled, and I agree that Fan interest should be modeled accurately. On point 5, I don’t think an organization’s treatment of a player would permanently decrease his Loyalty rating. I could see a Loyal player getting unhappy with a particular team or GM, but that shouldn’t change his personality. __________________ JL Commish NPBL Rhode Island Reds ’33 ’34 ’35 TCBA San Francisco Railbornes ’74 ’76 ’77 ’78 FL New Orleans Black Sox ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59