"Cheap Move" or Nah? (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

Can someone define "tanking" for me?

Does the definition encapsulate just that game, or is there more to it?

 

[Gally]

Can someone define "tanking" for me?

Does the definition encapsulate just that game, or is there more to it?

My definition is purposely trying to lose by playing what you believe to be a suboptimal lineup.

 

[-OZ-]

Well yeah, but when you’re in a 16 team dynasty format, sometimes it’s unavoidable.

My main league is 32 teams (players available twice). Thankfully over the 20 years the vast majority of owners have been solid. Or at least smart enough to put their best rookies and 2nd year players on the taxi squad

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Can someone define "tanking" for me?

Does the definition encapsulate just that game, or is there more to it?

It’s generally a term used to describe the action of playing sub-optimal lineups in order to secure a worse record / higher draft pick.

Basically throwing games to get the 1.01

By using potential points, it thwarts such efforts.

 

[ghostguy123]

Can someone define "tanking" for me?

Does the definition encapsulate just that game, or is there more to it?

My definition is purposely trying to lose by playing what you believe to be a suboptimal lineup.

Trying to lose "what" exactly

 

[ghostguy123]

Can someone define "tanking" for me?

Does the definition encapsulate just that game, or is there more to it?

It’s generally a term used to describe the action of playing sub-optimal lineups in order to secure a worse record / higher draft pick.

Basically throwing games to get the 1.01

By using potential points, it thwarts such efforts.

I have no idea what potential points thing you are talking about it, and don't want to.

However, I agree with what you said before that. I don't know why people have used the word tanking in this thread. Makes zero sense.
Also, in previous talks of other threads, we discussed rare situations where a team needs to lose their last game in order to make the playoffs. Calling that tanking also makes no sense.

That's why I was asking people to define tanking.

Also the "you play to win the game" quotes also make no sense in your situation or the situation I just described.

I think a better quote would be "you play to win".

 

[Gally]

Trying to lose "what" exactly

The matchup each week. Typically draft picks in future years are based on your record so the worst record gets you a better draft pick. But purposely losing is bad for competitive balance so it is typically frowned upon.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Wow, I can't believe this thread has gone on for six pages! I wonder if I can say something that will stretch it out another six.

[Thinking...]

IT WAS TOTALLY ETHICAL FOR FANTASY MANAGERS TO PLAY JOE WEBB AT WR WHEN HE WAS THE VIKINGS' STARTING QB!!!!!!!

 

[BobbyLayne]

Wow, I can't believe this thread has gone on for six pages

same same

7:1 odds HSG will like and respond to this

anyone? anyone?

 

[jtd13]

I don't like this for draft order because you more often than not just punish the guy with the worst lineup/matchup luck a 2nd time.

How is this punishing for a second time? The idea behind the NFL style draft order is that the worst teams get the better picks. Using potential points as the order (reverse order of course) is that the actual worst team will get the first pick. It takes schedule luck out of the equation and also disincentivizes playing a less than optimal lineup which helps the teams still competing to get into a playoff spot or move up the standings by having teams trying to win their matchup because there is no incentive to lose the matchup.

I just don't see how using PP's is a punishment in any way.

In practice it's often the case that a team that would normally be a competitive has a bunch of tough luck matchup losses and ends up with the worst record, and then in this system gets the 5th pick. That's what I mean by you punish the team that already kinda got the short end of the stick. In normal standings if you have crap luck for a whole season you at least get a nice pick out of it. I prefer to just leave it to standings and if someone is screwing up the competitive nature of the league by throwing games, you deal with that separately.
Potential points is a better way to usually get the worse teams the top picks. Similarly total points is usually the best way to make the best team the champ. If your goal is ordering these things from best team to worst team as closely as possible then go for it with these systems, I just prefer more matchup based leagues for both draft order and champion.

 

[apalmer]

Can someone define "tanking" for me?

Does the definition encapsulate just that game, or is there more to it?

Putting both Nathaniel Dell and Cartavious Bigsby in your starting lineup.

 

[ghostguy123]

Trying to lose "what" exactly

The matchup each week. Typically draft picks in future years are based on your record so the worst record gets you a better draft pick. But purposely losing is bad for competitive balance so it is typically frowned upon.

Correct. Losing on purpose (as in setting bad lineups) to get better draft position is bad.

Removing a player from lineup to secure a win is not only not bad, it's brilliant. It's like the equivalent of a team taking a knee at the end of a game.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Wow, I can't believe this thread has gone on for six pages

same same

7:1 odds HSG will like and respond to this

anyone? anyone?

I’ll take that action.

Wait, doh!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don't like this for draft order because you more often than not just punish the guy with the worst lineup/matchup luck a 2nd time.

How is this punishing for a second time? The idea behind the NFL style draft order is that the worst teams get the better picks. Using potential points as the order (reverse order of course) is that the actual worst team will get the first pick. It takes schedule luck out of the equation and also disincentivizes playing a less than optimal lineup which helps the teams still competing to get into a playoff spot or move up the standings by having teams trying to win their matchup because there is no incentive to lose the matchup.

I just don't see how using PP's is a punishment in any way.

In practice it's often the case that a team that would normally be a competitive has a bunch of tough luck matchup losses and ends up with the worst record, and then in this system gets the 5th pick. That's what I mean by you punish the team that already kinda got the short end of the stick. In normal standings if you have crap luck for a whole season you at least get a nice pick out of it. I prefer to just leave it to standings and if someone is screwing up the competitive nature of the league by throwing games, you deal with that separately.
Potential points is a better way to usually get the worse teams the top picks. Similarly total points is usually the best way to make the best team the champ. If your goal is ordering these things from best team to worst team as closely as possible then go for it with these systems, I just prefer more matchup based leagues for both draft order and champion.

I see where you’re going with this and get what you’re saying.

But that’s getting more into the philosophical weeds of how a league determines draft order, and whether it’s truly to award the “worst” teams the higher picks. And further, how you define the “worst”.

my belief is that the worst team should be awarded the highest pick.

It sounds like you believe being unlucky, or a manager making bad lineup decisions should factor in.

I disagree with that to the extreme. Awarding 1.01 to a good team that made bad decisions or faced tough competition would only be unfair to the actual bad teams that the system is intended to improve. It would also encourage, rather than discourage tanking.

For a hypothetical example, in your proposed system, a good team off of to an unlucky start might decide it’s better to take a chance on getting Marvin Harrison Jr than continuing to compete. So maybe they'll make some poor lineup choices intentionally to secure a bad record/high pick.

Thus you would be “punishing” an actual bad team that needed that high pick by awarding it to a better team that simply had bad luck/poor management.

 

[gruecd]

In one of my leagues, a 12-team PPR SF with no K or D/ST, with -3 Int, after last night's game I'm up 97.8 to 92.7 (thank you, Tee Higgins)

It was a bad BYE week for us both. I'm currently the 3-seed, and top scorer in that league, and had Zach Wilson yet to play (Fields is out, ARich on IR, yeah, don't judge)

Anyway, after the game, I decided that the prudent thing to do with a narrow 5.1 point lead in a league with -3 for Interceptions would be to swap out ZW for Conkin in my SF spot. That way I protect my lead, and eliminate the risk of a bad beat with ZW coming out and craping the bed with a multi-pick game.

A friend in the league texted me that he saw I did that swap & called it a "cheap move". I asked if he thought there was anything in the rules against it. He said no, but he thought it was "kind of unsportsmanlike". I told him to pound sand.

Personally, I see it as smart management. I need 0 points to win, but I can't leave a roster spot open. Why wouldn't I be able to put whomever I want in my SF spot? Just happened to have another Jet to do it with. We don't have an in-season prize for season points total, so the extra points are irrelevant. But the negative points could be highly relevant .

Your thoughts:

Honest opinion.

Cheap move.

Not to say it's not the smart move. I just wouldn't do it unless it was a life or death type situation.

There's nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing Wilson. Why do it?

 

[Gally]

Trying to lose "what" exactly

The matchup each week. Typically draft picks in future years are based on your record so the worst record gets you a better draft pick. But purposely losing is bad for competitive balance so it is typically frowned upon.

Correct. Losing on purpose (as in setting bad lineups) to get better draft position is bad.

Removing a player from lineup to secure a win is not only not bad, it's brilliant. It's like the equivalent of a team taking a knee at the end of a game.

Totally agree

 

[jtd13]

@Hot Sauce Guy I understand the other side of the discussion and can just agree to disagree. Only comment back is on below point.

a good team off of to an unlucky start might decide it’s better to take a chance on getting Marvin Harrison Jr than continuing to compete. So maybe they'll make some poor lineup choices intentionally to secure a bad record/high pick.

Haven't seen an issue with this except in leagues with strangers, which goes back to my comment about the best way to prevent tanking is pick who you play with well. Since I no longer do public dynasty leagues and just stick with my old timey dynasty leagues with the same people I've been in leagues with for a 10-25 years, it works for me.

 

[Fruitbat]

I'm way late to this party, and haven't read all replies...

Our dynasty league is in year 30...

Regarding the original issue with benching Wilson on MNF:
1) Totally fine with it. Your goal is to win the game
2) This is exactly why our league doesn't allow negative scores for players. While we aren't against the concept of a negative score reflecting the "value" of that player...we don't want owners playing rules gymnastics and benching/starting players on MNF because of this exact scenario.

Regarding tanking games for a better pick....after many years of struggling with this and trying address "gray area" decisions teams were making (in their own best interest), we finally went to pure random lottery for the non-playoff teams. It has been SOOO much better, and there are plenty of "hits" in the top 8 picks even if you don't get the top pick. AND, perhaps best of all, its added an event to our league calendar which is highly anticipated...the draft lottery!

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Haven't seen an issue with this except in leagues with strangers, which goes back to my comment about the best way to prevent tanking is pick who you play with well. Since I no longer do public dynasty leagues and just stick with my old timey dynasty leagues with the same people I've been in leagues with for a 10-25 years, it works for me.

So we’re talking apples & oranges, because my context is dynasty leagues where not everyone knows everyone.

In my situation, better controls over tanking are more necessary.

 

[Gally]

2) This is exactly why our league doesn't allow negative scores for players. While we aren't against the concept of a negative score reflecting the "value" of that player...we don't want owners playing rules gymnastics and benching/starting players on MNF because of this exact scenario.

There are no rule gymnastics happening. Do you not want/let teams make changes to their lineup for MNF players? I just don't understand the concern with allowing this.

 

[Fruitbat]

2) This is exactly why our league doesn't allow negative scores for players. While we aren't against the concept of a negative score reflecting the "value" of that player...we don't want owners playing rules gymnastics and benching/starting players on MNF because of this exact scenario.

There are no rule gymnastics happening. Do you not want/let teams make changes to their lineup for MNF players? I just don't understand the concern with allowing this.

Perhaps that is not phrased correctly. IF legal, go ahead and do it! But we'd rather not have teams benching Wilson for Rodgers (or insert any other obscure player that wont score negative), because the only way they lose is if Wilson scores negative. Just how we roll.

 

[belljr]

Does no one else lock rosters at 1pm EST Sunday?

 

[ghostguy123]

Does no one else lock rosters at 1pm EST Sunday?

Seems like that's a problem when you don't know if the guys in the later games are playing.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Does no one else lock rosters at 1pm EST Sunday?

1988 called. They want their FF format back.

 

[belljr]

Does no one else lock rosters at 1pm EST Sunday?

1988 called. They want their FF format back.

Conklin 4.0
ZW 3.4

Jerkstore called .......

 

[song]

Wow, I can't believe this thread has gone on for six pages! I wonder if I can say something that will stretch it out another six.

It's Ted Williams

 

[jon_mx]

You play to win the game. You don't play it just to play it.

It kind of like the victory formation when the team in the lead just takes knees to run out the clock. Is that a cheap move because they are not trying their best to score the most points?