Anti-Tanking Proposal

I think that having guys like kris Bryant in your reserves is a a major problem and something that the real life player union wouldn’t tolerate. In another league we note it under the player page and he is less likely to sign an extension with that team. We also penalize the ratings of a layer that’s been held down sort of saying that you have stunted the growth of the player. He goes back to normal after 2 straight years of being in the major leagues.

I agree. I think when someone stashes a top tier player they should be penalized. Owners should have the freedom to chose when they decide to first use a player, but between the 1st-3rd prearb years the player should be used. Assuming the player is above a specific threshold, 4WAR per 600 pa or 200 ip would be my recommendation. I think it was complete BS Kris Bryant was on the reserve all year.

Extreme tanking is a problem and I am not a fan of it, despite the future advantages it brings, you just look like a total douche while your doing it.

I am not sure how I feel about penalizing teams who don't meet a specific win mark. As John said, sometimes teams go through a few tough seasons, but they are not trying to tank necessarily. This could just punish GM's and further the talent gap. On the other hand, when teams actively look to loose, it takes away from the competition, and makes winning less satisfying. I think we need another rule change after this last season.

I agree with the Twins. There is a difference between being bad as a re-build takes place v gaming the draft and cap and cash structure.

Tanking occurs in all sports, and can be an effective strategy. But don't get competitive windows and tanking confused. Tanking is when a team actively tries to lose, that's different than just having a team devoid of MLB level talent. There can be a fine line between the two, modest tanks can be acceptable, but extreme tanks should not be tolerated. Jason- I said I believe teams should have the freedom when to call up xxx guys (I know I have waited in the past with Miguel Sano, and Jose Berrios this last year), but when a team stashes someone who is projected to be an MVP candidate, thats when ethical lines are crossed (despite it being within the rules). I probably wouldnt use Happ or Newcomb this year if I was you, but chances are neither of them get to Kris Bryants level. I only have an issue when GMs sit young 6 war guys, who have already had a full nsbl season under their belt.

Would any of the GMs who dont yet have a competitive roster sit Kris Bryant?? I know I wouldnt.

Because you are a good, compassionate, reasonable, and genuine guy John. Thats what stops you.

Woah, woah, woah... let's not get carried away.

I just get angry when teams tank in real life. If there's any way that my tanking can impact the playoff chase, I'd feel bad. Now, if I'm playing a team that, like me, has no shot at making the playoffs, then tank away. But if I tank against a team that makes the playoffs by 1 game, there's a chance I put that team in the playoffs while another team sits because of it. I don't like that, and to me, takes away from the spirit of competition.

Besides, at this point in my rebuild, I have the prospects... I just need the cap space to help fill out my roster. Only way to get more cap space is to win a few more games.

I said your name in my first post. So... just wanted to throw that out there.

I'm not knocking you for it. It's within the rules, and like you said, sometimes it's the quickest way to build a winner. I can't argue that.

I can also say that I've never help a player down that could've helped me win. Since I've been in the league, I've always played the guys that have had the better projection. Unfortunately, it hasn't helped me win many games.

Bottom line, I'm not knocking you. In the end, there won't be a rule change that happens because of it (other than potentially the buyout loophole). And yes, I am jealous. I won't lie.

This reminds me of when nWo came into WCW. You had the faces and the heels, and then you had a new brand of heel than even went against the traditional heels. All we need now is a face that's completely over to do a heel turn and join with Ty. Or is it Jim? Who is the nWo in this equation?

And if someone from the Committee befriended them, would they be Eric Bischoff?

(I spent entirely too much time in my early 20s watching Nitro and Thunder while drinking gallons of beer at home.)

Has the league ever done a draft lottery? Something like 6 worst records and ties are in the lottery and everyone has an equal chance at each pick? It won't completely rule out tanking, but the incentive to win 50 games and guarantee the #1 pick in 2 drafts goes from 100% to a 1 in 6 chance. And then losing that much just costs you Salary Cap room in the future.

This year - 6 teams 62 wins or less
2016- 7 teams 69 wins or less (tie at 69)
2015 - 6 teams 70 wins or less
2014 - 6 teams under 73 wins

Just an idea that popped in while reading this all

If we're going to treat this like a video game, then we should all admit that the rules in place to create the illusion of realism should be modified.

If we're gamers trying to game the system, then the system needs to be prepared for that eventuality.

Purposeful extreme behaviors that exploit the rules or other competitors are just detrimental.

If you're defending your "brilliant" plan of extreme tanking by saying you're smarter than everyone else, Ty, then you're spitting in the face of your competitors. And not in the fun "90s era WCW" way. You're telling the guys that are here looking for a simulated real-life GM experience that their feelings don't matter. Breaking a system that wasn't prepared to be broken just makes the rules committee (past and present) look foolish.

What we should all do when we see something so potentially disruptive to the rest of the league is to notify the rules committee BEFORE trying to leverage it. You know, if you care about the health of this league and it's continued success. Using foresight is difficult. Pro Tip - being a selfish cunt isn't always the answer.

I'm not sure we need to do anything drastic with the tanking other than close a couple obvious loopholes in the rules. I've looked back on the past 3 seasons and there are really only a couple outliers to the attempt to win if you are a legit contender. Obviously Ty has done it twice now in the last 3 years. I see 2 other teams have very low numbers in one of the 3-5 year trends which I'll chalk up to bad luck since I was not here for them. The one thing I've noticed is as the payroll goes up, so does the cost of a win but more importantly the cost to get to .500.
Now this may be a chicken or egg situation where the good stay good and the bad stay bad but I broke down the payroll needed to be a .500 team and the number of teams that did it over the past 3 seasons.

last year I predicted a .500 team needed a payroll of 124M with 112M being 90% of that. There were 12 teams above that CAP based on the salary_Cap_NSBL spreadsheet and 11 of them finished above .500, the 12th was super tank Ty. 7 teams under that payroll finished at least .500 with all being within 90% of the 124M. Ironically the AL Central had no team above the 124M mark so someone had to overachieve.

In 2016 my .500 payroll was 124M (112M for 90%) and 11 of 12 teams over that CAP finished above .500. It would appear the 12th "stumbled" based on the win totals of the last 10 years. There were 6 teams that overachieved with only St Louis being below 90%.

In 2015 I had 117M / 105M as the magic payroll numbers and 10 of 13 of those teams finished above .500. One of them was Ty so really 10/12. The 11th appears to have had "issues" because it was the only year they finished with less than 90 wins in the past 10 years. The last team appears to have started their rebuild process during that year. There were 5 overachievers with 2 teams finishing below the 90% mark.

Just for some perspective, my Phillies have never had a salary over the 90% mark in the 10 years I looked at (2008). They never reached the .500 mark in that timeframe so back to the chicken and egg dilemma, losing tends to breed losing as much as winning. Bottom line is the numbers show if you spend to the CAP you should win.

My payroll numbers for this year: 140 / 126 which is 14 teams with another 10 above the 90%.
One final note, this is based on calculated CAP so does not (nor can) take into account trades and cash swaps outside the base CAP calculations.

So using the salary cap data I went back to 2009. The calculated CAP needed for .500 is about the league average so here is the breakdown from 2009 for number of teams above the CAP that finished above .500 and the number of other teams that finished above .500 that year.
Year Ratio Overacheivers
2009 8/15        4
2010 10/15      5
2011 11/16      5
2012 11/15      6
2013 7/14        9
2014 9/13        6
2015 10/13*    5
2016 11/12      6
2017 11/12*    7
2018 #/14

If you notice the ratio has gone up dramatically while the potential number of teams has slowly gone done, with a bounce back in 2018. The last group has remained relatively steady throughout.

To save people time, the 2015 team mentioned was Colorado. He did have an unlucky sim that year where nothing went right. Click here to go to his 2015 team page for stats.

Mike is right though, it does take money to win, but the quickest way to have excess money is to underpay for premium talent. If you can get three megastars on pre-arb deals, guys that would get $20MM+ on the open market, and you're paying them only a million each, that leaves a lot of extra cash to fill in the holes. That was something that the previous Philly owner couldn't comprehend. Several of us tried to impress upon him the importance of a slow rebuild and holding onto prospects, but he would continually trade his best prospects for replacement-level crap. So trading someone like Neftali Feliz in 2008 when he was viewed as one of the best RHP prospects for Matt Antonelli who just had a 74 wRC+ season in AAA was a good idea, cause Antonelli could play right away. This was a continual thing with him, which ultimately led to his removal.

MLB like the NFL is a "rookie contract" league. NSBL is the same. The keys to winning are to have stars on rookie contracts and a good coach/manager. It's why the best NFL teams don't look good early in the year, their rookies are having to learn on the job. The best teams in the NFL just try to let their players learn while playing, hope to get to the playoffs, and then hope their players have progressed well enough over the course of the season to get to the Superbowl.

Sure, in baseball a larger budget helps. It helps cover mistakes when you give out a large contract and it goes south. Teams like the real life Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox can have that albatross contract on their books without it crippling them. Smaller market teams can't do that. But still, small market teams can compete if they hit on a few draft picks and don't trade their prospects away hoping for a quick fix. Our current cap model is independent of any pre-existing cap numbers, which is nice, nothing is holding teams back now except the talent discrepancies between teams. So teams that can find ways to acquire cheap wins will raise their cap, and then don't have to penny pinch their wins as much.

I think the slew of new owners we've had over the last few years all recognize that. You Mike, Pat, Jason, etc. Tim in Boston is in a different situation because his window to compete was open when he took over the team. Lee/Dave took a team that looked like it should rebuild and were able to turn it into a World Series Champion. Still not sure what kind of voodoo they used to acquire all the talent that team had, but it just goes to show that sometimes it's best to zig when everyone else zags. As Bill Walsh said, "If we're all thinking alike, then no one is thinking."