|
Post by TrailDucker on Jan 25, 2012 2:31:28 GMT -5
Amsterdam, and everyone I am sorry for not being as active. Mighty has gotten his first official [paid] job at an Architecture firm since graduation. In this field when you are the new guy, you are given all of the busy work. From what he has been telling me he works a regular 10-12 hour days right now. This will even itself out sooner then later, but right now it's a lot for anyone to handel.
I am in AmeriCorps working construction with Habitat for Humanity in Orange County, CA (same thing Mighty did last year in Texas). Being in AmeriCorp you are paid very very little ($4 under minimum wage) you can make this work in some areas, but being in expensive ass California not so much, so I also work a second job to make up for it so I'm not doing sexual favors in back alleys or anything. I work on average 60-70 hour days. Alot of days I am out working 6am-10pm.
With that I am also in the process of looking for a new car, so my time is limited and I basically have just had time to set my line ups. Amsterdam I do appreciate your work on Free Agency and know I felt exactly the same way you do now last year as I was the only one doing those. I am planning a site clean up (Free Agency, Waivers, ect) this weekend, as I actually have a day off work completely.
Just know, it is not that we don't care.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 4:39:44 GMT -5
I understand your situation, but I would like to ask that you spend the little time you can miss to enable others who do have time to do some work here. There have been volunteers to set the east schedule and to set lineups for the inactive teams. Please approach them so they can help out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 4:42:36 GMT -5
There is a rule in place to discourage tanking. Its called the draft lottery. It works in the NBA (sorta). And it works here (sorta). I dont think that discourages it, it only limits the possible impact a bit. a rebuilding team would want the worst record in any case, there is just less guarantee but it doesnt keep teams from tanking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 11:18:55 GMT -5
There is a rule in place to discourage tanking. Its called the draft lottery. It works in the NBA (sorta). And it works here (sorta). 1. Obviously doesn't work since have proof that teams are still willing to tank. 2. Tankers just don't affect themselves. Take Denver for example. His schedule has 11 opponents in it. With 15 teams in the conference, that means 11 teams get free wins and 4 teams do not. That can affect the lottery, who gets into the playoffs and who doesn't, and who wins division titles. Is it fair if a guy losses a playoff spot or a division title to a team that got a free win? What if two guys tie and by tiebreak, a guy with a free win gets in the playoffs (or wins a division title) over a team that did not get a free win. Also, both admitted tankers are in the West. Lets say Team A in West ends up with 4 wins, 2 vs Tankers. Team B in East ends up with 3 wins, none vs Tankers. Team B gets better lottery chance though they beat 3 teams straight up and Team A only beat 2 teams straight up. How does that make sense? Tanking has a ripple on the whole league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 11:44:08 GMT -5
There is a rule in place to discourage tanking. Its called the draft lottery. It works in the NBA (sorta). And it works here (sorta). 1. Obviously doesn't work since have proof that teams are still willing to tank. 2. Tankers just don't affect themselves. Take Denver for example. His schedule has 11 opponents in it. With 15 teams in the conference, that means 11 teams get free wins and 4 teams do not. That can affect the lottery, who gets into the playoffs and who doesn't, and who wins division titles. Is it fair if a guy losses a playoff spot or a division title to a team that got a free win? What if two guys tie and by tiebreak, a guy with a free win gets in the playoffs (or wins a division title) over a team that did not get a free win. Also, both admitted tankers are in the West. Lets say Team A in West ends up with 4 wins, 2 vs Tankers. Team B in East ends up with 3 wins, none vs Tankers. Team B gets better lottery chance though they beat 3 teams straight up and Team A only beat 2 teams straight up. How does that make sense? Tanking has a ripple on the whole league. I understand what you're saying, but my ultimate goal is to improve my team and this is how I think I can put my team in the best spot possible for long-term success. We can all go back and forth on this all day. This is my choice and this is how I think I can sustain the future growth of my team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 12:58:51 GMT -5
Denver, then why do we vote on trades once it is agreed upon by 2 teams? They both think it's what is best for their own teams, but when it gets vetoed the mods/league think it hurts the league. We run a league together and we want it to be balanced and competitive. I think tanking should be forbidden for the same reason we veto unfair trades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2012 12:59:20 GMT -5
1. Obviously doesn't work since have proof that teams are still willing to tank. 2. Tankers just don't affect themselves. Take Denver for example. His schedule has 11 opponents in it. With 15 teams in the conference, that means 11 teams get free wins and 4 teams do not. That can affect the lottery, who gets into the playoffs and who doesn't, and who wins division titles. Is it fair if a guy losses a playoff spot or a division title to a team that got a free win? What if two guys tie and by tiebreak, a guy with a free win gets in the playoffs (or wins a division title) over a team that did not get a free win. Also, both admitted tankers are in the West. Lets say Team A in West ends up with 4 wins, 2 vs Tankers. Team B in East ends up with 3 wins, none vs Tankers. Team B gets better lottery chance though they beat 3 teams straight up and Team A only beat 2 teams straight up. How does that make sense? Tanking has a ripple on the whole league. I understand what you're saying, but my ultimate goal is to improve my team and this is how I think I can put my team in the best spot possible for long-term success. We can all go back and forth on this all day. This is my choice and this is how I think I can sustain the future growth of my team. I think I've pointed out some ways this hurts the league as a whole for people to tank. Can you provide a reason why tanking is good for the league and not just selfish reasons? What makes your team more important than everyone elses in the league that you are willing to hurt the league as a whole for a selfish maneuver? Why are you bigger than the league? Just read over the rules and I can't find a single one that says my roster on the ESPN site must be the same roster as my locker room on this website. Guess I see James, Howard, and some other guys available so I should pick them up. As long as I stay within the written rules it is ok despite what happens to the league right? Extreme example I know but just because something isn't written down, doesn't make it ok. Some things (like grabbing players who you don't own or tanking) are just common sense because they are known things that can hurt a league. The benefits are only to the person doing the action and can cause hurt for the whole league. I guess some people believe the good of the one out weigh the good of the many while some of us believe the good of the many outweigh the good of the one.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Mouse on Jan 26, 2012 0:23:20 GMT -5
I'm willing to discuss punishments for tanking, but I'm having a hard time seeing what can be done. I can't force someone to fill out a roster, can I? Or do people think I should? I definitely don't want teams throwing games, but I also don't want to be playing for other owners.
I think its imperative that each owner be allowed to run his or her team as they see fit. Its also one of the reasons I'm one of the more lax voters when it comes to trades. I do however understand the benefit of maintaining competitive balance. Its just a blurry line as to when maintaining balance crosses over into meddling and interfering.
Bulls, Nightmare, any solutions you want to pose?
|
|
|
Post by NAUHurdler on Jan 26, 2012 0:42:00 GMT -5
How about we just don't have benches? We just eliminate the bench positions, start all 10 players no bench. It kinda forces all stats for all players to count right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 0:51:20 GMT -5
How about we just don't have benches? We just eliminate the bench positions, start all 10 players no bench. It kinda forces all stats for all players to count right? Denver has 10 players but only playing one this week. Has nothing to do with the bench, he's simply not putting anyone but a single guy into the line-up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 1:09:15 GMT -5
I'm willing to discuss punishments for tanking, but I'm having a hard time seeing what can be done. I can't force someone to fill out a roster, can I? Or do people think I should? I definitely don't want teams throwing games, but I also don't want to be playing for other owners. I think its imperative that each owner be allowed to run his or her team as they see fit. Its also one of the reasons I'm one of the more lax voters when it comes to trades. I do however understand the benefit of maintaining competitive balance. Its just a blurry line as to when maintaining balance crosses over into meddling and interfering. Bulls, Nightmare, any solutions you want to pose? Super Strict: Kick them out Very strict: Take away the 1st round pick Strict but not killer: Take away the advantage they are tanking for. They get 0% at the first pick and are put at the back of the lottery in the #14 spot (or in this case, flip a coin and one gets #13 and one gets #14) If a tank job ends up with you getting the worst lottery pick, doesn't make sense to tank. Not saying it is perfect as people who want to be sneaky will try and find ways around it. But to answer your question, yes you can force people. This is my first fantasy basketball league but played in many fantasy football leagues that if you started a player on a bye, they'd give out a punishment. If you tried to tank for a top pick, you'd get kicked out or some form of punishment. Leagues would often enforce strict line up requirements to stop people from tanking. The best two outcomes in fantasy sports is to either win the title or get the top pick so you have a good start to next year. Obviously most owners are going to fall in between so it is certainly in the best interest of a league to make sure people play straight up so everyone has an equal shot. Sucks to have to police some people but in fantasy leagues some people will always think of themselves before the league so putting in rules to do the best one can to keep competitive balance are sadly needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 7:58:51 GMT -5
I'm willing to discuss punishments for tanking, but I'm having a hard time seeing what can be done. I can't force someone to fill out a roster, can I? Or do people think I should? I definitely don't want teams throwing games, but I also don't want to be playing for other owners. I think its imperative that each owner be allowed to run his or her team as they see fit. Its also one of the reasons I'm one of the more lax voters when it comes to trades. I do however understand the benefit of maintaining competitive balance. Its just a blurry line as to when maintaining balance crosses over into meddling and interfering. Bulls, Nightmare, any solutions you want to pose? Super Strict: Kick them out Very strict: Take away the 1st round pick Strict but not killer: Take away the advantage they are tanking for. They get 0% at the first pick and are put at the back of the lottery in the #14 spot (or in this case, flip a coin and one gets #13 and one gets #14) If a tank job ends up with you getting the worst lottery pick, doesn't make sense to tank. Not saying it is perfect as people who want to be sneaky will try and find ways around it. But to answer your question, yes you can force people. This is my first fantasy basketball league but played in many fantasy football leagues that if you started a player on a bye, they'd give out a punishment. If you tried to tank for a top pick, you'd get kicked out or some form of punishment. Leagues would often enforce strict line up requirements to stop people from tanking. The best two outcomes in fantasy sports is to either win the title or get the top pick so you have a good start to next year. Obviously most owners are going to fall in between so it is certainly in the best interest of a league to make sure people play straight up so everyone has an equal shot. Sucks to have to police some people but in fantasy leagues some people will always think of themselves before the league so putting in rules to do the best one can to keep competitive balance are sadly needed. Kick out proven owners with good track records because you're unhappy with the way we're playing? Ok... Take away my first round picks that I traded my whole team to acquire? Very good.. Ban me from having a chance at a lottery pick? This is great, because I purposely traded Joe Johnson to get that pick back so that I could make that a lottery pick. If rules are implemented next season for this, then by all means, it will be followed. The thing you guys are missing is that even if we were to play our team, we wouldn't win games anyway. Also, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to eliminate bench spots. What if I am beating a team in 5 out of 9 categories? Let's say I am crushing them in everything except FT%.. Say I have a decent lead, but a lead that I could blow if I played my only player (Dwight Howard) on the final day of the week... Without a bench, I couldn't take the steps to safeguard my team from losing a lead. The way I see it, my players are just resting for next season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 8:43:53 GMT -5
If you would lose games if you set your lineups anyway, then you should do so. The notion that Tanking is a bad thing for a league is widely accepted and I don't know why we would even need to point that out. If your team is bad enough it will lose games even if you set matchups, and if we just set the starters for the inactive teams you won't win games you shouldn't win. This is an easy solution that doesn't involve tanking.
Look, maybe in your cases it doesn't matter that much, but say a team has John Wall/Irving and some other rooks that aren't near their potential at all, but far enough away to compete. Such team would like a high pick since it won't have a chance for a championship, but wouldn't lose all games either. In that case, tanking would be good for the team, but not for the league. If the team wouldn't set lineups, it would lose everything and end up with a worse record/better pick than a really bad team that has very little talent but does set lineups. That wouldn't be fair to that team, seeing as it has a worse team it deserves a better pick right? That's why the worst teams get the best picks, to preserve balance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 10:54:57 GMT -5
Super Strict: Kick them out Very strict: Take away the 1st round pick Strict but not killer: Take away the advantage they are tanking for. They get 0% at the first pick and are put at the back of the lottery in the #14 spot (or in this case, flip a coin and one gets #13 and one gets #14) If a tank job ends up with you getting the worst lottery pick, doesn't make sense to tank. Not saying it is perfect as people who want to be sneaky will try and find ways around it. But to answer your question, yes you can force people. This is my first fantasy basketball league but played in many fantasy football leagues that if you started a player on a bye, they'd give out a punishment. If you tried to tank for a top pick, you'd get kicked out or some form of punishment. Leagues would often enforce strict line up requirements to stop people from tanking. The best two outcomes in fantasy sports is to either win the title or get the top pick so you have a good start to next year. Obviously most owners are going to fall in between so it is certainly in the best interest of a league to make sure people play straight up so everyone has an equal shot. Sucks to have to police some people but in fantasy leagues some people will always think of themselves before the league so putting in rules to do the best one can to keep competitive balance are sadly needed. Kick out proven owners with good track records because you're unhappy with the way we're playing? Ok... Take away my first round picks that I traded my whole team to acquire? Very good.. Ban me from having a chance at a lottery pick? This is great, because I purposely traded Joe Johnson to get that pick back so that I could make that a lottery pick. If rules are implemented next season for this, then by all means, it will be followed. The thing you guys are missing is that even if we were to play our team, we wouldn't win games anyway. Also, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to eliminate bench spots. What if I am beating a team in 5 out of 9 categories? Let's say I am crushing them in everything except FT%.. Say I have a decent lead, but a lead that I could blow if I played my only player (Dwight Howard) on the final day of the week... Without a bench, I couldn't take the steps to safeguard my team from losing a lead. The way I see it, my players are just resting for next season. Guess we have different definitions. I wouldn't call you a player with a proven good track record. From what I have seen, you aren't dedicated at all to competitive balance. Amsterdam Nightmare and I both asked questions yesterday about competitive balance and I see you ignored those posts. I'll take that as you can't think of a good reason the practice of tanking should be allowed for the league and that it only benefits you and that you are willing to stick a middle finger to the league as a whole as long as your team gains an advantage. Pretty piss poor attitude to have. I never said all your picks, just yours specifically since your trying to make that one better with out trying to play the game. If you wouldn't win, set a line up. I don't expect to come close most weeks, I still take the time to be on the up and up. I don't see what is hard about that. If that is a fact, then set your line-up and let the chips fall where they will. And the rest for next year is crap. Could be next year you look at your team and say, "I'm at best an 8th seed, I better go grab another top pick and I'll be ready for next season. Take a rest again guys!" ETA: Obviously at this point this is going no where. You can't give a reason why tanking should be allowed and Amsterdam Nightmare and I have given enough that it shouldn't. I'm done discussing this and will just let Mighty decide the fate on the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2012 12:10:18 GMT -5
Kick out proven owners with good track records because you're unhappy with the way we're playing? Ok... Take away my first round picks that I traded my whole team to acquire? Very good.. Ban me from having a chance at a lottery pick? This is great, because I purposely traded Joe Johnson to get that pick back so that I could make that a lottery pick. If rules are implemented next season for this, then by all means, it will be followed. The thing you guys are missing is that even if we were to play our team, we wouldn't win games anyway. Also, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to eliminate bench spots. What if I am beating a team in 5 out of 9 categories? Let's say I am crushing them in everything except FT%.. Say I have a decent lead, but a lead that I could blow if I played my only player (Dwight Howard) on the final day of the week... Without a bench, I couldn't take the steps to safeguard my team from losing a lead. The way I see it, my players are just resting for next season. Guess we have different definitions. I wouldn't call you a player with a proven good track record. From what I have seen, you aren't dedicated at all to competitive balance. Amsterdam Nightmare and I both asked questions yesterday about competitive balance and I see you ignored those posts. I'll take that as you can't think of a good reason the practice of tanking should be allowed for the league and that it only benefits you and that you are willing to stick a middle finger to the league as a whole as long as your team gains an advantage. Pretty piss poor attitude to have. I never said all your picks, just yours specifically since your trying to make that one better with out trying to play the game. If you wouldn't win, set a line up. I don't expect to come close most weeks, I still take the time to be on the up and up. I don't see what is hard about that. If that is a fact, then set your line-up and let the chips fall where they will. And the rest for next year is crap. Could be next year you look at your team and say, "I'm at best an 8th seed, I better go grab another top pick and I'll be ready for next season. Take a rest again guys!" ETA: Obviously at this point this is going no where. You can't give a reason why tanking should be allowed and Amsterdam Nightmare and I have given enough that it shouldn't. I'm done discussing this and will just let Mighty decide the fate on the issue. With this being your first fantasy basketball league, of course you wouldn't know what kind of owner I am. I've been at this a while, so please don't even get me going on that tangent. As for your concerns about competitive balance... Is balanced competition nice? Yes. But at the same time, my ultimate goal is to stack my team far better than any other team in this league. I want to have the best, most dominate team in this league. The reasons owners make trades it to improve their team. Whether it is for the current year or for the future, that is why we trade. Voting on trades is an entirely different mountain you are trying to climb. The reason deals get voted on is to ensure that a fair exchange is taking place. A fair exchange in which the league protects the owners. In the situation of tanking, you are arguing that we, as owners, are endangering the league. That is ridiculous. Trying to acquire better draft picks is the way that I want to load up my team for the future. It is no different than my team in Miege's league where I sold everything to get top tier players in an attempt to stack my team, thus shifting the balance for the league. And I want to address your point about penalzing me for my draft pick. I traded that pick away long ago. I reacquired that pick in a separate deal, therefore, arguing that I should be stripped of MY draft pick is mind boggling. You are obviously ignoring the reasons that I am stating for my team being operated the way it is. You are ignorant to the fact that I am opting to sit my players in an attempt to set my team up for the future. You argue the point about how a few teams get screwed by not getting an "easy win" against me. But let me ask you this: if there was not a lockout and I played all the teams in that conference an equal number of times, would you have a problem with this? You argue competitive balance, competitive balance, but there is never going to be a perfect balance in any league. Deal with it.
|
|