S65 Town Hall #12

[Darth Vegito]

Rules: 1 point if you give thoughtful(and I stress 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.

Deadline Wednesday 5:00 pm, Sim #12.

Question:

In the last Sim Decade there has been TWO 2-Peats and a FOUR-Peat. Possible 3-Peat incoming...What are your thoughts on this type of domination? Do you truly feel like you have a chance? 26 teams in the league and do only 2-3 teams have a real chance every season? Is this harmful to the league and league parity?

[MexicanMamba]

My first thought is that, no, it's not great for the league. Particularly during Scott's run, it felt like most teams just packed it in and didn't try making moves to get better because of the inevitability. The counter to that though, is that its not the fault of the GM who put in the time, effort and skill to build that roster. So, where does the fix lie? In everyone else. Other GMs just have to be willing and engaged enough to go out there and make big moves to compete. Directly after Scott's run, I feel we got that too. Those first 3 seasons after Detroit's last title, we had 3 different champions, 2 of which were 1st time winners. Jon has since gone on a streak, but he wasn't even the favorite in the first 2, so I feel we've continued to get aggressive GMs out here making moves. This season felt more inevitable like Scott's run, and still we had 78 and Chad going all-in to give him competition. As long as that continues, I think we're in a good spot, though it'd certainly be nice if some GMs became more active and engaged to add even more competition.



Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

[garbageman]

I feel like more than 2-3 teams have a chance. There have been plenty of times injuries derailed a competitor and other times where the championship team wasn't in my top 3 picks. I think I have a chance when I want to have a chance because I've done this long enough to know what I'm doing. I think what's more harmful to the league is that a lot of teams aren't going for it. If more teams were willing to trade in their chips and compete, I think there could feasibly be seasons where 8-10 teams have a shot. However, a lot of teams are too hesitant to trade all of their prospects to fully compete, and nobody wins chips by hedging their bets.

[Black Superman]

I absolutely feel like it's harmful to the league. It promotes the idea of being stagnant. Every single owner should be coming into every single season with a goal in mind. that goal doesn't have to be the winning a championship, that goal could be to get a top five pick. That goal could be to make the playoffs for the first time in a long time. The goal could be incremental improvements on success from the previous. that goal could be to win a playoff series. Either way we all should have some type of goal going into a season and I think when there is constant dominance at the top it promotes the idea of being afraid to make moves, make changes. It promotes the idea of not putting in depth charts. I think it it creates an environment that a lot of us feel like we're just coasting to the inevitable and I think that's bad for overall participation. Having 10 active users or so, I do think it's bad. Unfortunately there's not anything that could be done to change it but I do think it's it is an issue and I think in real sports it's also an issue, or should say the real NBA. I think that's why you know we have the tournament coming up this year in season tournament to kind of excite things because unfortunately, unfortunately no. Not everyone can win the championship and realistically there are probably only a handful of teams that have a shot going into every season.

[greepleairport]

Great town hall question. This is exactly why I plan to pack it in and trade this offseason.

I've had my run. It wasn't expected to start until this season, but here I am. Two 'ships was my vision of penultimate success, this season and next, but I shocked myself and the league winning two already. A scenario like that is great for sim league.

I do think a lot rests on GMs throughout the league willing to take chances. Some pan out, some don't. Actually winning a championship has a lot to do with what you cannot control. It's hard. I wouldn't discourage any GM with a chance to win years in a row, but I do think more than 3 would be excessive.

I think the biggest through line is that, the GMs you see most active in the forums, tend to win championships. Not always true, because winning is tough, but those GMs are most often in the running to win due to their activity. GMs like BlackSuperman and LazyTitan are learning a ton right now because they're pretty engaged. It took me almost 30 seasons to win, and it may take them 30, but I would be surprised if they kept up their engagement and didn't win eventually.

[AngryBanana]

So I get the question, but I feel like this has been covered by either Mamba or Garbageman recently. Where if you look at the index of previous champions since that Pistons dynasty that almost destroyed the league (side note that I think the GM would have taken great pleasure in that accomplishment if it happened), the Warriors are the only team to show up in the finals more then once. We also had two first time champions (myself and Greeps) and the Nets making their first finals appearance. I would also say that Greeps winning these past two years were not guaranteed, as we all thought the Lakers were going to be the champions for the past three seasons.

This is a far cry from what I recall from earlier in my tenure as GM. Where it was usually the same few people and you almost knew who was going to go to the finals before it happens and one of Wig, Gman, Balls, Los, and Syndicate (may have missed one or two) were always rotating between builds. I think there is an argument this season that the Warriors may not even make the finals, having to get past the Pelicans who will be a hard out.

[IamQuailman]

Without sounding too redundant, I’d say it looks like a lack of parity… but the end result doesn’t properly reflect teams that went in and didn’t win a ship. My own, the Nets, Wizards, and plenty others who tried to compete, added pieces to win now, and fell short. I would say the championships aren’t due to a lack of parity or trying. I also think going forward there really isn’t a dominant force long-term. Lots of mid, outside with the Lakers probably up there competing for a title in a season after this reset (where they are STILL competing).

As many said before, the Pistons dynasty that I tore down brought out a new age of parity in sim league. You are welcome. THE ONE PIECE IS REAL AND IT IS OUT THERE

[LazyTitanSmash]

There is a lack of parity because of how many quality players it takes to compete for a championship in the current era. It takes at least 5 or 6 quality blue potential players and maybe one purple potential player. If you want multiple shots at a title, they have to be at most 29 years old. And you have to plan out when going over the Cap makes sense.

It might be more fun if you didn't have to build sooo many assets to compete. Many GMs have spent a real-life calendar year building up these assets.

If we want to change this, it means figuring out a way to make sure the top teams can not afford to hold onto so many dominant players.

Also, do we want a semi-active GM to be able to have a title shot most seasons? In our current system, semi-active GMs take even longer to build up the assets necessary to compete.

This all means it takes longer for weak teams to become title contenders. It also means teams often get impatient and jump in to early without enough assets to be longer-term team title contenders. It has also led to less demand for win-now players. (Look at Garland and Schiff's market value.) I tried to propose a solution last season. It got nixed. Any ideas are welcome.

[AngryBanana]

There is a lack of parity because of how many quality players it takes to compete for a championship in the current era. It takes at least 5 or 6 quality blue potential players and maybe one purple potential player. If you want multiple shots at a title, they have to be at most 29 years old. And you have to plan out when going over the Cap makes sense.

It might be more fun if you didn't have to build sooo many assets to compete. Many GMs have spent a real-life calendar year building up these assets.

If we want to change this, it means figuring out a way to make sure the top teams can not afford to hold onto so many dominant players.

Also, do we want a semi-active GM to be able to have a title shot most seasons? In our current system, semi-active GMs take even longer to build up the assets necessary to compete.

This all means it takes longer for weak teams to become title contenders. It also means teams often get impatient and jump in to early without enough assets to be longer-term team title contenders. It has also led to less demand for win-now players. (Look at Garland and Schiff's market value.) I tried to propose a solution last season. It got nixed. Any ideas are welcome.

Frye it. Let’s reset and get rid of paid training!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk