Tanking in dynasty (1 Viewer)

[Gally]

It is your responsibility to do whats best for your team, if it is within the league rules, do what you have to do to make your team more successful in the future. Pretty cut and dry. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its wrong.

This is a terrible attitude because in a league it isn't all about you all the time.  Competition is healthy and without it a league will fold.  You need healthy competition for a league to thrive.  Sure it might be nice to blow everyone out every year but eventually they will stop playing and the league will go away. 

Tanking is a the biggest culprit to competitive imbalance there is.  Most of my leagues have a schedule set up where you play everyone one time and if you happen to play against a team early that is trying and then the guy you are tied with plays that team late with 4 bye players in the lineup how is that good for the league? 

In no circumstance should a team ever play someone on bye (let alone multiple players).  That is just being lazy and purposefully hurting the competitive balance of a league.  Just because there may not be a specific rule stating not to play players on bye everyone knows the intent of the league is to not do that.  Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

When it comes to tanking your last statement is wrong.  Nobody likes it and it is very wrong. 

 

[Buckna]

Well the obvious counters would be that:

1) Having to choose starters is another decision point where differentials in skill can be displayed, so an owner better at forecasting matchups can gain an advantage.  Anything that adds skill to the skill/luck ratio can be considered good for competitive leagues.

2) Having more decision points in a season increases the "fun" for owners, giving them more meaningful things to do each week.  In best ball, you have your waivers then you wait to see what happens.  With lineups, you are watching injuries, weather, etc. right up until kickoff.  Some might find this annoying, many find it exciting and would not want to give it (or the potential advantage) up.

#2 I definitely understand and get.

#1 seems like we could go round and round or just refer back to the numerous threads over the years arguing how much of FF is skill vs luck. Especially when you are talking about at the margin with picking who to start as your 8th or 9th starter in like the 3rd WR or flex spot. Obviously point #1 is also affected by league and roster size, scoring rules, IDP, etc. Once again though, I wonder how much of that "skill" is just perceived advantage and not a real advantage, people will remember when they made the right call, but will dismiss when they didn't. I'd also argue that best ball reduces the luck factor by eliminating the large hit you take when a player gets injured during a game. Best ball would reward the players that build their depth and have a strong bench.

I've also found in the vast majority of my dynasty leagues that have been around a while, that last starter decision is rarely very important (and when it is, we could get into an argument about the merits of head to head schedules.) The natural segmenting of the league into the competitors and the rebuilders usually makes for lopsided matchups. For example, the average margin of victory this past week in one of my leagues for the 6 winners was 53 points. There was one close game (in this case happened to be between teams tied for last), but would it have been skill or luck to start Rex Burkhead vs Denver over Joe Mixon vs Tennesee? Because that would have been the only way that losing team could have improved their lineup.

I'm also not saying every league should be best ball, everyone has their likes and dislikes like PPR, superflex, etc. Just surprised it makes up such a small percentage of dynasty leagues. Go wander into the looking for leagues forum and you rarely every find anyone advertising a best ball dynasty league. I've only seen posters mention them a handful of times in many years of being on these boards.

 

[WheelsUp]

If there is no rule against it, then it is allowed, cry and whine all you like, it is allowed if there is no rule.

Also, if I knew it made you mad in any league I was in, I would do it just to anger you as a league mate just trying to get in your mind. My job is to better my team in the long run, not yours. Dont like it, make a rule or quit the league. Dont like the attitude I take with it, oh well. It seems so many want others to believe what they believe, not how it works.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If there is no rule against it, then it is allowed, cry and whine all you like, it is allowed if there is no rule.

Also, if I knew it made you mad in any league I was in, I would do it just to anger you as a league mate just trying to get in your mind. My job is to better my team in the long run, not yours. Dont like it, make a rule or quit the league. Dont like the attitude I take with it, oh well. It seems so many want others to believe what they believe, not how it works.

I WOULD quit a league that has players with this attitude. You sound awful.

 

[Gally]

If there is no rule against it, then it is allowed, cry and whine all you like, it is allowed if there is no rule.

Also, if I knew it made you mad in any league I was in, I would do it just to anger you as a league mate just trying to get in your mind. My job is to better my team in the long run, not yours. Dont like it, make a rule or quit the league. Dont like the attitude I take with it, oh well. It seems so many want others to believe what they believe, not how it works.

I wouldn't have to worry about it because you would never be in a league with me.  This is a terrible approach and would dissolve a league with reasonable people in no time.

 

[JoeJoe88]

Our commissioner in my dynasty league has it set up to prevent nonsense like this from happening.  Basically, the four bottom teams who fail to make the playoffs receive their rookie picks based on the optimal lineups during the course of the year, regardless of who they started.  In theory, you could tank to not make the playoffs and guarantee a top 4 Rookie pick, but that's about the extent of what you can manipulate.  

 

[WheelsUp]

Exactly, as any good commish sets up the rules accordingly. To the above that I would not be in a league with you, you are right, I join leagues that have rules for such things...I dont join half baked leagues.

People calling the guys following the rules of the league awful, and not the people crying and whining about other owners using the rules to their advantage. Welp, I guess that where we are in society today. You are following the rules allowed by the league, you are awful. If you are crying about the rules of the league you signed up for, you are not awful Got it.

How bout you guys stop playing in leagues of things you dont like instead of crying about it and insulting owners who dont agree with you or take your same attitude. Every league has its criers and whiners, they are just as bad.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Welp, I guess that where we are in society today. You are following the rules allowed by the league, you are awful. If you are crying about the rules of the league you signed up for, you are not awful Got it.
 

Well you have this right at least. We do live in an era of "if it's not expressly forbidden then it must be allowed". And then we shake our heads when someone doesn't exercise restraint or discretion or, heaven forbid, ethics.

 

[WheelsUp]

Isnt bad ethics to think someone should believe what you believe?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Isnt bad ethics to think someone should believe what you believe?

No. It's okay to say someone is doing something wrong.

Look, what you're doing is technically legal but it is what we called in my day "Bush League". We all knew what that meant, didn't want to be accused of it, and didn't need a notary to authorize a legally binding document to prevent it from happening.

Good luck with your leagues.

 

[WheelsUp]

What I'm doing is legal? I am not doing this, I am just a reasonable mind who understands if its not against the rules, its legal as you even admitted. I can reasonably discuss this topic without being bitter. I always set my lineups, I am always in competition, I do not know what its like to dog a season. But yes, forcing your beliefs on others is bad ethics and if there is no rule against it, it isnt wrong just because you say so. That seems hard for some to grasp. I'm not the one upset with my leagues, but by all means, wish me all the luck you can. I wont turn it down. I'm clinched in all 7, with 3 weeks to go.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Isnt bad ethics to think someone should believe what you believe?

Do you even understand what ethics means?

 

[Pokesfan]

It's a busy day at work, so I can't read all the responses, but wanted to share the anti-tanking things we have put in our Contract league rules.

• Bottom four teams have a small playoff during the normal playoffs.  The team that loses both games (loses the Teabagger Bowl), gets nuts put on their logo for a year:  Teabagger Example Logo.
  
• Info needed for the following rule:  Cyberbucs (CBs) are our official "fantasy" money that can be used for off-season Free Agency and in-season blind bidding.
  
• To help keep people involved, any team under a .500 winning percentage starting week 11 gains 2 CBs for every game they win against a team with a winning pct over .500 and 1 CB for beating anyone else (through week 14). The winning team must be under a .500 winning percentage when the week starts. The winning team is responsible for notifying the commissioner that they should be awarded the 1 or 2 CBs before the kickoff of the following week's first game.
  
• The draft will proceed in reverse order based on potential points scored, with the following exceptions: the XFL Champion will draft 12th, the XFL runner-up will draft 11th, the third-place team will draft 10th (regardless of record). 4th Place team will be included with non-playoff teams.
  
• Owners may NOT start injured & bye week players (if possible).
  

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Your beliefs in opposition to mine = bad

My beliefs in opposition to yours = okay

Fascinating

 

[Gawain]

Reminds me of 1994, when one of our league members invited us up to his lake cabin and then hunted us in the most dangerous game known to man.
Needless to say, none of us could set lineups, so he ended up winning the whole thing. I always thought it was a little off that he took home the prize money, but hey, we really should have put a rule in place. Bill's wife really could have used the cash, instead of his head mounted on a very nice piece of red oak.

 

[Gally]

Isnt bad ethics to think someone should believe what you believe?

This statement really has nothing to do with ethics.

As far as the statement you made about a good commish makes rules to avoid these things is somewhat correct.  However, a commish should not have to institute a rule that says you cannot play players on bye in an attempt to tank.  This is an obvious competitive standard that should not have to be identified to reasonable people as the proper thing to do.  It should be understood that every team should play the lineup with players that are actually playing that week.  This is the ethical aspect you can't quite seem to grasp.

 

[NeverEnough]

This past week the guy I played started an IA Forte & another player on bye. Commish did nothing

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What I'm doing is legal? I am not doing this, I am just a reasonable mind who understands if its not against the rules, its legal as you even admitted. I can reasonably discuss this topic without being bitter. I always set my lineups, I am always in competition, I do not know what its like to dog a season. But yes, forcing your beliefs on others is bad ethics and if there is no rule against it, it isnt wrong just because you say so. That seems hard for some to grasp. I'm not the one upset with my leagues, but by all means, wish me all the luck you can. I wont turn it down. I'm clinched in all 7, with 3 weeks to go.

If your league did not have an anti-collusion rule memorialized in writing is it your contention that there would be nothing wrong with an 1-8 team trading away Tom Brady, Antonio Brown and Todd Gurley to a 6-3 team for Trevor Siemian, Cole Beasley, and Sinorice Perry (with a side agreement that the guy getting Brady will throw $100 to the other guy at season's end)?

 

[renesauz]

Well the obvious counters would be that:

1) Having to choose starters is another decision point where differentials in skill can be displayed, so an owner better at forecasting matchups can gain an advantage.  Anything that adds skill to the skill/luck ratio can be considered good for competitive leagues.

2) Having more decision points in a season increases the "fun" for owners, giving them more meaningful things to do each week.  In best ball, you have your waivers then you wait to see what happens.  With lineups, you are watching injuries, weather, etc. right up until kickoff.  Some might find this annoying, many find it exciting and would not want to give it (or the potential advantage) up.

#2 I definitely understand and get.

#1 seems like we could go round and round or just refer back to the numerous threads over the years arguing how much of FF is skill vs luck. Especially when you are talking about at the margin with picking who to start as your 8th or 9th starter in like the 3rd WR or flex spot. Obviously point #1 is also affected by league and roster size, scoring rules, IDP, etc. Once again though, I wonder how much of that "skill" is just perceived advantage and not a real advantage, people will remember when they made the right call, but will dismiss when they didn't. I'd also argue that best ball reduces the luck factor by eliminating the large hit you take when a player gets injured during a game. Best ball would reward the players that build their depth and have a strong bench.

I've also found in the vast majority of my dynasty leagues that have been around a while, that last starter decision is rarely very important (and when it is, we could get into an argument about the merits of head to head schedules.) The natural segmenting of the league into the competitors and the rebuilders usually makes for lopsided matchups. For example, the average margin of victory this past week in one of my leagues for the 6 winners was 53 points. There was one close game (in this case happened to be between teams tied for last), but would it have been skill or luck to start Rex Burkhead vs Denver over Joe Mixon vs Tennesee? Because that would have been the only way that losing team could have improved their lineup.

I'm also not saying every league should be best ball, everyone has their likes and dislikes like PPR, superflex, etc. Just surprised it makes up such a small percentage of dynasty leagues. Go wander into the looking for leagues forum and you rarely every find anyone advertising a best ball dynasty league. I've only seen posters mention them a handful of times in many years of being on these boards.

Nothing wrong with best ball other then slightly lowering the fun value, but it's not exactly the same. Player rankings are more difficult, team roster balance is different. Steady performers become less valuable compared to high variance players. Injuries hurt more because that's one less prospective scorer. Top-heavy strategies remain viable, but teams with depth tend to win more games (but fewer championships). IN dynasty, rookies are devalued greatly because they weaken the team.

In the end, Best Ball is a terrific format in low stress redraft leagues, but a bad choice for dynasty leagues.

 

[renesauz]

Our commissioner in my dynasty league has it set up to prevent nonsense like this from happening.  Basically, the four bottom teams who fail to make the playoffs receive their rookie picks based on the optimal lineups during the course of the year, regardless of who they started.  In theory, you could tank to not make the playoffs and guarantee a top 4 Rookie pick, but that's about the extent of what you can manipulate.  

I like this idea, but seems like some work.

 

[renesauz]

POTENTIAL POINTS IS ALMOST AS UNFAIR TO THE LEADING TEAM PLAYING THEM AS TANKING IS TO THE OTHER CONTENDERS. Bad idea

Explain this for me 

Because the contending team is essentially playing against a best ball team, while the guy he's contending with had to play a regular team earlier in the season. You can't have the league as a lineup league for 10 or 11 weeks and then have a handful of teams become best ball and claim any kind of fairness. All you really accomplish is to imbalance things in the opposite direction.

Look at it this way....on average, people are about 84% efficient in their lineups..WHEN TRYING! (A team averaging 84 ppg would average 100 in best-ball.) BY using best-ball for a bad team, you improve their average score by 16%. The goal is to keep them somewhere around 84% efficient, not improve them to 100%. There are better ideas in this thread, at least for dynasty leagues.

The best idea in redraft is weekly prize money for high score. You could even focus it and only let the bottom teams be eligible for the prize. (For example, starting in week 8, the bottom 6 teams in the standing compete for a $20 prize weekly by having the highest score among those 6 teams. You could do this in dynasty too.)

 

[jeaton6]

Because the contending team is essentially playing against a best ball team, while the guy he's contending with had to play a regular team earlier in the season. You can't have the league as a lineup league for 10 or 11 weeks and then have a handful of teams become best ball and claim any kind of fairness. All you really accomplish is to imbalance things in the opposite direction.

Look at it this way....on average, people are about 84% efficient in their lineups..WHEN TRYING! (A team averaging 84 ppg would average 100 in best-ball.) BY using best-ball for a bad team, you improve their average score by 16%. The goal is to keep them somewhere around 84% efficient, not improve them to 100%. There are better ideas in this thread, at least for dynasty leagues.

The best idea in redraft is weekly prize money for high score. You could even focus it and only let the bottom teams be eligible for the prize. (For example, starting in week 8, the bottom 6 teams in the standing compete for a $20 prize weekly by having the highest score among those 6 teams. You could do this in dynasty too.)

This is not what he means. He means his league uses PP for non-playoff team seeding. Not that teams that are out of it all of a sudden use beat ball lineup later in the year playing against an opponent.

 

[renesauz]

This is not what he means. He means his league uses PP for non-playoff team seeding. Not that teams that are out of it all of a sudden use beat ball lineup later in the year playing against an opponent.

Ahhh...ok

Still wouldn't stop laziness from a team that's out. In fact, couldn't it ENCOURAGE such, since nothing changes for that team regardless of what lineup they put in? Why would I stress putting in a lineup if it makes no difference to me in the end? There's still better solutions offered in this thread.

 

[jeaton6]

Ahhh...ok

Still wouldn't stop laziness from a team that's out. In fact, couldn't it ENCOURAGE such, since nothing changes for that team regardless of what lineup they put in? Why would I stress putting in a lineup if it makes no difference to me in the end? There's still better solutions offered in this thread.

Pretty much. Commishes logic tends to be: "there's no point to set a tanking lineup because PP is used". So in that sense it's true but it doesn't change behavior of owners who get lazy/stop caring/get busy.

Speaking of which the "got busy" excuse really boils my blood. Ever notice how busy people get late in the year when their teams are out of contention (business trips, family trips, family emergencies, work, etc)? Its pretty amazing that those owners get so busy they forget to check their lineups, whereas contenders seem to have enough time (2 minutes) to make the changes. Even more interesting how the same person that's contending one year and has the time the next year isn't contending and all of a sudden has no time to run their team late in the year.

 

[spider321]

It is perfectly legal for me to curse at every young child I see.

If it’s not illegal, who are you to tell me it’s wrong?

 

[Pokesfan]

It's a busy day at work, so I can't read all the responses, but wanted to share the anti-tanking things we have put in our Contract league rules.

• Bottom four teams have a small playoff during the normal playoffs.  The team that loses both games (loses the Teabagger Bowl), gets nuts put on their logo for a year:  Teabagger Example Logo.
  
• Info needed for the following rule:  Cyberbucs (CBs) are our official "fantasy" money that can be used for off-season Free Agency and in-season blind bidding.
  
• To help keep people involved, any team under a .500 winning percentage starting week 11 gains 2 CBs for every game they win against a team with a winning pct over .500 and 1 CB for beating anyone else (through week 14). The winning team must be under a .500 winning percentage when the week starts. The winning team is responsible for notifying the commissioner that they should be awarded the 1 or 2 CBs before the kickoff of the following week's first game.
  
• The draft will proceed in reverse order based on potential points scored, with the following exceptions: the XFL Champion will draft 12th, the XFL runner-up will draft 11th, the third-place team will draft 10th (regardless of record). 4th Place team will be included with non-playoff teams.
  
• Owners may NOT start injured & bye week players (if possible).
  

I'm disappointed... Not one comment about nuts on logos... 

 

[kurtrudder]

It's hard to get a simple silver bullet solution to tanking but No.1, you must have anti tanking penalties written into your league rules.  I'd never play in a league that didn't have provisions in place to punish teams who were clearly tanking, not setting lineups at all, setting obviously poor lineups, dropping players from your roster who by reasonable judgement should be on a roster.

My leagues have a number of rules in place that prohibit tanking but that also discourage it.  

Our league settings do not allow bye week players to be used in your lineup.

Our non-playoff teams have their draft order for next season determined by Potential Points (PP)......as a few people have described, this counts up the points as if each team submitted their optimal line up each week, so the worst team each season is clearly determined. Unfortunately MFL does not include Taxi Squad players in the PP stats. 

Another rule we have is Taxi Squad acquisitions so to stop teams keeping a great player on their taxi squad instead of using him in their active roster, a taxi squad player can be acquired by any other team for the price of two draft picks.  If the taxi squad player was drafted in the 1st round, the cost is 2 future (next year) 1st rounders.  After that the cost mechanism is the same, 2nd round drafted player, cost is a 1st & 2nd.....3rd round drafted player, cost is a 2nd & 3rd....4th round drafted, cost is a 3rd & 4th and so it.  People might balk at this rule at first but again, it adds so many more strategic elements to the league.  Teams need to be savvy to know when to promote a player to their active roster or keep him on the taxi squad.  The cost can be high but worth it if acquiring the right player.

These tools work to a point but what is also does is that it expands on a few strategic elements available to teams.  Teams who are poor this season, they might start working much harder on building for the future strategies by selling experienced players for draft picks or younger talent.  This is all legit and our leagues, which are quite deep, there is plenty of trading from all teams towards the trade deadlines as team owners determine their path for this season and beyond.

The idea of a toilet bowl scenario I think is another element that can be added for say bottom 6 teams that can also curb tanking behaviour.  If a team knows that they need to perform in Weeks 14-16 to get the 1.01, then it pretty much eliminates all of the behaviours that go along with tanking.

 

[Hankmoody]

PP doesn't even work all that well (many of my leagues use it). Nothing to prevent people from not IRing players or not carrying full rosters. If you use MFL, taxi squad players are NOT calculated in PP either.

Not IR'ing them won't matter, they score zero either way and this late in the season there's nothing worth anything on the wire anyway.  Not carrying full rosters is counter-intuitive to a dynasty league and isn't going to truly address what we want anyway - we don't want guys parking Tyreek HIll's 15 points on the bench, we don't care if they choose not to pick up Russell Shepard and his 3.9 PPG.  I didn't realize PP weren't included but there's not anything you can do about that anyway.  It's a lot better than nothing at all, that's for sure.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The bottom line is there is no way to truly combat this, other than getting lucky with a league full of ethically strong owners, or determining draft order via a playoff tournament from non playoff teams where the winners get better picks (which instead gives you the issue that the worst teams generally aren't getting the best picks).

 

[dewmass]

There shouldn’t have to be rules to prevent tanking, it should just be the norm. Any league where there are players on bye in lineups, players on IR in lineups is a league not worth being in. If I can’t trust the other 11 to play right I’m not going to be in that league. I’m not over keen on people clearly tanking trading for players on IR etc and not doing all they can to win each week, fella doing a beautiful job of getting 1.01 in a league I’m in this year doing that, but okay that’s borderline acceptable I suppose. 

 

[Hankmoody]

I'm disappointed... Not one comment about nuts on logos... 

Most of us are over 13 years old.

 

[ghostguy123]

"tanking" is obviously wrong, however, some people consider certain things to be a form of tanking while I do not.

For example, I had a team that was halfway decent but had a few preseason and early season injuries.  I pretty much spent the rest of the season doing whatever I could to increase the overall value of what my team would be at the start of the following season.  I traded for injured/suspended players, backups with potential, and future picks. I went from a potential playoff team to a team that could not win a game no matter what by about week 6 or 7.  I didn't even have enough healthy/active players to put out a full lineup. However, at ALL TIMES I was playing the best possible lineup from my active roster.  

Also, during bye weeks I did NOT drop players(such as K and D) to be able to field those positions.  There was no way I was going to drop a top 3 K or a top 3 D just to satisfy someones weird obsession with ethics in fantasy football.  Not gonna lose my good players/Kickers/defense for that.  Very silly a terrible way to run a team.  

If you are a commish and tanking is a problem, just do a losers bracket for draft position. FFPC does a great job of this.  The worst two teams get a bye, so at worst they will get picks 3 and 4.  It really mitigates the advantages of tanking.  It can also keep your league more competitive because people will want to be good enough to win in the losers bracket.  

Do you view "planning for the future" and "not trying to win" to be the same as "trying to lose"??  I sure as hell don't.  

 

[krsone21]

Should be rules in place that each team must start their best lineup. Subjective yes but most are obvious. 

This.

 

[jeaton6]

Not IR'ing them won't matter, they score zero either way and this late in the season there's nothing worth anything on the wire anyway.  Not carrying full rosters is counter-intuitive to a dynasty league and isn't going to truly address what we want anyway - we don't want guys parking Tyreek HIll's 15 points on the bench, we don't care if they choose not to pick up Russell Shepard and his 3.9 PPG.  I didn't realize PP weren't included but there's not anything you can do about that anyway.  It's a lot better than nothing at all, that's for sure.

It's better than nothing but not IRing and carrying incomplete rosters  absolutely makes a difference in best ball. Best Ball isn't about averages. If you have 15 players on roster that actually play and 10 that are either on IT or not filled in roster you could replace them with players that will collectively suck but 1 or 2 would score for you in BB each week. Probably worth 10-15 points each week. Adds up.

 

[jeaton6]

"tanking" is obviously wrong, however, some people consider certain things to be a form of tanking while I do not.

For example, I had a team that was halfway decent but had a few preseason and early season injuries.  I pretty much spent the rest of the season doing whatever I could to increase the overall value of what my team would be at the start of the following season.  I traded for injured/suspended players, backups with potential, and future picks. I went from a potential playoff team to a team that could not win a game no matter what by about week 6 or 7.  I didn't even have enough healthy/active players to put out a full lineup. However, at ALL TIMES I was playing the best possible lineup from my active roster.  

Also, during bye weeks I did NOT drop players(such as K and D) to be able to field those positions.  There was no way I was going to drop a top 3 K or a top 3 D just to satisfy someones weird obsession with ethics in fantasy football.  Not gonna lose my good players/Kickers/defense for that.  Very silly a terrible way to run a team.  

If you are a commish and tanking is a problem, just do a losers bracket for draft position. FFPC does a great job of this.  The worst two teams get a bye, so at worst they will get picks 3 and 4.  It really mitigates the advantages of tanking.  It can also keep your league more competitive because people will want to be good enough to win in the losers bracket.  

Do you view "planning for the future" and "not trying to win" to be the same as "trying to lose"??  I sure as hell don't.  

Confused. You're talking about not being able to possibly win a game yey not being willing to drop top D or PK? Does not compute.

 

[-OZ-]

Confused. You're talking about not being able to possibly win a game yey not being willing to drop top D or PK? Does not compute.

Presumably he thinks his top kicker and defense will be a top kicker or defense next year, when he's actually competing. And/or he doesn't want someone else to benefit from his dropping the k/d. 

If this is a large enough league, it's a valid concern. i.e  a 24 team dynasty. If you have a kicker like Greg Z and think he'll maintain his status, or gostkowski most years, you shouldn't drop them to grab a kicker like Zane Gonzalez (unless you think he'll become a force next year).

 

[renesauz]

"tanking" is obviously wrong, however, some people consider certain things to be a form of tanking while I do not.

For example, I had a team that was halfway decent but had a few preseason and early season injuries.  I pretty much spent the rest of the season doing whatever I could to increase the overall value of what my team would be at the start of the following season.  I traded for injured/suspended players, backups with potential, and future picks. I went from a potential playoff team to a team that could not win a game no matter what by about week 6 or 7.  I didn't even have enough healthy/active players to put out a full lineup. However, at ALL TIMES I was playing the best possible lineup from my active roster.  

Also, during bye weeks I did NOT drop players(such as K and D) to be able to field those positions.  There was no way I was going to drop a top 3 K or a top 3 D just to satisfy someones weird obsession with ethics in fantasy football.  Not gonna lose my good players/Kickers/defense for that.  Very silly a terrible way to run a team.  

If you are a commish and tanking is a problem, just do a losers bracket for draft position. FFPC does a great job of this.  The worst two teams get a bye, so at worst they will get picks 3 and 4.  It really mitigates the advantages of tanking.  It can also keep your league more competitive because people will want to be good enough to win in the losers bracket.  

Do you view "planning for the future" and "not trying to win" to be the same as "trying to lose"??  I sure as hell don't.  

Wouldn't this simply promote more significant tanking? IE: Leave those two studs on the bench until the "seeding playoffs". Seems like there are better answers in this thread.

 

[ghostguy123]

Wouldn't this simply promote more significant tanking? IE: Leave those two studs on the bench until the "seeding playoffs". Seems like there are better answers in this thread.

How is that worse than being able to bench those two studs and automatically get the #1 pick???

 

[ghostguy123]

Confused. You're talking about not being able to possibly win a game yey not being willing to drop top D or PK? Does not compute.

No clue what isnt computing for you

 

[Adam Harstad]

No. It's okay to say someone is doing something wrong.

Look, what you're doing is technically legal but it is what we called in my day "Bush League". We all knew what that meant, didn't want to be accused of it, and didn't need a notary to authorize a legally binding document to prevent it from happening.

Good luck with your leagues.

Ironically, my long-time dynasty league is actually named "Bush League", but that kind of behavior still isn't legal, technically or otherwise.

I just reworked the constitution this offseason and put in a bunch of very broad language to make it clear we were a "spirit of the law" league and not a "letter of the law" league, precisely to discourage that kind of "if it's not explicitly forbidden then it's implicitly allowed" mentality. Provided you can find a quality commissioner you trust, I highly recommend switching to a "spirit of the rules" model and broadly empowering the commissioner to deal with whatever comes up. Also, every league should have a "sportsmanship" clause.

Example language from our constitution:

• This commissioner believes that overly precise rules are an invitation to owners to search for loopholes. As such, this league favors broadly defined rules with a clear intent and a commissioner fully empowered to address issues either foreseen or unforeseen at his discretion. Unanticipated situations have a habit of coming up, and I have a habit of creating ad hoc solutions to address them on the fly. When crafting these solutions, I'm attempting to serve the overall interests of the league to the best of my ability. I have been known to get things wrong. If you believe I am getting a ruling wrong, don't hesitate to tell me.
  
• Vetoes are stupid. With that said, if a trade ever arises that seems really sketchy, owners are allowed to object. I'm not setting hard and fast rules for what the objection process looks like. I will address each objection on a case-by-case basis and issue resolutions at my discretion.
  
• Mistakes will happen, and since this is just a damn game, broad allowances will be granted to correct for them. (Mistakes mean honest errors. "I changed my mind" is not a mistake.)
  
• Sportsmanship: Owners must make a good-faith effort to field the most competitive lineup they are capable of fielding on any given week. Owners must refrain from any activities that could be construed as "poor sportsmanship". These activities include, but are not limited to: "renting" or "loaning" players, intentionally losing games to get a favorable matchup, whining excessively about any league rulings, intentionally picking up/dropping players you have no interest in just to put them on the 24-hour waivers, intentionally destroying the competitive balance of the league (such as by cutting your best players), and being an annoying rules lawyer. As always, warnings and penalties will be issued at my discretion.
  
• Powers not explicitly granted to the commissioner are not implicitly denied to the commissioner. This league is a dictatorship and I am empowered to do whatever I want whenever I want for whatever reason I want. By participating in this league, you signal that you trust me not to abuse this absolute power to fornicate everything up. I, in turn, promise to do everything in my power to make this league as awesome as possible for everyone involved.
  

The "find a good commish" part is obviously the key, and honestly isn't always an option. Detailed constitutions are a decent protection from a mediocre-to-bad commissioner, if nothing else.

 

[jeaton6]

No clue what isnt computing for you

I'm sorry you don't understand. How many "top 3" PK and DSTs carry over year to year with that designation? I'm aware of 1.

 

[Adam Harstad]

"tanking" is obviously wrong, however, some people consider certain things to be a form of tanking while I do not.

For example, I had a team that was halfway decent but had a few preseason and early season injuries.  I pretty much spent the rest of the season doing whatever I could to increase the overall value of what my team would be at the start of the following season.  I traded for injured/suspended players, backups with potential, and future picks. I went from a potential playoff team to a team that could not win a game no matter what by about week 6 or 7.  I didn't even have enough healthy/active players to put out a full lineup. However, at ALL TIMES I was playing the best possible lineup from my active roster.  

Also, during bye weeks I did NOT drop players(such as K and D) to be able to field those positions.  There was no way I was going to drop a top 3 K or a top 3 D just to satisfy someones weird obsession with ethics in fantasy football.  Not gonna lose my good players/Kickers/defense for that.  Very silly a terrible way to run a team.  

If you are a commish and tanking is a problem, just do a losers bracket for draft position. FFPC does a great job of this.  The worst two teams get a bye, so at worst they will get picks 3 and 4.  It really mitigates the advantages of tanking.  It can also keep your league more competitive because people will want to be good enough to win in the losers bracket.  

Do you view "planning for the future" and "not trying to win" to be the same as "trying to lose"??  I sure as hell don't.  




1

A few years back, I wrote a pair of articles explaining why tanking was unhealthy for a league and offering practical tips to disincentivize it. The definition I've used for tanking is: taking actions an owner otherwise would not have taken if draft order was not a consideration.

If draft position was determined alphabetically, or via an arm wrestling competition after the season was over, or any other arbitrary way unrelated to actual fantasy performance, no owner would bench Le'Veon Bell for Austin Ekeler. There'd be nothing for them to get out of it. So benching Bell for Ekeler fails the "tanking test".

On the other hand, if draft position were awarded arbitrarily, plenty of teams might still choose to start a player on a bye rather than cutting a quality prospect for a second kicker. So that's not tanking.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I'm sorry you don't understand. How many "top 3" PK and DSTs carry over year to year with that designation? I'm aware of 1.

Eh. Nobody is "top 3" every year, even at QB or RB or WR, (see: Drew Brees, Julio Jones). But it's very reasonable to believe kickers like Gostkowski, Tucker, Bailey, and Zeuerlein and defenses like Seattle and Jacksonville are noticeably more valuable than whatever flotsam is sitting around on waivers in any given week.

 

[jeaton6]

Eh. Nobody is "top 3" every year, even at QB or RB or WR, (see: Drew Brees, Julio Jones). But it's very reasonable to believe kickers like Gostkowski, Tucker, Bailey, and Zeuerlein and defenses like Seattle and Jacksonville are noticeably more valuable than whatever flotsam is sitting around on waivers in any given week.

Gostkowski is the only one that remotely comes close to being top 5 every year. Seattle had a good run but is back to ordinary fantasy wise. Jax and Z are new additions to elite. Don't understand Bailey reference.

 

[jeaton6]

A few years back, I wrote a pair of articles explaining why tanking was unhealthy for a league and offering practical tips to disincentivize it. The definition I've used for tanking is: taking actions an owner otherwise would not have taken if draft order was not a consideration.

If draft position was determined alphabetically, or via an arm wrestling competition after the season was over, or any other arbitrary way unrelated to actual fantasy performance, no owner would bench Le'Veon Bell for Austin Ekeler. There'd be nothing for them to get out of it. So benching Bell for Ekeler fails the "tanking test".

On the other hand, if draft position were awarded arbitrarily, plenty of teams might still choose to start a player on a bye rather than cutting a quality prospect for a second kicker. So that's not tanking.

If you aren't making an effort to start a competitive and complete lineup because there's no incentive to win it's tanking. Regardless of the draft position angle. At the beginning of the year when everyone thinks they still have chance you never see people starting players on bye because they HAVE to hold onto that "top 3 D, PK, end of bench prospect". This behavior only occurs with teams who no longer have a shot to make playoffs and make the choice to stop winning because a) it helps their draft position and b) they can use the lame excuse that they prefer to hold end of bench prospect, start bye week PK/D rather she lose said PK/D/Prospect. The reality is Noone's team is just so stacked that they just have to hold onto these players and take the zero. If it was then they would be in the playoff hunt to begin with.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Gostkowski is the only one that remotely comes close to being top 5 every year. Seattle had a good run but is back to ordinary fantasy wise. Jax and Z are new additions to elite. Don't understand Bailey reference.

Again, there's a difference between top 5 ex ante and top 5 ex post. Few guys are always top 5 ex post. More guys are always top 5 ex ante. MFL's ADP data is down right now, but I suspect you'd find a lot more guys who are consistently drafted high going into the season.

Bailey is Dan Bailey. He, Gost, and Tucker are the most accurate kickers in history, (Bailey currently sits atop the leaderboard). All three have phenomenal job security, which is worth something at a position where it's a rarity. He's having a down year this year, but since entering the league in 2011, he has finished 5th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 12th, and 8th, which is comparable to Tucker (8th, 7th, 10th, 7th, 2nd). I don't play in dynasty leagues with kickers, but if I did, there's no way I'd be dropping him for Chandler Catanzaro or Will Lutz just to fill out a starting lineup for a week.

Whether Jax and Zeuerlein are new additions is irrelevant. (Zeuerlein has been great for a while, he was just stuck with a Jeff Fisher offense.) If you had to put money on where they are going to be drafted going into next year, do you think it's more likely they're top 5 at their position or outside of the top 5 at their position? If the former, why would a rebuilding team want to cut a top 5 ex ante player at the position?

 

[jeaton6]

Again, there's a difference between top 5 ex ante and top 5 ex post. Few guys are always top 5 ex post. More guys are always top 5 ex ante. MFL's ADP data is down right now, but I suspect you'd find a lot more guys who are consistently drafted high going into the season.

Bailey is Dan Bailey. He, Gost, and Tucker are the most accurate kickers in history, (Bailey currently sits atop the leaderboard). All three have phenomenal job security, which is worth something at a position where it's a rarity. He's having a down year this year, but since entering the league in 2011, he has finished 5th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 12th, and 8th, which is comparable to Tucker (8th, 7th, 10th, 7th, 2nd). I don't play in dynasty leagues with kickers, but if I did, there's no way I'd be dropping him for Chandler Catanzaro or Will Lutz just to fill out a starting lineup for a week.

Whether Jax and Zeuerlein are new additions is irrelevant. (Zeuerlein has been great for a while, he was just stuck with a Jeff Fisher offense.) If you had to put money on where they are going to be drafted going into next year, do you think it's more likely they're top 5 at their position or outside of the top 5 at their position? If the former, why would a rebuilding team want to cut a top 5 ex ante player at the position?

Accurate PKs and providing a meaningful advantage in dynasty aren't the same thing. Bailey does not and has not provided an advantage. Until this year Z did not. Tucker did not before last year and had a poor start this year and was dropped in most of my dynasty leagues. Top 5 at their position for these positions is not very meaningful measurement.

As for where they'll be drafted I would venture that Jax and Z will go in rounds 12-15 of startups and the rest will be in the final 2-3 rounds where they belong given the year to year variability we see.

 

[Adam Harstad]

If you aren't making an effort to start a competitive and complete lineup because there's no incentive to win it's tanking. Regardless of the draft position angle. At the beginning of the year when everyone thinks they still have chance you never see people starting players on bye because they HAVE to hold onto that "top 3 D, PK, end of bench prospect". This behavior only occurs with teams who no longer have a shot to make playoffs and make the choice to stop winning because a) it helps their draft position and b) they can use the lame excuse that they prefer to hold end of bench prospect, start bye week PK/D rather she lose said PK/D/Prospect. The reality is Noone's team is just so stacked that they just have to hold onto these players and take the zero. If it was then they would be in the playoff hunt to begin with.




4

All teams that are not contending for a title behave differently from teams that are contending for a title. Maybe a team would be interested in trading for Larry Fitzgerald in week two when they're 1-1, but not in week 10 when they're 3-7. If preference reversals were proof of tanking, then "not trading for aging stars" would qualify as tanking. The reason teams behave differently late in the season is because they have more clarity as to whether they are a contending team or not. "Changing priorities based on new information" is not tanking.

Now, if a team is starting players on bye because "a) it helps their draft position", then yeah, that's the exact definition of tanking per the definition I supplied. But not cutting a player they like for a player they don't like just to score an extra 5 points late in a lost-cause season isn't tanking. It's... not wanting to cut players you like for players you don't like. In deeper leagues you shouldn't see too much of teams unable to field a competitive lineup. In shallower leagues... hell, I've started players on a bye when I was in the middle of a heated race for a bye myself. The odds of one random player making the difference between a win and a loss are far, far smaller than most people assume, and sometimes I'll take an extra 5% chance of losing in order to keep a prospect I really like.

 

[jeaton6]

All teams that are not contending for a title behave differently from teams that are contending for a title. Maybe a team would be interested in trading for Larry Fitzgerald in week two when they're 1-1, but not in week 10 when they're 3-7. If preference reversals were proof of tanking, then "not trading for aging stars" would qualify as tanking. The reason teams behave differently late in the season is because they have more clarity as to whether they are a contending team or not. "Changing priorities based on new information" is not tanking.

Now, if a team is starting players on bye because "a) it helps their draft position", then yeah, that's the exact definition of tanking per the definition I supplied. But not cutting a player they like for a player they don't like just to score an extra 5 points late in a lost-cause season isn't tanking. It's... not wanting to cut players you like for players you don't like. In deeper leagues you shouldn't see too much of teams unable to field a competitive lineup. In shallower leagues... hell, I've started players on a bye when I was in the middle of a heated race for a bye myself. The odds of one random player making the difference between a win and a loss are far, far smaller than most people assume, and sometimes I'll take an extra 5% chance of losing in order to keep a prospect I really like.

Choosing to not trade for an aging star because it doesn't help them achieve their goals is far different than choosing to start players on a bye and fielding an uncompetitive lineup given other readily available alternatives. 

Perhaps you are the exception but the behavior you are saying you exhibit (starting players on a bye because you must keep that end of bench prospect while in a heated playoff race) doesn't happen in leagues I play in. It tends to happen when teams are out of it, not when they are scrapping for every point they can get. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I'm sorry you don't understand. How many "top 3" PK and DSTs carry over year to year with that designation? I'm aware of 1.

So I should dump my top end K and D and end up with the 18th rated K and D?

Maybe leagues should allow a "bonus" spot when a K or D is on bye where you can keep them and add a one week filler.  There, problem solved.  

Either way, I am not going to drop a good kicker or defense just because YOU think that is what should happen.