Tanking Actually Isn't All That Bad - Change My Mind (2 Viewers)

[Stoneworker]

Sometimes in redraft people draft players knowing full well that their byes overlap and they won't be able to field a full team in a certain week. Is that "tanking?"

No it is not tanking.

Tanking has intent. Choosing to play a lesser olayrr in an attempt to lose. Stacking bye week players is a strategy but you are not trying to lose that week. You will still play the players you believe will score the most. You are not trying to lose. That is the difference.

For me this is all about intent.

It's not as different as you're making it out to be. In both cases someone is taking a short-term hit for a perceived greater chance of success down the road

It is night and day different. One side is actively trying to lose. The other is trying to win. About as different as you can be.

Nope. Both are actively trying to win a championship.

 

[wgoldsph]

I'm confused as to what you mean by "tanking". Are we talking about selling off your assets for picks and resetting your team? Because that's what I call basic strategy.

Are we talking about putting in a bad lineup? That's almost impossible to prove. I've put in absolutely bonkers lineups in the playoffs before because I was chasing a small perceived advantage against a team that was much stronger than mine. Was that tanking?

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

 

[Gally]

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

Purposely playing an inferior lineup because you are trying to lose. You play a player you would not play if you were in the playoffs trying to advance.

 

[TheWinz]

I can only speak for redraft leagues. No tanking allowed, period.

 

[dewmass]

I’m terrible at tanking. Picked up the Bengals D thinking I was being clever, they proceed to get a TD. Left St Brown in the other week thinking he’d be a last minute scratch, put up a nice 16 points. Actually leaving top players on the bench for waiver wire types is just bad form though

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

I was waiting for this one, I thought it would be one of the first counterarguments. I think it could be ... less uninteresting ... than people might think.

There would be decisions to make. Your playoff odds are looking like 15%. But there are a couple teams a game or two behind you. Is it tank time? Or do you keep going for it?

What if you're tied in last place, and trying to lose the points tiebreaker? You could end up with some interesting scenarios of trying to find ways to score as few points as possible, while not totally wrecking your team.

Also, suppose nobody were to tank until eliminated, but everyone immediately tanks after being eliminated. Then the draft order should be essentially in order of elimination (maybe some variance based on how tiebreakers work). And that would be a fairly reasonable draft order.

One thing not mentioned are those that will tank an entire year in dynasty, not just when they are out of contention. Yes, allowing tanking produces these beauties. They love the draft more than winning.

I was curious if anybody would do that. That would be a bold move, but yeah I figured some people would be inclined to do that if their team is really, really bad. With most leagues' schedules, three teams would end up being lucky enough to get 2 free wins, while everyone else gets 1.

 

[ghostguy123]

The answer to every part of this depends on the league such as the rules, format, money involved, and so on.

Also, I've always said, "not trying to win" and "trying to lose" are absolutely NOT the same thing.

 

[Mitchie]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

I was waiting for this one, I thought it would be one of the first counterarguments. I think it could be ... less uninteresting ... than people might think.

There would be decisions to make. Your playoff odds are looking like 15%. But there are a couple teams a game or two behind you. Is it tank time? Or do you keep going for it?

What if you're tied in last place, and trying to lose the points tiebreaker? You could end up with some interesting scenarios of trying to find ways to score as few points as possible, while not totally wrecking your team.

Also, suppose nobody were to tank until eliminated, but everyone immediately tanks after being eliminated. Then the draft order should be essentially in order of elimination (maybe some variance based on how tiebreakers work). And that would be a fairly reasonable draft order.

Those scenarios seem mildly interesting but you still have lots of games at the end of the season that are completely meaningless. There's already a lot of luck in scheduling, i.e. team 6th in points coming in first place, team with most points missing the playoffs. Now you're just adding more luck to how the schedule shakes out. Can't eliminate luck obviously but I find it to be more fun to play when the rules encourage more skill.

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

I was waiting for this one, I thought it would be one of the first counterarguments. I think it could be ... less uninteresting ... than people might think.

There would be decisions to make. Your playoff odds are looking like 15%. But there are a couple teams a game or two behind you. Is it tank time? Or do you keep going for it?

What if you're tied in last place, and trying to lose the points tiebreaker? You could end up with some interesting scenarios of trying to find ways to score as few points as possible, while not totally wrecking your team.

Also, suppose nobody were to tank until eliminated, but everyone immediately tanks after being eliminated. Then the draft order should be essentially in order of elimination (maybe some variance based on how tiebreakers work). And that would be a fairly reasonable draft order.

Those scenarios seem mildly interesting but you still have lots of games at the end of the season that are completely meaningless. There's already a lot of luck in scheduling, i.e. team 6th in points coming in first place, team with most points missing the playoffs. Now you're just adding more luck to how the schedule shakes out. Can't eliminate luck obviously but I find it to be more fun to play when the rules encourage more skill.

Agreed that there is a limit to the amount of luck that can be allowed and still have fun. (The extreme case would be: "All the fantasy points and games are just for the heck of it, they don't matter. The winner of the money + trophy + title is determined after all the games, by drawing from a hat." = extremely stupid and not fun.) So yes, adding more luck than already exists is probably not ideal even in my opinion. Depending on your luck preferences, that could be a notable drawback. Not a be-all and end-all in my opinion for sure, but I wouldn't care for that additional randomness.

 

[FarFromHome]

So I go back to the start. What is the definition of tanking.

Purposely playing an inferior lineup because you are trying to lose. You play a player you would not play if you were in the playoffs trying to advance.

Anything you intentionally do to not win the game. Now, for me the debate really begins to is tanking okay if you lose today to help you tomorrow? Personally, I've always just played to win each week.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

This sounds like something a league should vote on before the season, so that it's an established rule either way to avoid problems later.

 

[eighsse2]

So people want to play in leagues where tanking is allowed so two teams are tied going into last week of the regular season, and one team has to play a legitimate lineup and one gets a walkover? That is so stupid, can't even believe this is a discussion.

On one hand I will say: it's just one more random variable that could make or break you. Like the team with a great roster that loses its three best players to injury for the majority of the season. Stuff happens.

On the other hand I will say: your scenario does bring up a good point. Regardless of fairness, that final week scenario could have been more interesting if both were playing against legitimate lineups.

What if it's not random, what if I'm 4-10 and am going to play a good lineup but then my buddy sees that I'm playing him this week and asks me to tank for him, I say sure I'm allowed to tank, you got it man.

That would fall into a category that even I would be against. The working criterion I'm going by is, it has to aid your own team in some way. If you just got eliminated and you do that for your buddy, then it's a case of "They can't prove my intent, I can just say I'm doing it for the draft pick" (similar to soft tanking in leagues where tanking isn't allowed). But if you've been eliminated for two weeks, and you've been fielding a good lineup, then all of a sudden you play to lose in a week where everyone can see it will aid your buddy, that would ruffle some feathers, and I suppose there could be a judgment call because the intent seems so dubious.

It might not be a situation where I've been eliminated for two weeks, could be the first week I was eliminated.

Would you really want to play in a league where as soon as a team is out of playoff contention, they intentionally lose all their games? That doesn't sound like fun to me.

I was waiting for this one, I thought it would be one of the first counterarguments. I think it could be ... less uninteresting ... than people might think.

There would be decisions to make. Your playoff odds are looking like 15%. But there are a couple teams a game or two behind you. Is it tank time? Or do you keep going for it?

What if you're tied in last place, and trying to lose the points tiebreaker? You could end up with some interesting scenarios of trying to find ways to score as few points as possible, while not totally wrecking your team.

Also, suppose nobody were to tank until eliminated, but everyone immediately tanks after being eliminated. Then the draft order should be essentially in order of elimination (maybe some variance based on how tiebreakers work). And that would be a fairly reasonable draft order.

Those scenarios seem mildly interesting but you still have lots of games at the end of the season that are completely meaningless. There's already a lot of luck in scheduling, i.e. team 6th in points coming in first place, team with most points missing the playoffs. Now you're just adding more luck to how the schedule shakes out. Can't eliminate luck obviously but I find it to be more fun to play when the rules encourage more skill.

Agreed that there is a limit to the amount of luck that can be allowed and still have fun. (The extreme case would be: "All the fantasy points and games are just for the heck of it, they don't matter. The winner of the money + trophy + title is determined after all the games, by drawing from a hat." = extremely stupid and not fun.) So yes, adding more luck than already exists is probably not ideal even in my opinion. Depending on your luck preferences, that could be a notable drawback. Not a be-all and end-all in my opinion for sure, but I wouldn't care for that additional randomness.

Further I would say, there are kind of two opposing things, that can each similarly take fun out of it, at play here: randomness and certainty. What I mean is, the inequality of free wins to random teams spreads out the championship percentages when looking from the beginning of the season, I would think. Yet, once it's clear who is tanking, by looking at the remaining schedule, percentages may become more stacked up ("So-and-so would be fighting for a playoff spot if tanking weren't allowed; however, 3 of his final 4 opponents are tanking, so he's essentially a lock").

What produces fun in fantasy football, as I see it, is skill of predicting performances and savvy decision-making, and some degree of luck/randomness. The good randomness especially comes from potential close calls at inflection points (i.e., a game coming down to few points at the end, or a playoff race coming down to one game). You want some kind of balance between certainty and uncertainty, and the longer some uncertainty remains, they better. Tanking could produce more certainty, and sooner, and that could remove some of the fun, maybe even a lot.

 

[eighsse2]

This sounds like something a league should vote on before the season, so that it's an established rule either way to avoid problems later.

Correct, certainly. My position is not that it's good or bad, but that it isn't something that is objectively bad, ruins the game, and should never be an option.