Throw my game to change playoff teams? (1 Viewer)

[Amused to Death]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

I'll start my best lineup, and retroactively forfeit the game I won that I think gives me the best chance in the playoffs.

Assuming your league does not allow forfeits, you would take a zero tolerance stance and try to win with your best lineup. Would you be rooting to win and have your season come to an end or secretly hope your QB throws 4 picks and your RB who just limped off can't come back?

As I said earlier in the thread, I wouldn't play in a league where winning can put me out of the playoffs and losing can put me in, and if I did, I would want the acceptable behavior explicitly spelled out in the rules.

In the scenario posed by the original poster here (possibility of tailoring a playoff matchup), I would 100%, absolutely play my best lineup and hope I win.

I'm trying to show that there are varying levels of tanking that FFL owners will accept. There are real-world situations spelled out in this thread where winning eliminates you/losing earns a playoff spot. That situation probably was not foreseen in the offseason. So for this exercise assume you are in that spot. The current rules do not spell it out. How do you set your lineup?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

 

[cstu]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point. But you did previously post that you would tank if it meant you got into the playoffs iirc. And that is perfectly understandable. But what that indicates to me is people have a threshold of what is acceptable. Some are zero-tolerance. Some allow for it if it means a playoff spot - others go even further. I don't think there is one universally accepted level among the FFL community.

As an owner your goal is to make the playoffs so IMO you can set any lineup you want that helps accomplish that. However, you should not be using your lineup to affect the rest of the league. That's poor sportsmanship regardless of what excuses you tell yourself.

That's fine, but if you intentionally lose to ensure getting in doesn't that affect the team that is now knocked out? You're still taking someone else's playoff spot by playing to lose.

It does but it's the intent of your actions that matter. If losing ensures that you make the playoffs then you are doing what you are supposed to do. You're not supposed to manipulate the teams who make the playoffs when you are already in.

 

[Amused to Death]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

Understand that's YOUR position. Others may opt to make the playoffs. Are they wrong?

 

[cstu]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

This is where I disagree...my goal of playing FF is to make the playoffs, not maximize my points.

 

[Amused to Death]

If someone's tanking was allowed and cost you a playoff spot, would you stay in the league?

I wouldn't.

I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point. But you did previously post that you would tank if it meant you got into the playoffs iirc. And that is perfectly understandable. But what that indicates to me is people have a threshold of what is acceptable. Some are zero-tolerance. Some allow for it if it means a playoff spot - others go even further. I don't think there is one universally accepted level among the FFL community.

As an owner your goal is to make the playoffs so IMO you can set any lineup you want that helps accomplish that. However, you should not be using your lineup to affect the rest of the league. That's poor sportsmanship regardless of what excuses you tell yourself.

That's fine, but if you intentionally lose to ensure getting in doesn't that affect the team that is now knocked out? You're still taking someone else's playoff spot by playing to lose.

It does but it's the intent of your actions that matter. If losing ensures that you make the playoffs then you are doing what you are supposed to do. You're not supposed to manipulate the teams who make the playoffs when you are already in.

OK so you're fine with tanking to ensure your playoff spot. Others like wdcrob disagree and feel you should maximize your effort to win your game. See? Different opinions; different levels of tolerance for tanking.

 

[CalBear]

I'm trying to show that there are varying levels of tanking that FFL owners will accept. There are real-world situations spelled out in this thread where winning eliminates you/losing earns a playoff spot. That situation probably was not foreseen in the offseason. So for this exercise assume you are in that spot. The current rules do not spell it out. How do you set your lineup?

Again, I've already answered this.

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm trying to show that there are varying levels of tanking that FFL owners will accept. There are real-world situations spelled out in this thread where winning eliminates you/losing earns a playoff spot. That situation probably was not foreseen in the offseason. So for this exercise assume you are in that spot. The current rules do not spell it out. How do you set your lineup?

Again, I've already answered this.

OK, so are people like ghostguy, cstu and others wrong for putting the playoffs first? Would have a problem with happening in your league? Do you agree league rules should address it?

 

[Amused to Death]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

This is where I disagree...my goal of playing FF is to make the playoffs, not maximize my points.

Some would go another step and say their goal is to win the championship. IMO, it doesn't make them right or wrong - just different.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I don't want you to waste your time claiming "it's not possible" for one team to be 9-0 and everyone else to be 4-5, so here's a full schedule of results through the first nine weeks of a season:

Week Away Home Winner1 10 1 11 6 2 21 9 4 91 3 5 31 8 7 72 2 3 22 5 6 52 1 7 12 8 9 92 4 10 43 4 1 13 7 2 23 6 3 33 9 5 53 10 8 84 1 2 14 3 4 34 10 5 54 8 6 64 9 7 95 5 1 15 8 2 25 9 3 35 4 7 45 6 10 66 7 3 76 6 4 66 5 8 86 1 9 16 2 10 107 6 1 17 4 5 47 10 7 107 3 8 87 2 9 98 8 1 18 2 4 48 7 5 78 9 6 68 3 10 109 5 2 59 1 3 19 7 6 79 4 8 89 10 9 10If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

This is where I disagree...my goal of playing FF is to make the playoffs, not maximize my points.

Points are the only thing you have control over. At least in a league with an anti-tanking rule.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

I, too, look forward to his response. This has been entertaining.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

Understand that's YOUR position. Others may opt to make the playoffs. Are they wrong?

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

I, too, look forward to his response. This has been entertaining.

Don't set your expectations too high.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

Understand that's YOUR position. Others may opt to make the playoffs. Are they wrong?

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

This is a really rigid, overly pseudo moralistic mindset.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's interesting to see how many really shoddy arguments there have been in this thread, both in favor of and against "tanking." It feels to me that this is probably because people have an immediate, visceral reaction to the question, and then subsequently try to build a logical framework that supports their opinion.

Ultimately I don't think there's a definitively right or wrong answer - it depends on the culture of the league, etc. There's obviously enough variety of opinion that stances of "NEVER TANK EVER" or "TANKING IS ALWAYS OK" are equally silly. I think at the very least, it would be a good idea for an individual to consult with his league before acting one way or the other. Some leagues might throw you out for doing it; others might consider you a fool for NOT doing so if it meant the difference between making and missing the playoffs, for instance.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

Understand that's YOUR position. Others may opt to make the playoffs. Are they wrong?

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

This is a really rigid, overly pseudo moralistic mindset.

Or it's using the definition of the word tanking -- trying to lose a game to gain an advantage -- to define what's permitted and what's not.

ETA: do agree with Iggy that it's up to each league to DEFINE tanking in the rules.

 

[CalBear]

I'm trying to show that there are varying levels of tanking that FFL owners will accept. There are real-world situations spelled out in this thread where winning eliminates you/losing earns a playoff spot. That situation probably was not foreseen in the offseason. So for this exercise assume you are in that spot. The current rules do not spell it out. How do you set your lineup?

Again, I've already answered this.

OK, so are people like ghostguy, cstu and others wrong for putting the playoffs first? Would have a problem with happening in your league? Do you agree league rules should address it?

Didn't I just answer all of these questions?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

It's pretty cut and dried. There are just a lot of people who want to justify it instead of admitting that they're doing something shady.

Would you start your best lineup if winning knocked you out? Zero-tolerance?

Absolutely. I try to maximize my points every week.

Understand that's YOUR position. Others may opt to make the playoffs. Are they wrong?

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

This is a really rigid, overly pseudo moralistic mindset.

Or it's using the definition of the word tanking -- trying to lose a game to gain an advantage -- to define what's permitted and what's not.ETA: do agree with Iggy that it's up to each league to DEFINE tanking in the rules.

Why would anyone need to define tanking if it is so obvious?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Before reading this thread, I would have expected most folks would be OK with tanking to improve playoff positioning.

I know earlier there was discussion about "parameters of the game" or somesuch. To me, the overriding "parameter of the game" is always to manage your team to maximize its chances of winning the championship (within league rules of course). This primary motivator guides drafting, lineup setting, waiver/free agent acquisitions, trades, all of it. 99.9% of the time, winning this week's game advances the win the championship motive. In that 0.1% of the time when losing this week's game advances the championship motive, it's not only fair to tank, but expected.

If for whatever reason a league wanted to stipulate that every team has to make winning every week's game the highest priority, then tanking isn't the only thing that must be disallowed. Collecting a roster full of players with the same bye week would have to be Illegal. Starting a bye week player instead of dropping a valuable player to pick up a replacement must also be illegal. Starting a defense with a poor matchup because they have great matchups the next three weeks and you don't want to drop them, also a no-go. Those are all choices to "lose the battle to win the war". Tanking is just another such strategy.

While I agree that "tanking" might be a sound strategy--that certainly can work from time to time--the point that the anti-tanking crowd is making is that it is in poor sportsmanship and unethical. Why do we all strive to play in good fantasy leagues with good rational commissioners? We do it in hopes of playing in leagues that promote a fair and equal competitive environment. Part of this equal environment is that playoff teams are determined through the parameters of that league under natural and fair equal competition---not competition that is manipulated by owners in the league. Tanking is just another word for purposely manipulating the laws of equal competition in a league through purposely changing standings/records. Drafting a team where a lot of your players have the same bye week is not tanking--because--while it may give your team a disadvantage that one week--it gives your team an advantage the other weeks--as you are most likely playing other teams who have players on bye week. The idea is that every owner should start what they think their strongest roster for each particular week is. The reason for this is that it is the only way to insure that the teams that make the playoffs do so as a direct result of equal and fair competition--and nothing else. Teams should not make or miss the playoffs through manipulation--whether or not if it is blatantly written in the rules. Sportsmanship is sportsmanship.

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

really? that is your response to a well thought out argument? Picking out sematics as opposed to coming up with a civil counter argument? In the world of sportsmanship--dictating results through manipulation as opposed through fair competition is 1000% frowned upon. Would you sign up to be in a fantasy league knowing that some teams will randomly arbitraily be given a 1-0 or 2-0 start? Of course not. Well--this is what tanking is basically doing. Some teams are being awarded wins outside the fair rules of competition to effect the playing field in a way that is not equal to every owner. The anti-tanking crowd is "of the opinion"--that it is an absolutely viable strategy that does work from time to time---but the "point is" and the "facts are" that is an absolutely garbage strategy in the world of competitive fairness and sportsmanship.

 

[davearm]

I thought I was being perfectly civil. Oh well.

The crux of my argument, and the pro-tanking crowd, is that every team should be allowed, and expected, to act in their own best interest in furtherance of the goal of winning the championship, within the boundaries of league rules.

Ergo, if tanking improves my odds of winning the championship, and is not prohibited by league rules, then I can and should tank.

Any argument against tanking -- such as yours -- that centers around ethics or sportsmanship or fair play is inherently flawed, because there is no clear consensus on the matter.

 

[davearm]

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

The definition of tanking isn't what's being debated here. We all seem to get what it is.At issue is whether or not it is an acceptable strategy.

 

[CalBear]

Any argument against tanking -- such as yours -- that centers around ethics or sportsmanship or fair play is inherently flawed, because there is no clear consensus on the matter.

There's rarely clear consensus on ethical issues, because lots of people are unethical.

 

[davearm]

As an owner your goal is to make the playoffs so IMO you can set any lineup you want that helps accomplish that. However, you should not be using your lineup to affect the rest of the league. That's poor sportsmanship regardless of what excuses you tell yourself.

My goal isn't to make the playoffs, it is to win the championship.Can I set any lineup I want that helps me accomplish that?

Full disclosure: it's going to affect the rest of the league. Just as will the guy who's just trying to make the playoffs.

 

[davearm]

Any argument against tanking -- such as yours -- that centers around ethics or sportsmanship or fair play is inherently flawed, because there is no clear consensus on the matter.

There's rarely clear consensus on ethical issues, because lots of people are unethical.

People that are unethical do things they know are wrong. They're not people that disagree about what is and isn't wrong.

 

[TheStig]

I don't want you to waste your time claiming "it's not possible" for one team to be 9-0 and everyone else to be 4-5, so here's a full schedule of results through the first nine weeks of a season:

Week Away Home Winner1 10 1 11 6 2 21 9 4 91 3 5 31 8 7 72 2 3 22 5 6 52 1 7 12 8 9 92 4 10 43 4 1 13 7 2 23 6 3 33 9 5 53 10 8 84 1 2 14 3 4 34 10 5 54 8 6 64 9 7 95 5 1 15 8 2 25 9 3 35 4 7 45 6 10 66 7 3 76 6 4 66 5 8 86 1 9 16 2 10 107 6 1 17 4 5 47 10 7 107 3 8 87 2 9 98 8 1 18 2 4 48 7 5 78 9 6 68 3 10 109 5 2 59 1 3 19 7 6 79 4 8 89 10 9 10If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

Simple, 14 Week season with no Wildcard no one has been eliminated because Team 1 has not yet clinched a playoff spot. There are still 5 games left.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

Simple, 14 Week season with no Wildcard no one has been eliminated because Team 1 has not yet clinched a playoff spot. There are still 5 games left.

It seems you're confused. Your goal was not to demonstrate that it's possible for there to be a scenario where no one's clinched yet. That's trivial. Week 1, nobody's clinched. Voilà!

Your goal was to show that when one team clinches a playoff spot, another team has been eliminated from playoff contention. So given the above scenario, assume it's a 13 week regular season. Team 1 has clinched a playoff spot. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

really? that is your response to a well thought out argument? Picking out sematics as opposed to coming up with a civil counter argument?

1000% frowned upon

absolutely garbage

Oh look, it's jvdesigns2002 once again to make ####ty absolutist arguments and pretend that his opinions are well-reasoned arguments, all while obliviously accusing others of doing the same. Sounds familiar.

Yes-- you are right. I'm very humiliated. You won. Well done. I'm sure that everybody can go back and read back and establish that you are the clear winner. I'll print you out an award and mail you a trophy.

Let me try to help you out here a little, since it seems you do realize you've been a little ridiculous in the second half of this thread, but you don't really want to admit it. You go back and bump all of my posts where it sounds like I'm trying to establish myself as the "clear winner," and I'll bump all of yours where you're doing the same. We'll see which one of us has actually been interested in well-reasoned debate, and which one simply wants to beat their opinion over everyone's head until they acquiesce. I mean really, which one of us has been the champion for mature, well-reasoned debate, and which one of us has posted stuff like this?

your point makes zero sense

absolutely garbabe

possibly the most ignorant argument ever

Your entire argument is absolutely invalid.

that is the most unintelligent thing I have ever heard If you are not intelligent enough to see this, nor man enough to admit you were wrong--that's not my problem.

there is seriously something wrong with you.

It's good to know you people never change.

 

[Interseptopus]

You're all still arguing about this? Man...

 

[jvdesigns2002]

really? that is your response to a well thought out argument? Picking out sematics as opposed to coming up with a civil counter argument?1000% frowned uponabsolutely garbage

Oh look, it's jvdesigns2002 once again to make ####ty absolutist arguments and pretend that his opinions are well-reasoned arguments, all while obliviously accusing others of doing the same. Sounds familiar.

Yes-- you are right. I'm very humiliated. You won. Well done. I'm sure that everybody can go back and read back and establish that you are the clear winner. I'll print you out an award and mail you a trophy.

Let me try to help you out here a little, since it seems you do realize you've been a little ridiculous in the second half of this thread, but you don't really want to admit it. You go back and bump all of my posts where it sounds like I'm trying to establish myself as the "clear winner," and I'll bump all of yours where you're doing the same. We'll see which one of us has actually been interested in well-reasoned debate, and which one simply wants to beat their opinion over everyone's head until they acquiesce. I mean really, which one of us has been the champion for mature, well-reasoned debate, and which one of us has posted stuff like this?

your point makes zero sense

absolutely garbabe

possibly the most ignorant argument ever

Your entire argument is absolutely invalid.

that is the most unintelligent thing I have ever heard If you are not intelligent enough to see this, nor man enough to admit you were wrong--that's not my problem.

there is seriously something wrong with you.

It's good to know you people never change.

wow--that is really mature. I've made over 800 posts in this forum on numerous topics. If you want to paint a picture of me--why don't you go back and copy and paste every one of those posts that I have made. You've picked and chosen small fragments here and there to try to paint me as a bad guy. If people want to judge me--let them judge me for everything they read and see about me--not the "picked and chosen" fragments that you have compiled out of over 800 posts. I could fragment bits and pieces of Martin Luther King and paint him as a bad person too---so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. If you feel like I have not contributed points of views that are relative to the topic in this thread--please call me out on that. If you feel like my points are off base in this thread--how about replying in a fashion that presents how your point of view is different than mine . The flawed person here is you my friend--I'm not the one trying to turn a general fantasy football discussion into personal attacks. I could very easily go back through your numerous posts and paint you in a bad light as well--but I won't--because I can do more valuable things with my time.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I didn't pick and choose from 800 posts. I quoted one post from an old thread, in which you were making absurdly flawed and absolutist arguments about an issue that didn't really have a "right" answer, presenting your opinion as fact, and calling other people's opinions "absolute garbabe" and whatnot. And look, here you are again, in the same kind of thread, doing the same exact thing! I just thought it was an interesting observation.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I didn't pick and choose from 800 posts. I quoted one post from an old thread, in which you were making absurdly flawed and absolutist arguments about an issue that didn't really have a "right" answer, presenting your opinion as fact, and calling other people's opinions "absolute garbabe" and whatnot. And look, here you are again, in the same kind of thread, doing the same exact thing! I just thought it was an interesting observation.

my thoughts on a different topic in a different thread are not relevant to the posts and topics I make in this one. Some of the differing points of views get a bit heated--as we are all competitive people--and yes--I'm guilty of being a competitive person. I'm sure there are threads where you have felt very strongly about an issue as well. However--somebody using your emotional reactions about a completely separate topic than the one we are discussing here is not helpful and serves zero purpose. I'm not here to change your mind and I'm not here to make you like me--so if you choose not to like me--then so be it. I could care less. I do however respect your fantasy football insight and if you have a differing point of view on a specific topic--how about you focus on that--as opposed to attempting to undermine somebodys character?

 

[davearm]

I don't want you to waste your time claiming "it's not possible" for one team to be 9-0 and everyone else to be 4-5, so here's a full schedule of results through the first nine weeks of a season:

Week Away Home Winner1 10 1 11 6 2 21 9 4 91 3 5 31 8 7 72 2 3 22 5 6 52 1 7 12 8 9 92 4 10 43 4 1 13 7 2 23 6 3 33 9 5 53 10 8 84 1 2 14 3 4 34 10 5 54 8 6 64 9 7 95 5 1 15 8 2 25 9 3 35 4 7 45 6 10 66 7 3 76 6 4 66 5 8 86 1 9 16 2 10 107 6 1 17 4 5 47 10 7 107 3 8 87 2 9 98 8 1 18 2 4 48 7 5 78 9 6 68 3 10 109 5 2 59 1 3 19 7 6 79 4 8 89 10 9 10If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

Simple, 14 Week season with no Wildcard no one has been eliminated because Team 1 has not yet clinched a playoff spot. There are still 5 games left.

Setting aside the fact that you blatantly dodged the question by specifying whatever schedule length was necessary to guarantee T1 still hasn't clinched...You told the guy that first outlined the scenario that he must not understand statistics if he thought there could be one 9-0 team, and the rest @ 4-5.

How's that working out?

Oh and while I have your attention: I'm still eager how hear you explain how the NFL seems to have an uneven number of clinched and eliminated teams. You did say this was a mathematical impossibility.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't dislike you and I'm not trying to undermine your character. But from what I remember, you seem to have a habit of making very absolutist, black-and-white, my-opinion-is-right-and-your-opinion-is-wrong "arguments." I mean, look at the post of yours I originally quoted - you didn't even seem to grasp the point of the person you were responding to:

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

really? that is your response to a well thought out argument? Picking out sematics as opposed to coming up with a civil counter argument?

davearm wasn't picking out semantics, he was highlighting a very important point that you seem to have missed. Just because you believe something is unethical doesn't make it so. You're not the arbiter of all things right and wrong in fantasy football. And yet you persist with stuff like

1000% frowned upon.

There is no topic on earth that has 100% (or 1000%) consensus agreement. It's already been demonstrated that there is nowhere near that kind of agreement on this topic in particular, so for you to claim something like that 10+ pages into the thread is, frankly, ignorant of the hundreds of posts that came before yours.

the "facts are" that is an absolutely garbage strategy

That's not a fact, that's your opinion. Again, you seem to have a hard time remembering that there's a difference. It would probably serve you well to slow down and pay closer attention when you say things like this, because things are rarely so simple.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't dislike you and I'm not trying to undermine your character. But from what I remember, you seem to have a habit of making very absolutist, black-and-white, my-opinion-is-right-and-your-opinion-is-wrong "arguments." I mean, look at the post of yours I originally quoted - you didn't even seem to grasp the point of the person you were responding to:

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

really? that is your response to a well thought out argument? Picking out sematics as opposed to coming up with a civil counter argument?

davearm wasn't picking out semantics, he was highlighting a very important point that you seem to have missed. Just because you believe something is unethical doesn't make it so. You're not the arbiter of all things right and wrong in fantasy football. And yet you persist with stuff like

1000% frowned upon.

There is no topic on earth that has 100% (or 1000%) consensus agreement. It's already been demonstrated that there is nowhere near that kind of agreement on this topic in particular, so for you to claim something like that 10+ pages into the thread is, frankly, ignorant of the hundreds of posts that came before yours.

the "facts are" that is an absolutely garbage strategy

That's not a fact, that's your opinion. Again, you seem to have a hard time remembering that there's a difference. It would probably serve you well to slow down and pay closer attention when you say things like this, because things are rarely so simple.

If you read back through the thread, that seems to be the M.O. of a few "anti-tanking" people. Either you agree with their views or you're an immature-colluding-computer hacker who probably cuts in line at amusement parks. Never mind the lack of evidence that supports the supposed universal thought of zero tolerance.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I don't dislike you and I'm not trying to undermine your character. But from what I remember, you seem to have a habit of making very absolutist, black-and-white, my-opinion-is-right-and-your-opinion-is-wrong "arguments." I mean, look at the post of yours I originally quoted - you didn't even seem to grasp the point of the person you were responding to:

Correction -- the anti-tanking crowd *holds the opinion* that tanking is unethical and poor sportsmanship. That doesn't make it so. This thread wouldn't be this long if it were so cut and dried.

really? that is your response to a well thought out argument? Picking out sematics as opposed to coming up with a civil counter argument?

davearm wasn't picking out semantics, he was highlighting a very important point that you seem to have missed. Just because you believe something is unethical doesn't make it so. You're not the arbiter of all things right and wrong in fantasy football. And yet you persist with stuff like

1000% frowned upon.

There is no topic on earth that has 100% (or 1000%) consensus agreement. It's already been demonstrated that there is nowhere near that kind of agreement on this topic in particular, so for you to claim something like that 10+ pages into the thread is, frankly, ignorant of the hundreds of posts that came before yours.

the "facts are" that is an absolutely garbage strategy

That's not a fact, that's your opinion. Again, you seem to have a hard time remembering that there's a difference. It would probably serve you well to slow down and pay closer attention when you say things like this, because things are rarely so simple.

When I post on the shark pool--it is 100% public. Anybody who wants to go back and read all of my previous posts--some of which are emotionally charged--is more than welcome to do so. Nobody here needs you to go back through and "cherry pick" bits and pieces here and there to paint a picture--they are fully capable reading for themselves. I have nothing to hide. I'll admit it--- sometimes I get emotionally charged--if that is the point you want to make by only choosing a few words here and there--great job. I don't think anybody here has taken any offense to anything full posting I have made on this thread--but maybe I'm wrong. In regarding to speaking in absolution--please clarify your point of view--as mine is perfectly clear. All I said that in the spirit sportsmanship--somebody knowingly manipulating the competitive fairness (equality) of a league is 1000% frowned upon. If you disagree with this--please tell me where. Where in the world of sportsmanship is this not absolute? I'm not talking about if leagues have rules about it or not--I'm talking strictly within the world of "sportsmanship"---so if you disagree--comment on that.

 

[bulger2holt]

Leave players out of your lineup and say you are resting them for the playoffs

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Honestly, it's as if you don't even bother to read or understand the posts you respond to. I can't really help you if that's the case.

I'll admit it--- sometimes I get emotionally charged--if that is the point you want to make

It's not. I just told you the point I was trying to make.

I don't think anybody here has taken any offense to anything full posting I have made on this thread--but maybe I'm wrong.

I didn't say anyone's taken offense to your posts.

All I said that in the spirit sportsmanship--somebody knowingly manipulating the competitive fairness (equality) of a league is 1000% frowned upon. If you disagree with this--please tell me where.

I just did.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Honestly, it's as if you don't even bother to read or understand the posts you respond to. I can't really help you if that's the case.

I'll admit it--- sometimes I get emotionally charged--if that is the point you want to make

It's not. I just told you the point I was trying to make.

I don't think anybody here has taken any offense to anything full posting I have made on this thread--but maybe I'm wrong.

I didn't say anyone's taken offense to your posts.

All I said that in the spirit sportsmanship--somebody knowingly manipulating the competitive fairness (equality) of a league is 1000% frowned upon. If you disagree with this--please tell me where.

I just did.

Let's just agree to disagree. You are unwilling to contribute anything of value--but somehow think that snarky comments make you look good in the eyes of the fellow members of the Shark Pool. The point that I am making is that many people that are pro-tanking justify it because it is self motivating and there are leagues with no rules against it. Just because something is self motivating, and there are no rules against it--doesn't mean that it is something that is accepted in the world of sportsmanship. Notice that when I comment on a post that somebody makes--I make sure their entire post is included in my reply---so that everybody can read the thoughts and feelings of both sides--and decide for themselves--while you go through an pick and choose what you like in order to paint somebody the way you want to. Maybe you and some members of the Shark Pool think this is fair and objective--I choose not to feel that way. So why don't we choose not to reply to each other any further in this thread and just wish each other a great day and a happy fantasy playoffs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

The definition of tanking isn't what's being debated here. We all seem to get what it is.At issue is whether or not it is an acceptable strategy.

Obviously if there's an anti-tanking rule then tanking, losing games to gain an advantage, isn't an acceptable strategy.

I assumed the existence of the rule here and that people were arguing that their particular form of tanking wasn't actually tanking because :thesearenotthedroidsyou'relookingfor:

It's still wrong without a rule IMO, but anyone playing in a league without an anti-tanking rule deserves what they get.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Yes, it's tanking. I don't care why someone tanks or what their gain from tanking is (helping a friend, improving draft position, making the playoffs, picking your playoff opponent). Tanking is tanking.

The definition of tanking isn't what's being debated here. We all seem to get what it is.At issue is whether or not it is an acceptable strategy.

Obviously if there's an anti-tanking rule then tanking, losing games to gain an advantage, isn't an acceptable strategy.I assumed the existence of the rule here and that people were arguing that their particular form of tanking wasn't actually tanking because :thesearenotthedroidsyou'relookingfor:It's still wrong without a rule IMO, but anyone playing in a league without an anti-tanking rule deserves what they get.

For the benefit of others, would you be willing to post your league's anti tanking rule and the associated penalties for breaking the rule?

 

[ghostguy123]

The idea is to do what is best for YOUR team's success, right?

...within the bounds of legality and ethicality. That's the whole point of the 10+ page thread, right? If it was as simple as "do what is best for YOUR team's success," we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Now, tanking to alter the playoff positioning or fate of other teams when you are already in (or for sure out) is a no-no

Why?

but this is a pretty cut and dry black and white example of something where your ONLY thought in tanking is the playoffs for YOUR team, and your team only.

How is this different than tanking to get yourself a better playoff matchup? In both cases your ONLY though is helping your team, regardless of how it impacts the other teams in the league.

Asking how that is different is a pretty stupid question.

It is as different as it gets. Tanking to alter your playof matchup is quite subjective.

Tanking when a loss gets you into the playoffs and a win knocks you out is just....................dare I say............smart, with zero room for debate on what is better for your team. Not only zerop room for debate, but a zero chance that missing the playoffs is better than making the playoffs.

Also, it is VERY petty and very a very poor argument to take the first sentence of most my post and comment on that, even though I explained what I meant rigth after that. Seriously, dumb.

 

[ghostguy123]

Another thing I found fascinating is that many in the anti-tanking crowd seemed willing to give a pass to the fringe guy that was going to miss the playoffs with a win (or at least are conflicted on it), but not to the top-seed guy thats already clinched but simply trying to manipulate his potential opponents.

If you think about it, these are really the same things. The only difference is the actual percentage points at stake.

The first guy's motivation for tanking is to move his championship odds from 0% to, say, 10%.

The second guy's motivation is to go from, say, 20% to 25%.

So the impetus to tank is the same, with the only difference being that one guy's alternative is zero and the other guy's isn't. Both are tring to better their odds.

If a win would knock my own team out of the playoffs, while losing gets me in.........................is it even "tanking" in that scenario? The idea is to do what is best for YOUR team's success, right?

Now, tanking to alter the playoff positioning or fate of other teams when you are already in (or for sure out) is a no-no, but this is a pretty cut and dry black and white example of something where your ONLY thought in tanking is the playoffs for YOUR team, and your team only.

If somehow this presented itself in the NFL (not even sure it can), you bet your ### that team will lose on purpose, and if they didn't they would be considered the biggest idiots ever.

Barring something specifically in the rules saying this exact scenario is not allowed and the penalty is FF the season and the next team in line gets the playoff spot, I would cleary tank that game if a win would knock me out of the playoffs and a loss gets me in.

Curious to get your reaction to the post I quoted. I contend that both scenarios involve improving one's playoff odds from X% to Y%, and the only relevant differentiating factor is the actual values of X and Y.

Both scenarios are completely different. In one, your chances of MAKING the playoffs are altered.

In the other, your perceived chances of winning the title are altered due to trying to change your playoff matchup by tanking.

I can't really explain it better beyond that. Either you will recognize those two scenarios as being completely different, or you won't.

 

[TheStig]

I don't want you to waste your time claiming "it's not possible" for one team to be 9-0 and everyone else to be 4-5, so here's a full schedule of results through the first nine weeks of a season:

Week Away Home Winner1 10 1 11 6 2 21 9 4 91 3 5 31 8 7 72 2 3 22 5 6 52 1 7 12 8 9 92 4 10 43 4 1 13 7 2 23 6 3 33 9 5 53 10 8 84 1 2 14 3 4 34 10 5 54 8 6 64 9 7 95 5 1 15 8 2 25 9 3 35 4 7 45 6 10 66 7 3 76 6 4 66 5 8 86 1 9 16 2 10 107 6 1 17 4 5 47 10 7 107 3 8 87 2 9 98 8 1 18 2 4 48 7 5 78 9 6 68 3 10 109 5 2 59 1 3 19 7 6 79 4 8 89 10 9 10If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

Simple, 14 Week season with no Wildcard no one has been eliminated because Team 1 has not yet clinched a playoff spot. There are still 5 games left.

Setting aside the fact that you blatantly dodged the question by specifying whatever schedule length was necessary to guarantee T1 still hasn't clinched...You told the guy that first outlined the scenario that he must not understand statistics if he thought there could be one 9-0 team, and the rest @ 4-5.

How's that working out?

Oh and while I have your attention: I'm still eager how hear you explain how the NFL seems to have an uneven number of clinched and eliminated teams. You did say this was a mathematical impossibility.

He created the scenario. Statistics is not about creating the scenario but uses data and probability to analyze what has happened and predict how likely, given a sample size and an amount of time that scenario could or would either ever happen or happen again.If I knew the numbers for the lottery before hand I would win it too. But, unfortunately I don't know the numbers. But just because a set of numbers happened once doesn't mean they will work again.

He can draw up a scenario for a winning poker hand too, but that does not make it probable.

But today he wins, he created a scenario that is technically possible, while ignoring the basic statistical probability that it is unlikely to ever happen. Mind you he didn't predict it, he created the scenario.

Statistics are not about "absolutes" beyond what is considered "statistically significant." When I'm speaking in terms of "statistical absolutes" it is intended to mean in the real of "statistically significant" as there is no such thing.

I never said it was a "Law". But you and Ignoratio win the internet tonight. Congratulations!

However, I feel pretty confident that if you put money on Ignoratio's scenario ever playing out, you let me know and I'll share my lottery winnings with you both.

 

[davearm]

The point that I am making is that many people that are pro-tanking justify it because it is self motivating and there are leagues with no rules against it. Just because something is self motivating, and there are no rules against it--doesn't mean that it is something that is accepted in the world of sportsmanship.

You are right. There are things that are so beyond the pale, that no rational, reasonable person would disagree on, that they need not be spelled out in the rules. hacking an account to change your opponent's lineup, threatening to poison your league mate's puppy if they don't trade you Manning for Gabbert, etc.

Tanking is not one of those things.

This very thread is proof -- many rational, reasonable folks have argued each side of it.

And in such a gray area, what is or isn't accepted is defined not by your, or my, or anyone's moral compass. It's defined by what is or isn't stated in the rules.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

He created the scenario.

No, you created the scenario. You said that whenever a team clinches a playoff spot, another team is eliminated. It was obvious to everyone else that you were wrong. Hopefully now it's also obvious to you, as well.

Nice job deleting the 3+ replies you posted before this one, by the way.

 

[davearm]

I don't want you to waste your time claiming "it's not possible" for one team to be 9-0 and everyone else to be 4-5, so here's a full schedule of results through the first nine weeks of a season:

Week Away Home Winner1 10 1 11 6 2 21 9 4 91 3 5 31 8 7 72 2 3 22 5 6 52 1 7 12 8 9 92 4 10 43 4 1 13 7 2 23 6 3 33 9 5 53 10 8 84 1 2 14 3 4 34 10 5 54 8 6 64 9 7 95 5 1 15 8 2 25 9 3 35 4 7 45 6 10 66 7 3 76 6 4 66 5 8 86 1 9 16 2 10 107 6 1 17 4 5 47 10 7 107 3 8 87 2 9 98 8 1 18 2 4 48 7 5 78 9 6 68 3 10 109 5 2 59 1 3 19 7 6 79 4 8 89 10 9 10If I've done my "crazy math" right, after week 9, Team 1 is 9-0 and everyone else is 4-5. Which one of teams 2-10 has been eliminated from the playoffs?

Simple, 14 Week season with no Wildcard no one has been eliminated because Team 1 has not yet clinched a playoff spot. There are still 5 games left.

Setting aside the fact that you blatantly dodged the question by specifying whatever schedule length was necessary to guarantee T1 still hasn't clinched...You told the guy that first outlined the scenario that he must not understand statistics if he thought there could be one 9-0 team, and the rest @ 4-5.

How's that working out?

Oh and while I have your attention: I'm still eager how hear you explain how the NFL seems to have an uneven number of clinched and eliminated teams. You did say this was a mathematical impossibility.

He created the scenario. Statistics is not about creating the scenario but more about how likely, or a given amount of time that scenario could or would happen.

If I knew the numbers for the lottery before hand I would win it too. But I don't know the numbers.

He can draw up a scenario for a winning poker hand too, but that does not make it probable.

He wins, he created a scenario that is technically possible, while ignoring the basic statistical probability that it is unlikely to ever happen.

I never said it was a "Law". But you and Ignoratio win the internet tonight. Congratulations. But I feel pretty confident that if you put money on that scenario ever playing out, you let me know and I'll share my lottery winnings with you both.

Oh dear God.You took the position that, statistically/mathematically, there must at all times be a 1:1 ratio of clinched and eliminated teams.

You have been given numerous explanations for why you are wrong about this, and also numerous opportunities to admit you are wrong.

This hypothetical is one such illustration. The chances of it happening are totally and completely irrelevant.

Of course we don't even need a hypothetical, since the current NFL playoff outlook is right there to see. 1 team in, 4 teams out.

This isn't a difference of opinion. As a strict matter of fact, you are wrong.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Both scenarios are completely different. In one, your chances of MAKING the playoffs are altered.

In the other, your perceived chances of winning the title are altered due to trying to change your playoff matchup by tanking.

I can't really explain it better beyond that.

That's a shame. I can explain it a different way: In one case, you're trying to increase your chances of winning a championship from 0% to something greater than 0%. In the other, you're trying to increase your chances of winning a championship from, say, 20% to something greater than 20%. Would you agree with that?

Either you will recognize those two scenarios as being completely different, or you won't.

Well they aren't completely different. They're different in some ways, but also very similar in some ways. What's with folks needing everything to be always this and never that and completely this and absolutely that...? It's usually a mistake to characterize things that way.

 

[davearm]

Another thing I found fascinating is that many in the anti-tanking crowd seemed willing to give a pass to the fringe guy that was going to miss the playoffs with a win (or at least are conflicted on it), but not to the top-seed guy thats already clinched but simply trying to manipulate his potential opponents.

If you think about it, these are really the same things. The only difference is the actual percentage points at stake.

The first guy's motivation for tanking is to move his championship odds from 0% to, say, 10%.

The second guy's motivation is to go from, say, 20% to 25%.

So the impetus to tank is the same, with the only difference being that one guy's alternative is zero and the other guy's isn't. Both are tring to better their odds.

If a win would knock my own team out of the playoffs, while losing gets me in.........................is it even "tanking" in that scenario? The idea is to do what is best for YOUR team's success, right?

Now, tanking to alter the playoff positioning or fate of other teams when you are already in (or for sure out) is a no-no, but this is a pretty cut and dry black and white example of something where your ONLY thought in tanking is the playoffs for YOUR team, and your team only.

If somehow this presented itself in the NFL (not even sure it can), you bet your ### that team will lose on purpose, and if they didn't they would be considered the biggest idiots ever.

Barring something specifically in the rules saying this exact scenario is not allowed and the penalty is FF the season and the next team in line gets the playoff spot, I would cleary tank that game if a win would knock me out of the playoffs and a loss gets me in.

Curious to get your reaction to the post I quoted. I contend that both scenarios involve improving one's playoff odds from X% to Y%, and the only relevant differentiating factor is the actual values of X and Y.

Both scenarios are completely different. In one, your chances of MAKING the playoffs are altered.

In the other, your perceived chances of winning the title are altered due to trying to change your playoff matchup by tanking.

I can't really explain it better beyond that. Either you will recognize those two scenarios as being completely different, or you won't.

Fair enough, thanks for the reply. Inasmuch as making the playoffs is a necessary requirement to winning the championship, I don't really see the relevance of your distinction. In both cases you're trying to improve your odds. The fact that the starting point for one of the scenarios is zero seems incidental to the analysis. JMHO of course.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Both scenarios are completely different. In one, your chances of MAKING the playoffs are altered. In the other, your perceived chances of winning the title are altered due to trying to change your playoff matchup by tanking. I can't really explain it better beyond that.

That's a shame. I can explain it a different way: In one case, you're trying to increase your chances of winning a championship from 0% to something greater than 0%. In the other, you're trying to increase your chances of winning a championship from, say, 20% to something greater than 20%. Would you agree with that?

Either you will recognize those two scenarios as being completely different, or you won't.

Well they aren't completely different. They're different in some ways, but also very similar in some ways. What's with folks needing everything to be always this and never that and completely this and absolutely that...? It's usually a mistake to characterize things that way.

Makes perfect sense. Not sure why this is so confusing to people.