Tanking

[42PhD]

I haven't looked deeply the the "This year" indications, but there is some cherry-picking there.

Hornets: EWA is cited here and there, but with many more minutes, ZBO has a better VA (EWA is the better, too, but rounding suppresses that) than Thomas.

Nuggets: He signed those very PG's (I tried to sign Wheat, but I posed a reply instead of a thread and lost out) that are better than Parker. He is starting Wheat in the DC I checks, spreading minutes around. It's hard to justify equal minutes for the two, but Parker is bigger, which matters some. This case is likely the tankiest one of the bunch, but the example Sources provided was not a good one.

Timberwolves: Scola is a rookie and there is a long term reward for getting him minutes, but he is not being played to that level. Rather, he's playing the better PF more and playing the hell out of Mills, who he went out an got. Same for Hakeem.


Also, what was mentioned was "fun" as the reason tanking hurts, or bad teams sitting around and collecting good picks. Ok, thanks.

Why? Why do they do that? And what is so not fun about other people losing when you are trying to win?

[Xist2Inspire]

I'll just say this: If you have a rookie that you plan on making a part of your future and you're not going to be a good team, you're cheating yourself if you don't play that rookie as much as possible.

[Inner_GI]

A few things:

1. I do not agree with hiding behind a sources account.

2. I do not think a tanking discussion is ever going to amount to much unless we change our focus to "repeat offenders"

3. My take:

I for one do not think there should be some committee judging inputted DCs for the worst sims. Instead, GMs should be able to play their players, set their DCs, make their trades in any way they want. That's what being a GM is about. Currently there is a benefit to playing rookies 30MPG even if they suck (and your team sucks), so I don't want to accuse someone of tanking because they play their rookies. PLaying their rookies will make their team better in the long run, and if their team already sucks, how do you tell them they are "doing it wrong." You can't.

I would instead ask us to focus our attention on the GMs that have dragged a team through the dirt for consecutive years (i.e what I did with the suns). Those are the cases we should be monitoring. Are they tanking because they just like drafting high? Do they need help understanding the game, DCs, etc? Do they not have time to be a full GM? Was there a valid reason that after 3-5 years of tanking, the team never got better?

Tanking 1 or 2 years to land potential star players is really the only way to get star players in these league outside of trading. RFA has limited the movement of the top players, and playing rookies has a benefit to the long-term success of a team. I'm more concerned with the "repeat offenders."

[JNR]

I think the reason Scola is getting minutes is obvious, and has been pointed out by a few smart people here, so I don't need to defend myself on it. But good look hiding behind an anon account. Really makes me take you seriously.

[RPF]

Hiding behind sources is for bitches, IMO. If you have something to say just get some Fryeing balls and say it.

[IamQuailman]

I'm going to be pretty frank and blunt on this.

I've gotten a lot of pressure from numerous GMs to take a stance on tanking, and as a result, I created this thread to establish a baseline for "tanking rules".

Since the beginning of this league, I've been a firm believer in that, as many have said, sometimes you just gotta bottom out to get something/someone worth a shit in this game. Sometimes you get lucky and hit the lotto (last year); sometimes you are the 2nd worst record and pick #5 overall (1994 draft). But my decision to gut my team was my decision alone and my right as a Gm to make the moves I made. Who a person plays minutes for is a decision for them to make. So Quail the GM wholeheartly thinks that if teams want to suck it is their right to suck. And honestly, Quail the GM think everyone needs a dose of "Mind your own damn business" medicine; focus on your team and stop (to steal an Original Eazy P saying) "<expletive deleted> depth charts". Is someone playing a rookie player 30 minutes instead of 10 minutes really shitting on your 6-2 sim?

But as Quail the Commish, with the complaints I was receiving, I took a stance that allowed for flexibility and interpretation. I'm not going to set anyone on recommended just on a whim. If I get complaints, I'll reach out to you and be like "Yo, got a complaint about this. What's up?" I'm not a hardass, and if we discuss it and shit is fine by me, then no worries. But if you are rolling out a team of r/r players or o/o players and your bench has y/y and g/g players, then yeah, you're getting a warning.

[p_amour]

At the of the day, not even in the NBA, GM's are allowed 100% to do what they want, not even in terms of their DC. The anti-tanking rules of the NBA says it is a Team's responsibility to put their most competitive players on the floor at all times. And that should be the Guidelines of any league. The is no real way to judge if a team is tanking or not, but by Identifying if they are trying to be competitive or not.

The Goal of any GM should be to win championships not winning the lotto, well unless you are gambler. We have some GMs who put a team together then lose a couple games and they trash their team to go in tank mode. I see a lot of GMs getting up speaking out against tanking, but you are the ones helping tankers by receiving these bullshit trade offers, just because it makes your team better. You never took the time to realize you are the one helping the same guys you are bashing to tank.

Still don't like the commissioner idea about color ratings being the main source of identifying tankers. Sounds like you are just being to lazy to look into the numbers a player is putting up. Basketball is a game of stats, so why not let the stats do the talking? and not some red blue green shit. those color rating are boosted first and foremost by high QKN STR JMP, but at the end it is the commissioner's league and base on what it sound like he is saying in this thread we don't have much say here.

The other thing is if the league is sharing points for playing rookies, and these same points can be used to land trade deals, to help develop players etc, There is no way anyone in the league can say to another that he is tanking by playing his rookies. He is not, as playing that rookie give him a way to take advantage of points being offered by the league to make his team better.

With that I have nothing else to say in this thread.

[42PhD]

All good points, p_amour. I'll only add that quail is basically saying that is something that starts a conversation, and in that conversation explanations can be given. It's not that judgment on colors leads to punishment.

I'll continue to ask, what is the problem. So far, "fun" is the answer I got, meaning tanking takes away fun, and fun is one of the main reasons the league exists. So, could be a decent point if it is shared.

I think what people want is competition, and competition comes from a reasonable number of teams with a reasonable chance to win and a reasonable way to recover from taking chances.

The Hornets went all in against the Hawks, lost in the playoffs as expected, and is now accused of tanking. Really?

I have no problem with speaking from sources, and there are valid questions to ask Nick, but Frye the Frye off calling him out when he is one of the only people who has actually Fryeing tried. Trying should be rewarded, not published.

Add a Fryeing incentive to win or try, remove a penalty for trying (e.g. amnesty) and quit picking on something no one can both Fryeing define and Fryeing detect.

Thanks, p_.

[Darth Vegito]

I see a lot of GMs getting up speaking out against tanking, but you are the ones helping tankers by receiving these bullshit trade offers, just because it makes your team better. You never took the time to realize you are the one helping the same guys you are bashing to

Damn. You know what. This made me see the light. You are so right. This is most definitely the top gms' fault. I now see the error of my ways. I promise to no longer add to this problem and be a good gm and help improve my team by making others worse. I vow that if I make a trade that is deemed fair, I'll give the other party even more just to make sure I don't contribute to this problem. Thank you sir. My eyes have truly been opened.

[Xist2Inspire]

I still stand by my belief that this is temporary. The majority of the East was rebuilding anyway when Wig formed his team. The Hawks had no chance at losing for at least two years. There were 3 very solid drafts back-to-back-to-back. It's not rocket science here. And honestly......if it wasn't for the fact that guys like Amare, Yao, Gasol, LeBron, Wade, etc were/are at stake, I don't think that this would even be an issue at all.

[IamQuailman]

Still don't like the commissioner idea about color ratings being the main source of identifying tankers. Sounds like you are just being to lazy to look into the numbers a player is putting up. Basketball is a game of stats, so why not let the stats do the talking? and not some red blue green shit. those color rating are boosted first and foremost by high QKN STR JMP, but at the end it is the commissioner's league and base on what it sound like he is saying in this thread we don't have much say here.

Again, I'm not hardlining the color thing. It's a basis. And if there's a good reason why playing Player A over Player B, then cool. But color is simply a quick reference point because let's be honest: I don't have time to scour through everyone's stats and shit. Maybe if someone else complains to me about it, yeah, I'll look into it. So we can check that "you are just being lazy" crap at the door.

And let me get something straight. I'm not looking to dick anyone or be a Fryeing hard ass about this. If I notice something, I'll talk to you about it and if you can give me any kind of logical reason behind it, then I'm not going to Frye with what you are doing.

[IamQuailman]

Sorry if that came off asshole-ish, but this whole "arguing over tanking" thing that keeps happening is exhausting. 42 brings up a great point about the "fun" being sucked out because of tanking. I really love this league and keeping it going, but I'll go as far to say that people constantly bitching and arguing about tanking takes the fun out of things way much more than the alleged tanking itself.

[42PhD]

Sorry if that came off asshole-ish, but this whole "arguing over tanking" thing that keeps happening is exhausting. 42 brings up a great point about the "fun" being sucked out because of tanking. I really love this league and keeping it going, but I'll go as far to say that people constantly bitching and arguing about tanking takes the fun out of things way much more than the alleged tanking itself.

To be clear, that is me quoting someone else. I am unbothered at this point in time, but I wholeheartedly support the point that resolutionless bitching generally wears patience and erodes attitude.

I think tanking is a, for lack of a better word, unexamined word that is distracting from the real gripe. I doubt it is tanking. It is likely that tanking involves asset flow from a team out. When those assets that one would expect to be distributed to a certain extent are not, it creates a negative feeling. When it persists, and when its assets that should flow to losing teams largely and end up flowing to winning teams, one sees an upper class forming, and they resign themselves to a lower class. The loser mentality and how it enables the basic game to corrupted by the (talent) market being cornered seems to be the gripe, but that is just me looking. I don't suffer from this. I will happily blow my team up when the time comes, and then I will try to win again.

[ballsohard]

Still don't like the commissioner idea about color ratings being the main source of identifying tankers. Sounds like you are just being to lazy to look into the numbers a player is putting up. Basketball is a game of stats, so why not let the stats do the talking? and not some red blue green shit. those color rating are boosted first and foremost by high QKN STR JMP, but at the end it is the commissioner's league and base on what it sound like he is saying in this thread we don't have much say here.


With that I have nothing else to say in this thread.

You clearly haven't read the whole thread because it's been established that that isn't the case not ever has been but it's a blanket type of rule to be said but judged on a case by case instance.

[logpmess]

Just curious. Is this new policy going to a vote?

[Darth Vegito]

VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE

[IamQuailman]

Just curious. Is this new policy going to a vote?

No

[NOLa.]

Just curious. Is this new policy going to a vote?

No

Sent via Morse code

[LoCo89]

Just curious. Is this new policy going to a vote?

No

Sent via Morse code

[TheSyndicate]

Doug - just an FYI that if you get serious complaints about my DC, I'm happy to go recommended. I really am trying to put my shithole of a roster in the best position to win each game.

[WigNosy]

No longer applicable per 2015 Proposition 8: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=4491

[LoCo89]

phpBB [video]

[garbageman]

I know some may criticize me for hiding behind a sources account, but I want to single some people out and let them defend themselves, and I would prefer they not have a vendetta against me. First of all, I believe someone mentioned that tanking isn't hurting anyone so just let it run it's course (more or less). If that's the case, why not let those trying to lose sign these r/r guys out of the draft? Why make them try and cover up their trying to lose with signing Y/Y?

The reason tanking is a problem in my opinion is that this is a highly competitive league. I haven't spent nearly as much time rebuilding as some teams, so maybe I'm putting my foot somewhere it shouldn't be, but I wanted to comment.

If anyone listened to the Lowe Post with Amin Elhassan, you hear him talking about how even the most patient ownership groups run out of patience at some point. There's nothing wrong with bottoming out for a year or 2, but when it's taking 3-4 plus years of being miserably bad, something's wrong, and in real life, that GM is fired. This was a big debate in the beginning of the league with computer-run teams. There's no fun in letting the computer run a shitty team and having them hoard top 5-10 picks every single year. It's just less fun for the rest of the league.

With that said, objectively, it's really just not that hard to look at a team and see if they're trying to lose games (outside of simple roster build). If a team sucks at shooting 3s and is taking the 10th most 3s per game, something's wrong there. If a team has a good facilitating point guard and is running a motion of 1, that's a problem.

For player examples, here are a few:

2001: Orlando Magic
Tyson Chandler plays 30.5 minutes a game with a PER of 7.8. Why? Because he wants to lose and we reward rookies for playing 30 MPG. Chandler posts the worst EWA in the entire league with a -3.5. By being on the court throughout the season, Chandler took 3.5 wins away compared to a guy you can sign off the street. Meanwhile Jahidi White plays 20.4 MPG starting 0 games. White is by no means a star, but he's a legitimate player. I believe he plays for the Warriors this year and is putting up legitimate minutes.

This year: Denver Nuggets
Smush Parker is playing 23.6 minutes per game with a PER of 6.4. He's started 15 of the 39 games he's played in. In half a season, he's posted an EWA of -2.1. Look at his ratings and you can sign almost ANY player in free agency and get better production. That's just egregious.

This year: Minnesota Timberwolves
Luis Scola is playing 17.5 minutes per game with a PER of 9.0. He has an EWA of -1.8 halfway through the season. There is no reason for Scola to step foot on a basketball court this season unless trying to lose with the excuse of "playing young players."

This year: Charlotte Hornets
Kurt Thomas is simply a better player with better ratings than Zach Randolph. Thomas has played in 33 of the 37 games with an average of 6 minutes a game (garbage time). That's the player Randolph should be right now. Instead, he's playing 16 minutes per game with a net efficiency rating of -23.

There are many more I can point out, and to those I did point out, I'm not mad or pissed and I don't want to offend, but I would love to hear your explanation for your moves.

phpBB [video]