#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

A lot of discussion and articles have been written about whether or not 'tanking' is good, bad, risky, etc. What I want to know is: How do you get to the finals, how do you win a title? I honestly, could care less about making the playoffs EVERY year. I want a ring, and I wanted to find out how to get one.

My hypothesis: It takes either an 'OP' player (defined as a top-5 player as regarded by the very arbitrary author of this article), the acquisition of cheap, young, stars via the draft (and a 'tanking'-style record to do it), or both.

I only included the last 8 seasons, as prior to that the results are clouded by the entry draft when every team theoretically had an even playing field.



As you can see from the chart above 14/16 finals teams over the last 8 years had a superduperstar or had tanked. The two exceptions being: last year's Miracle Mavs and the 1999-2000 Lakers which can be regarded as one of the best jobs done of building and coaching a roster without tanking or an OP player in SLOE history.

6 of the 16 teams had finished with a <30% win percentage in the 5 years before their title game. The rest had Penny, Kemp, or Zo.

Conclusions? If you don't have an OP player, tanking successfully is one of the only paths to a ring. Though as KuCoach's article pointed out, it's not a strategy without risks.

I would say Jalen was more of a top-5 player than Shaq. But still, I also think TC really can make or break a team. How many superstars are made in TC?

Not OP

Sent via Morse code

Heh. I don't think there was a single player that I'd drafted on my old Finals squad. It was all trades and FA signings.

But your draftees allowed you to make those moves.

TheSyndicate wrote:But your draftees allowed you to make those moves.

Nope, the two closest players I had to actually being homegrown talents on that team were Horace Grant (who I drafted in the creation draft but traded away after the first season for Nick Anderson, who I then traded years later to bring Horace back and pick up Joe Smith), and Robert Horry (who was drafted by Quail with a pick I'd foolishly traded to Cleveland earlier, and I acquired mainly by using picks I'd gained from trading the pick that became Bryon Russell to the Mavs). I could write a book on how not to tank, that's just how horrible I was at keeping the assets I'd gained from stinking. Ron Mercer was actually the 1st-ever non-creation draft Wizards draftee, and that was in 1997! Point is, that team's a horrible example of building your way to the Finals through tanking, as not a single draftee from 1991-96 started out as a Wizard. Tanking (and it wasn't really tanking, as I was trying to win...I just stunk at doing so), didn't help me one bit back then.

(Nice article btw )

Xist2Inspire wrote:

TheSyndicate wrote:But your draftees allowed you to make those moves.

Nope, the two closest players I had to actually being homegrown talents on that team were Horace Grant (who I drafted in the creation draft but traded away after the first season for Nick Anderson, who I then traded years later to bring Horace back and pick up Joe Smith), and Robert Horry (who was drafted by Quail with a pick I'd foolishly traded to Cleveland earlier, and I acquired mainly by using picks I'd gained from trading the pick that became Bryon Russell to the Mavs). I could write a book on how not to tank, that's just how horrible I was at keeping the assets I'd gained from stinking. Ron Mercer was actually the 1st-ever non-creation draft Wizards draftee, and that was in 1997! Point is, that team's a horrible example of building your way to the Finals through tanking, as not a single draftee from 1991-96 started out as a Wizard. Tanking (and it wasn't really tanking, as I was trying to win...I just stunk at doing so), didn't help me one bit back then.

(Nice article btw )

Nicest GM, my ass.

Just kidding, btw!!

Great article. This is why I have tanked in the past and may tank again some day.

Thanks for doing this Ryan. It is a good article. I must offer some perspective though.

OP players are the top five players in the league, according to Ryan's definition. Meaning if there are 5 OP players every year, then some teams with OP players do not make the finals. I would just point out that the same hand full of teams have been in the Finals the past ten years. That's not a coincidence. So yeah, maybe you need an OP player but you also need other things like coaching skills. Of which I would argue is the most important aspect of SIM league playoff basketball.

DarthVegito wrote:Thanks for doing this Ryan. It is a good article. I must offer some perspective though.

OP players are the top five players in the league, according to Ryan's definition. Meaning if there are 5 OP players every year, then some teams with OP players do not make the finals. I would just point out that the same hand full of teams have been in the Finals the past ten years. That's not a coincidence. So yeah, maybe you need an OP player but you also need other things like coaching skills. Of which I would argue is the most important aspect of SIM league playoff basketball.

No argument at all - none of this should discount the importance of putting pieces together that fit together nor coaching skills. It's hard to do without them.

TheSyndicate wrote:

DarthVegito wrote:Thanks for doing this Ryan. It is a good article. I must offer some perspective though.

OP players are the top five players in the league, according to Ryan's definition. Meaning if there are 5 OP players every year, then some teams with OP players do not make the finals. I would just point out that the same hand full of teams have been in the Finals the past ten years. That's not a coincidence. So yeah, maybe you need an OP player but you also need other things like coaching skills. Of which I would argue is the most important aspect of SIM league playoff basketball.

No argument at all - none of this should discount the importance of putting pieces together that fit together nor coaching skills. It's hard to do without them.

I love the fact that you made a hard line of the definition of OP. I do. It's discussed and argued so damn much, that something like this is good. An OP is a top player in the league, simply put. And that's what you did here.

Awarded 5 points! (towards last years point cap)