STHS Forum

We're looking for ideas here...

With the McDavid-Eichel sweepstakes looming, we're already seeing some shaddy things in my league. 1 team is planning on playing 2 AHL caliber goalies with crappy ratings as his 1-2 in the pros, to the dismay of almost everyone, with other teams who are rebuilding claiming they'll just do the same if we don't step in. But there's really no rule in our league that forces a team to acquire a player for the integrity of the league, only that you must play your best players in proper positions and we won't tolerate screwed up lines. We also have a ''maximum'' OV for eligible farm players to avoid having teams send down good players for no reason.

What do other leagues do to avoid tank jobs?

Personally I don't consider playing with what you have as "tanking". Having a max farm OV is a good start, I'd also suggest having a cap floor if you don't already. Other than that there's really not much you can do other than removing the GM is question for a lack of league integrity.

We have a cap floor as well, also a rule where any salary over 2,000,000$ MUST be on the pro roster. This team is well over the floor because of an astounding collection of overpaid crappy vets at the skater positions, guys like Clowe-Bertuzzi-Grebeshkov making a combined 10 M or so.

The story here is about a week ago, the GM traded Robin Lehner for a pair of 2nds and a 3rd. The general thinking was he would sign either Brodeur or Backstrom as a stopgap or add a goalie via trade for cheap as we have several teams that have a surplus.

After several GM's called him out on our forum when he made it clear he was going with 2 AHL goalies based on his projected lineup posts, the guy caved in and signed a declining Niklas Backstrom as a stopgap last night, and he's still bitter about having to do it.

Having McDavid-Eichel in the roster in what... 2016-2017 !? Even if he won lottery and get him he won't win the cup you know. I have a team in my league with Sid the Kid, never went to the finals... In sim hockey star player worth less then in real life because the impact is less.

You seem to have good rules here, hope you have the NHL buyout too to prevent easy way out of bad contracts. Let the dude being non competitive for 5 years...

Foo wrote: hope you have the NHL buyout too to prevent easy way out of bad contracts.

Yeah we do but we haven't had a buyout in years (we didn't have compliance buyouts). We usually have 3 or 4 teams with the cap room and current funds $ willing to take on bad contracts if they get an incentive, typically rebuilding teams.

Usually bad contracts in our league get traded, along with a draft pick, for 1$.

In our league teams need to make the playoffs every 3 seasons or the GM will receive a strike. After 3 strikes you are out, so basically if a GM tanks heavily he needs at least make the playoffs after 4 failed seasons or he is out. Also we are using Team Popularity. If a GM tanks over a large period of seasons they have a hard time making money cause their Team Popularity is so low that hardly anyone is attending their games.

HOFHL wrote:In our league teams need to make the playoffs every 3 seasons or the GM will receive a strike. After 3 strikes you are out, so basically if a GM tanks heavily he needs at least make the playoffs after 4 failed seasons or he is out. Also we are using Team Popularity. If a GM tanks over a large period of seasons they have a hard time making money cause their Team Popularity is so low that hardly anyone is attending their games.

Wow, we weren't using this. Can someone elaborate about team popularity ? Is this something that happens automatically once you activate it?

it's a percentage that influence the normal revenue system of the STHS.

if you set it to 80, team will make only 80% of what it should do usually. If you set it to 120 it will make 120% more... etc.

HOFHL wrote:In our league teams need to make the playoffs every 3 seasons or the GM will receive a strike. After 3 strikes you are out, so basically if a GM tanks heavily he needs at least make the playoffs after 4 failed seasons or he is out. Also we are using Team Popularity. If a GM tanks over a large period of seasons they have a hard time making money cause their Team Popularity is so low that hardly anyone is attending their games.

How can you "force" a team to make the playoffs every 3 years? The sim has a lot of random to it and good teams might not make the playoffs. If you run a 30 team league, you have a 47% chance of NOT making the playoffs...so how can you ask someone to make the playoffs 33% of the time if they have a higher percentage of NOT making the playoffs.

I don't think that's a good rule in my opinion. Rebuilding a team can sometimes take 4-5 seasons in a sim league. So you are going to penalize a GM for wanting to build from the ground up with young players that may not have ratings as high as seasoned vets?

To each league its own rule, but in 15 years in sim hockey, I have never seen a rule like this...

First of all we are a retro league with 21 teams where 16 teams make the playoffs. Secondly, you have to make the playoffs every 5 seasons, not every 3, before you are out. Before you criticise you should learn to read. And just criticising is easy, whats your rule to prevent tanking?

HOFHL wrote:First of all we are a retro league with 21 teams where 16 teams make the playoffs. Secondly, you have to make the playoffs every 5 seasons, not every 3, before you are out. Before you criticise you should learn to read. And just criticising is easy, whats your rule to prevent tanking?

This is the beginning of your post on July 30, 2014:

In our league teams need to make the playoffs every 3 seasons or the GM will receive a strike.

YOU wrote 3 seasons...I just quoted your previous post...so maybe you should proof-read your messages before clicking the submit button.

My league has 16 teams and 12 make the playoffs. I have no idea what the number of teams in your league and the number of teams that make the playoffs has to do with tanking a team before leaving.

I wasn't criticizing...I was actually asking why would you force your GM's to make the playoffs when you are using a simulator that has a lot of randomness to it. Like I said...you can have the best team on paper in an STHS league, but nothing says you will still make the playoffs. I am a GM in another league besides mine in which there are 42 teams...I have seen better teams than mine not make the playoffs...so why would you force your GM's to make the playoffs even though only 5 teams miss the playoffs every season...?

I do not have a rule in my league against GM's tanking teams. I judge on the validity of the trades myself. If I think a trade is suspicious, I will talk to my Executive Committee which is comprised of 4 GM's to figure out if the trade is acceptable or not. I have been running my league for over 14 years, have simulated 18 full seasons and never had a GM tank a concession.

Oh...and I run a fantasy league with no-name players (you won't find Crosby or Ovechkin in my league...)

Anyways, each league has their own ways...I'm not saying yours is bad, I was only looking for a logic answer to why you would force your GM's to make the playoffs every so often.

no, i wrote after 3 failed season you receive a strike, and with 3 strikes you are out. You should read the full post, not only the first sentence. In now 15 simmed seasons we had only one team not making the playoffs for 5+ seasons, and that team was tanking, and that team was the reason why we introduced the rule. So in now 15 simmed seasons no GM was fired of the rule. Also fired GM could reapply as GM of the league for another team, its just there to prevent tanking, not for getting rid of GMs.

I understand what Marc is worried about. In my leagues opinion we don't really care if a team just wants to "tank" so long as it doesn't look like the GM is simply destroying the team. We care more about the integrity of the team and value of prospects.

We do watch for shady trades or trades that simply make no sense at all regardless how you spin it and we have cancelled trades before where it wasn't in line with good faith.

We have a GM who year after year, just seems to want to collect awesome prospects. We have no real idea what the end goal is, but year after year, he is getting good picks and when they turn out, spin them off for a nice return.

So as long as the team is not being destroyed (for the sake of a new incoming GM), we could care less if they actually want to tank and still take forever to get to winning.

Foo wrote:it's a percentage that influence the normal revenue system of the STHS.

if you set it to 80, team will make only 80% of what it should do usually. If you set it to 120 it will make 120% more... etc.

Thanks Foo! You explained exactly what I wanted to know without me creating a new thread.

What we did to prevent tanking:

Set a rule that you can't make your lines with the intent of losing. This is very broad but if you put hour best player on the 4th line your intent is to lose.
Min OV for pro for a goalie, 2 D and 3 FW
Min/max for line and team strategies so team can't put 5-0-0 (5 of PHY) for example as a strategy

I personaly don't like the idea of a max OV or salary. If you want to tank, you can easily get around these rules.