Should Playoffs Matter More?

[NOLa.]

Our commish has brought up a great point after the whole DC lineup conversation from last night: Is there enough incentive to make the playoffs?

Old GMs remember the old rules about setting lineups where your better colored player needed to start and play more minutes than lesser players, but we've abolished the rule to allow teams to play their rookies and younger players. Tanking has always been an issue we've discussed and we have had multiple threads about it before, but we never discussed the opposite of tanking as a potential curb.

The current reward is 3 points for making the playoffs and an extra 4 for each playoff series won. There is also the regular season win award which would be higher if you make the playoffs. Is this enough incentive?

[IamQuailman]

100% should have more incentive to win. All in for more points playoff success, extra insurance protection for playoff teams, whatever. There needs to be an incentive for a) winning and b) teams who go into tax to stick around longer can afford tax bills. Many teams blow their squads up prematurely because they are about to be 30 mil over and in a repeater.

[drkavarga]

There should also be more points for winning a championship. That might add more incentive for teams to gun for the championship instead of tanking for picks.

[NOLa.]

There should also be more points for winning a championship. That might add more incentive for teams to gun for the championship instead of tanking for picks.

We don't want you getting richer James ffs

[false9]

I think Chad talked about this in the last Horns and Fangs, but this could result in a larger gulf between the haves and the have nots.

[garbageman]

I think the championship is its own prize, and the top teams have incentive to compete. Nobody's benching their starters if they have a serious chance to win. It's the teams in the middle that are probably the most at risk, and for teams with no chance at making the playoffs, I'm not concerned about those teams. I feel like the Warriors are kind of in between being a team that could make the playoffs and a team that has no chance. Power poll has them ranked at 21 (12th in the West) after pre-season / before sim 1, and the game predicted them to be 4th in the Pacific.

If we want teams to be more competitive, I don't think the top teams need convincing. It's the teams in the middle that need the most incentive. When you're fighting for 8th, the tradeoff of 3 points to get eliminated in the first round or a chance to get a nice lotto prospect isn't that convincing. Furthermore, we have to be careful not to reward something that should be its own reward (winning games) more than we already do to prevent dynasties from forming (especially if we're taking aim at teams who have few other options to get better besides through the draft).

I prefer incentivizing making the playoffs more than punishing teams who are tanking because other teams tanking doesn't take the fun out of it for me. Maybe it's a different story out West, but I have never felt like the league isn't competitive enough. And if it is a different story out in the West, I don't think that has anything to do with tanking, just the distribution of new, and (historically) inactive GMs. I'd much rather have a tanking team with an active GM than a coasting team with an inactive one.

I am interested in folks' thoughts about a reversed point reward system for making the playoffs. The division leaders get the 3 points for making, plus the 2 points for winning their division. Everyone else gets the number of points of their seed (5th place gets 5 points, 8th place gets 8 points). I think the trade-off in gamesmanship to try to slide back in seeding is too trivial for it to be worthwhile, and the opportunity to get 7 or 8 points instead of 0 points is a much more enticing incentive to try to get into the playoffs than 3 points, and there, I'd definitely rather have 8 points than a slightly-better-than-zero chance of getting a top 3 pick.

Conversely, I think that leveling out the lotto odds more between all lotto teams is another good idea to explore instead of giving out more points to teams that are already winning. There's less of a reason for me to play my best players last off the bench if it doesn't really help my lotto odds.

[NOLa.]

I don't want to assume, but I feel most in the league would agree that in regards to adding an incentive to the playoffs it should not directly penalize a non-playoff team. If the awarded points are sufficient but not enough to convince a fringe team to compete, then points won't help.

An idea was an extra insurance slot for playoff teams. Non-playoff teams already get 3 and an extra slot could become very coveted. Instead of focusing on the absolute worst teams and asking "what do we need to get them in the playoff race" the idea should be geared towards the mid-to-late lottery teams. If you're sitting at the 10th position, would you rather a small % chance of jumping in the lottery or try to make the playoffs for [insert reward]. Could an extra insurance slot be worth it? Is that too great of a reward?

[Darth Vegito]

Could we possibly institute a ethics/ morals test to gauge a prospective GM before we invite them into our sacred fraternity?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[IamQuailman]

I don't want to assume, but I feel most in the league would agree that in regards to adding an incentive to the playoffs it should not directly penalize a non-playoff team. If the awarded points are sufficient but not enough to convince a fringe team to compete, then points won't help.

An idea was an extra insurance slot for playoff teams. Non-playoff teams already get 3 and an extra slot could become very coveted. Instead of focusing on the absolute worst teams and asking "what do we need to get them in the playoff race" the idea should be geared towards the mid-to-late lottery teams. If you're sitting at the 10th position, would you rather a small % chance of jumping in the lottery or try to make the playoffs for [insert reward]. Could an extra insurance slot be worth it? Is that too great of a reward?

I like the idea of a 4th insurance spot

[garbageman]

I don't want to assume, but I feel most in the league would agree that in regards to adding an incentive to the playoffs it should not directly penalize a non-playoff team. If the awarded points are sufficient but not enough to convince a fringe team to compete, then points won't help.

An idea was an extra insurance slot for playoff teams. Non-playoff teams already get 3 and an extra slot could become very coveted. Instead of focusing on the absolute worst teams and asking "what do we need to get them in the playoff race" the idea should be geared towards the mid-to-late lottery teams. If you're sitting at the 10th position, would you rather a small % chance of jumping in the lottery or try to make the playoffs for [insert reward]. Could an extra insurance slot be worth it? Is that too great of a reward?

I like the idea of a 4th insurance spot

I disagree. Most playoff teams will theoretically have fewer young players worth protecting, and restoring potentials on role players seems like it'd be a bigger pain in the ass for mgmt. I think this caters towards a style of building up and tearing down a lot, which the Bucks have done a great job with, but if we're looking to do away with tanking, it seems like this would take away one kind of strategy and strengthen another kind of strategy, and to me, the game's a lot better when there are as many strategic options available as possible. #strategy #tactics

[NOLa.]

I don't want to assume, but I feel most in the league would agree that in regards to adding an incentive to the playoffs it should not directly penalize a non-playoff team. If the awarded points are sufficient but not enough to convince a fringe team to compete, then points won't help.

An idea was an extra insurance slot for playoff teams. Non-playoff teams already get 3 and an extra slot could become very coveted. Instead of focusing on the absolute worst teams and asking "what do we need to get them in the playoff race" the idea should be geared towards the mid-to-late lottery teams. If you're sitting at the 10th position, would you rather a small % chance of jumping in the lottery or try to make the playoffs for [insert reward]. Could an extra insurance slot be worth it? Is that too great of a reward?

I like the idea of a 4th insurance spot

I disagree. Most playoff teams will theoretically have fewer young players worth protecting

I don’t think this is the case but I haven’t checked the last few playoffs teams. I would have loved an extra protection this season, plus you’re probably thinking of established teams. We need to think about the mid-to-late lotto teams that may have more younger talent than you’re assuming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[garbageman]

I like the idea of a 4th insurance spot

I disagree. Most playoff teams will theoretically have fewer young players worth protecting

I don’t think this is the case but I haven’t checked the last few playoffs teams. I would have loved an extra protection this season, plus you’re probably thinking of established teams. We need to think about the mid-to-late lotto teams that may have more younger talent than you’re assuming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess it's closer to half and half than I thought (looking at the flawed playoff picture and how many players 27 or under each team will have under contract next TC), but it's at a pretty close saturation point where 4 insurances make the bulk of playoff teams kind of impervious to the effects of bad luck, and I think that's a crucial component of the game. Insurance is nice and all, but I think 3 free insurances is already pretty generous in terms of player preservation. Half of the players on rosters are at least green potential and that wasn't always the case. Doing some spot checking, the number of players who are green potential are better has been consistently rising.

THIS YEAR: 209
2022: 196
2019: 187
2014: 177

I'm not sure what that means, and I only did spot checking since I only have tables for 2022 through now on hand...the talent economy is the talent economy, but I feel like we've enacted plenty of measures to stave off player death. On average, though, each team has one more green or better potential player than they would have 10 seasons ago. An extra insurance is a pretty big prize, and I'm wary about going overboard on rewarding the best teams in a way that makes upward mobility even tougher for perennial lotto teams.

[NOLa.]

I always love that you go through the numbers. My #1 lazy statistician.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[garbageman]

Yeah, but I don't really know if they mean anything important.