What do you think about tanking in general?
What do you think about the new rule change to address tanking?
Rules: 1 point if you give thoughtful answers, which I will award after the timer ends for responses. The timer ends for responses at the moment the corresponding week's Sim is run.
Note: Use approximately 5 sentences as your bare minimum for 1 point. If you write 3 long, complex sentences, you'll still get a point. If you write 5, 3 word sentences, you will not get a point. Don't @ me.
Due: Deadline for TC
S91 Town Hall 2
- Mike Lowry
- Posts: 1839
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:44 am
- PBSL Team: Washington Bullets
- Location: D.C.
S91 Town Hall 2
What cha gonna do
Re: S91 Town Hall 2
I understand the impulse. The ability to get a potential franchise cornerstone with a lot of talent, on a cheap contract so you can afford to spend around them in Free Agency, and knowing thanks to RFA that player is locked under your control for 6 to 9 seasons so you can plan long-term around the player is an attractive team-building proposition if you can get a top draft pick. The complication is that generally there are multiple teams attempting to tank in any given season for just one or two top players, meaning there is pressure on you to sell off even more of your assets to get to the top pick than you might otherwise... and on top of that we have a draft lottery, so there's a lot of randomness involved and you're having to climb out of a really deep hole - I question how reliable a team-building method tanking is. For every Spurs and Timberwolves success story with a quick turnaround, there are a lot of other stories of tanks that didn't really pay off.
That said, there has to be some attention paid to "competitive integrity" - it is clear from yesterday's kerfluffle that there is some consensus that there is a line to be drawn when tanking. My read on things is that most folks want to see that you are trying to make winning decisions with the assets available to you and are okay with the idea of "making the choice of trading off today's talent for tomorrow's picks/young players" - but less okay with "deliberately passing over talent you could get at no relative cost in favor of chasing a tank."
I think the rule change to address tanking (if you fail to reach 15 wins, your pick moves to the back of the lottery) is a good start, but I also think it doesn't do enough to address the fundamental problem that leads to the desire to tank: lack of hope, driven by lack of parity. The league's first season was exciting because we were at the best parity level and everyone felt they had a chance. Since about season 3, there are only ever 3 to 5 teams with a real title shot each year, and that's a problem. There are many structural things that drive this (for example, a best-of-seven playoff series really amplifies small advantages; if a team has a 65% chance of winning a single game, that magnifies to over an 80% chance to win 7-game a series), and I *don't* think all of them are bad, but I'll save a deeper breakdown for a CWAC, as this really gets into game design theory and is not well-suited for a Town Hall.
That said, there has to be some attention paid to "competitive integrity" - it is clear from yesterday's kerfluffle that there is some consensus that there is a line to be drawn when tanking. My read on things is that most folks want to see that you are trying to make winning decisions with the assets available to you and are okay with the idea of "making the choice of trading off today's talent for tomorrow's picks/young players" - but less okay with "deliberately passing over talent you could get at no relative cost in favor of chasing a tank."
I think the rule change to address tanking (if you fail to reach 15 wins, your pick moves to the back of the lottery) is a good start, but I also think it doesn't do enough to address the fundamental problem that leads to the desire to tank: lack of hope, driven by lack of parity. The league's first season was exciting because we were at the best parity level and everyone felt they had a chance. Since about season 3, there are only ever 3 to 5 teams with a real title shot each year, and that's a problem. There are many structural things that drive this (for example, a best-of-seven playoff series really amplifies small advantages; if a team has a 65% chance of winning a single game, that magnifies to over an 80% chance to win 7-game a series), and I *don't* think all of them are bad, but I'll save a deeper breakdown for a CWAC, as this really gets into game design theory and is not well-suited for a Town Hall.
The Cat is Back
Re: S91 Town Hall 2
I'll repeat what I said in the discord then expand on it:
I dislike tanking and it mostly stems from jealousy and a sense of injustice. "why does he get to just be bad and get the #1 pick?"
But the lottery is fickle. There's many people that can attest to that. No one is guaranteed their projected pick.
If someone wants to be bad, that's an easy win on the schedule. They still have to put together a team around that person and gameplan.
The easiest way to discourage it is to not trade with the person and give them assets to achieve that goal.
The main gripe around tanking seems to be about "integrity." I just don't understand how there can be a good way and bad way to tank. I think it has to be absolute "tanking is bad" or "tanking is okay." Someone who sells all their players to not be able to field a winning team is "good" but someone who signs all reds is "bad". Someone who sets their gameplan to be unsustainable is "good' but someone who sits their best player is "bad." I think we need to define the issue behind the issue. Personally, it's a part of the game. If you don't want someone to tank, tank better. If you don't want someone to have multiple 1sts, don't trade with them. There will always be a way around any "anti-tanking" rule. I think the bigger concerns of the league and its "integrity" should be around inactive gms, but we can save that for another time.
As far as the new rule goes, it'll help some but not enough. People are already scheming on winning 15 then coasting. I think the best proposal has been you get put on recommended if you fall below a certain win percentage. Or wig's draft where you're linked to another team (can't remember what it's called)
I dislike tanking and it mostly stems from jealousy and a sense of injustice. "why does he get to just be bad and get the #1 pick?"
But the lottery is fickle. There's many people that can attest to that. No one is guaranteed their projected pick.
If someone wants to be bad, that's an easy win on the schedule. They still have to put together a team around that person and gameplan.
The easiest way to discourage it is to not trade with the person and give them assets to achieve that goal.
The main gripe around tanking seems to be about "integrity." I just don't understand how there can be a good way and bad way to tank. I think it has to be absolute "tanking is bad" or "tanking is okay." Someone who sells all their players to not be able to field a winning team is "good" but someone who signs all reds is "bad". Someone who sets their gameplan to be unsustainable is "good' but someone who sits their best player is "bad." I think we need to define the issue behind the issue. Personally, it's a part of the game. If you don't want someone to tank, tank better. If you don't want someone to have multiple 1sts, don't trade with them. There will always be a way around any "anti-tanking" rule. I think the bigger concerns of the league and its "integrity" should be around inactive gms, but we can save that for another time.
As far as the new rule goes, it'll help some but not enough. People are already scheming on winning 15 then coasting. I think the best proposal has been you get put on recommended if you fall below a certain win percentage. Or wig's draft where you're linked to another team (can't remember what it's called)
Re: S91 Town Hall 2
What do you think about tanking in general?
Tanking is strategy. This whole game is about strategy. It is all part of the game. It should be allowed. You can create deterrences to curb it from becoming rampant like the NBA does but there should be some say from the league as a whole.
What do you think about the new rule change to address tanking?
Why now? Why in the middle of the offseason without a vote? It is a Shaq-sized question that begs to be asked. I dont like it but like Darth Vegito mentioned in the Discord - it is hard to be subjective when you have a vested interest in a particular outcome. I am actively tanking for 1992. It has been part of my strategy for several seasons now. And all that "work" for potentially nothing is disappointing. Especially when teams have been tanking since the league started with no repercussions. This is just a game at the end of the day so you move on and enjoy life, but I think this was an overreaction to something that has been brewing for a while now in sim league. It was worth a discussion with a vote to implement by 199X, and we did not get that opportunity. But we move on. 15 wins here we come. I will still tank. Just not as well as I could have.
Tanking is strategy. This whole game is about strategy. It is all part of the game. It should be allowed. You can create deterrences to curb it from becoming rampant like the NBA does but there should be some say from the league as a whole.
What do you think about the new rule change to address tanking?
Why now? Why in the middle of the offseason without a vote? It is a Shaq-sized question that begs to be asked. I dont like it but like Darth Vegito mentioned in the Discord - it is hard to be subjective when you have a vested interest in a particular outcome. I am actively tanking for 1992. It has been part of my strategy for several seasons now. And all that "work" for potentially nothing is disappointing. Especially when teams have been tanking since the league started with no repercussions. This is just a game at the end of the day so you move on and enjoy life, but I think this was an overreaction to something that has been brewing for a while now in sim league. It was worth a discussion with a vote to implement by 199X, and we did not get that opportunity. But we move on. 15 wins here we come. I will still tank. Just not as well as I could have.
- Darth Vegito
- Posts: 2860
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:20 pm
- PBSL Team: KC Kings
Re: S91 Town Hall 2
Here's my diatribe:
Tanking is bad. Period. Have I ever tanked before? No. Period.
Many are confusing "tanking" with entering a planned rebuild.
Tanking does NOT EQUAL Rebuilding. These are two different things. What's the difference? One word that you all know and love: INTEGRITY.
Rebuilding is necessary for every franchise at some point. EVEN the Bucks will have to enter a rebuild after he stops finessing the rest of the league with his silver tongue. When you reach a point where you know your current team as built can't contend, you must pivot. Sometimes a rebuild is necessary. At that point, you start selling off you older talent for as much youth and draft picks as possible. Because you need more, and better, and younger talent. How do you get that? In our league, the draft is usually the only way to acquire said talent. RFA locks most young studs in for 8 years on their team. To get good talent you have to be bad and hope for a high lotto pick. If you sell off your best older players for youth and picks, you'll likely not have a great team. It's a plan. You stockpile resources for 2-3 years and then jump back in to get that championship.
I've done this several times as a GM. I utilize my cap space to take on bad contracts for more points. I will sign as many valuable players as possible during UFA to flip. I only will go after guys I KNOW I can flip. It's not hard. The goal is to stack assets. Here's the caveat...EVERYTIME I've done this, I have been bad and have gotten a decent pick that helped my future team. I never once, played worser players over better ones. I never once gave my MUCH better starter 14 minutes, and played the scrub the other 34 minutes. I never once benched good players that everyone knows should be on the court. I never once manipulated my DC or Gameplan to ensure I lose games. I've been playing this game long enough, I know that if I do certain things, my team will NOT win games. And so do all of you. No one is dumb. Even when I am in rebuilding mode, I take that bad, terrible team and try to put out the best team on the court and win games. I know I won't because the talent is bad. But I am competitive as Frye, and I love the challenge of taking a shit roster and knocking off a top 5 team in a sim. Because when I do I know it was because of my game planning skills and nothing else.
The above example is how rebuilding is done with integrity.
Tanking is similar but lacks integrity, ethics, or morals. It's purposefully sabotaging your team to lose games. And you may be saying, "but thats exactly what you described above...". No, it's not. No one believes that 30 teams have to all think they can contend every season. Ultimately you want splits, top 3rd of true contenders, middle 3rd that thinks they can get into the playoffs and make noise, bottom 3rd who are in some stage of rebuild and likely suck. That's OK! No one is debating this. People are pissed about the way it has been happening. THAT is what I have a problem with. The BLATANT in the league's face manipulation and sabotage of one's team that's has taken place. I keep saying integrity, but I should always add that it's supposed to be a healthy COMPETITIVE INTEGRITY. I stress the "competitive" part that has left the building.
I get that I can't force people to have ethics and morals. Not everyone has these things. And that's when the rules need to come in and help those unethical people out. Because they can't help themselves. Sure, this is a game we play for funsies. But it's always been more than that to me. Everything we do in life, game or no, reflects who you are as a person. You may not believe that but I truly do. So in this case, yes, there is a wrong and right way to go about "tanking" or "rebuilding", no matter the word you use. The outrage yesterday was brought on by the most blatant thing we've seen to date. GMs who never say a peep or get involved in the Discord drama had LOTS to say about it. That underlines how people truly felt about it.
As far as the new rule imposed. It's fine, and I thank our Commish for doing SOMETHING. Will it solve it...probably not. But it's a step in the right direction. Everytime I hear, well I didn't break any rules...I take it as a challenge. OK, we'll get more rules then. I will take this time to ask ONCE AGAIN, for a new SHADOW COUNCIL. A one man band works and could run a league like this, we see it in all modern sports. One guy, one commissioner, makes the calls. Our commish has always had a thankless job and adding the job of coming up with and imposing new rules should not be one of them.
I have never liked the voting stuff. If there was a league of 30 GMs who played with integrity, then maybe it works. We don't have that. Sorry, we don't. Our voters vote for their best interest, and more times than not, it makes the league worse off. We need a council of 4-5 GMs who care deeply about the league and can make decisions based on the betterment of the league always and not themselves or be an advocate for their teams. And it takes a huge weight off of the already weighed shoulders of the Commish. Back in the day when we were young and dumb, the Shadow Council worked beautifully. But ego was also in the mix and that was its demise. Now everyone is older and much more wise and I think without the ego at play, a council would work great for this league and really be able to solve issues and make the NPBSL great again.
Can I get more than 1 point for this?
Tanking is bad. Period. Have I ever tanked before? No. Period.
Many are confusing "tanking" with entering a planned rebuild.
Tanking does NOT EQUAL Rebuilding. These are two different things. What's the difference? One word that you all know and love: INTEGRITY.
Rebuilding is necessary for every franchise at some point. EVEN the Bucks will have to enter a rebuild after he stops finessing the rest of the league with his silver tongue. When you reach a point where you know your current team as built can't contend, you must pivot. Sometimes a rebuild is necessary. At that point, you start selling off you older talent for as much youth and draft picks as possible. Because you need more, and better, and younger talent. How do you get that? In our league, the draft is usually the only way to acquire said talent. RFA locks most young studs in for 8 years on their team. To get good talent you have to be bad and hope for a high lotto pick. If you sell off your best older players for youth and picks, you'll likely not have a great team. It's a plan. You stockpile resources for 2-3 years and then jump back in to get that championship.
I've done this several times as a GM. I utilize my cap space to take on bad contracts for more points. I will sign as many valuable players as possible during UFA to flip. I only will go after guys I KNOW I can flip. It's not hard. The goal is to stack assets. Here's the caveat...EVERYTIME I've done this, I have been bad and have gotten a decent pick that helped my future team. I never once, played worser players over better ones. I never once gave my MUCH better starter 14 minutes, and played the scrub the other 34 minutes. I never once benched good players that everyone knows should be on the court. I never once manipulated my DC or Gameplan to ensure I lose games. I've been playing this game long enough, I know that if I do certain things, my team will NOT win games. And so do all of you. No one is dumb. Even when I am in rebuilding mode, I take that bad, terrible team and try to put out the best team on the court and win games. I know I won't because the talent is bad. But I am competitive as Frye, and I love the challenge of taking a shit roster and knocking off a top 5 team in a sim. Because when I do I know it was because of my game planning skills and nothing else.
The above example is how rebuilding is done with integrity.
Tanking is similar but lacks integrity, ethics, or morals. It's purposefully sabotaging your team to lose games. And you may be saying, "but thats exactly what you described above...". No, it's not. No one believes that 30 teams have to all think they can contend every season. Ultimately you want splits, top 3rd of true contenders, middle 3rd that thinks they can get into the playoffs and make noise, bottom 3rd who are in some stage of rebuild and likely suck. That's OK! No one is debating this. People are pissed about the way it has been happening. THAT is what I have a problem with. The BLATANT in the league's face manipulation and sabotage of one's team that's has taken place. I keep saying integrity, but I should always add that it's supposed to be a healthy COMPETITIVE INTEGRITY. I stress the "competitive" part that has left the building.
I get that I can't force people to have ethics and morals. Not everyone has these things. And that's when the rules need to come in and help those unethical people out. Because they can't help themselves. Sure, this is a game we play for funsies. But it's always been more than that to me. Everything we do in life, game or no, reflects who you are as a person. You may not believe that but I truly do. So in this case, yes, there is a wrong and right way to go about "tanking" or "rebuilding", no matter the word you use. The outrage yesterday was brought on by the most blatant thing we've seen to date. GMs who never say a peep or get involved in the Discord drama had LOTS to say about it. That underlines how people truly felt about it.
As far as the new rule imposed. It's fine, and I thank our Commish for doing SOMETHING. Will it solve it...probably not. But it's a step in the right direction. Everytime I hear, well I didn't break any rules...I take it as a challenge. OK, we'll get more rules then. I will take this time to ask ONCE AGAIN, for a new SHADOW COUNCIL. A one man band works and could run a league like this, we see it in all modern sports. One guy, one commissioner, makes the calls. Our commish has always had a thankless job and adding the job of coming up with and imposing new rules should not be one of them.
I have never liked the voting stuff. If there was a league of 30 GMs who played with integrity, then maybe it works. We don't have that. Sorry, we don't. Our voters vote for their best interest, and more times than not, it makes the league worse off. We need a council of 4-5 GMs who care deeply about the league and can make decisions based on the betterment of the league always and not themselves or be an advocate for their teams. And it takes a huge weight off of the already weighed shoulders of the Commish. Back in the day when we were young and dumb, the Shadow Council worked beautifully. But ego was also in the mix and that was its demise. Now everyone is older and much more wise and I think without the ego at play, a council would work great for this league and really be able to solve issues and make the NPBSL great again.
Can I get more than 1 point for this?