Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
Pullo Vision
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 7557
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Pullo Vision » Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:20 am

snaps06 wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:46 pmNot tanking: Trading away older assets to secure more future picks or youth and playing the best lineup you can construct based upon your current roster. This is an example of rebuilding and/or forcing a "productive struggle." This is legal and a legitimate dynasty strategy when a team recognizes they are not good enough to compete for a playoff spot or championship during a given year.
I agree with this, I just caution that it's not exclusively "older" players. You would sell players you believe have more value/production right now than in the future. Peterson for a 4th is the same as Coleman for a 2nd. Heck, I could see selling young guys producing now if you don't believe in them or their situation long term, like Montgomery or Guice.
League #1- 14 tm ppr, 1Q, 2R, 3W, 1T, 1 R/W/T, 1K
1 DT, 2 DE, 2 LB, 1 CB, 1 S, 1 flex

League #2- 12 team PPR, 1Q, 1R, 2W, 1T, 1 R/W/T, 1 W/R/T, 1 Def

League #3- 12 tm PPR, 1Q, 0R (yes, ZERO RB) 3W, 1T, 2 R/W/T flex, 1 Def

User avatar
Pac_Eddy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5044
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Pac_Eddy » Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:38 am

ckrumm24 wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:31 pm
snaps06 wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:51 pm Also, here's why potential points is not my cup of tea: last week I started Chris Godwin over James Washington. If we use potential points, I get a 12.1 point penalty for submitting a lineup that, prior to last week, looked like the correct decision? How is that fair?
I don’t follow this at all - I’m not even sure what your example is arguing for/against. Potential points takes into account your entire teams potential fantasy output over the season and therefore is a more than sufficient gauge of who’s roster top to bottom is better/worse and therefore a fair means of setting a draft order.

So, The argument for PP is that Ideally, poor roster selection or bad luck (play against high scoring teams every week) shouldn’t be the metric for awarding the top pick, it should be the lack of quality/choices across your entire roster.
I've heard this argument for being against potential points many times but I still don't follow the logic.

How is his team being penalized in that situation? I think he just wants to have good players but be ranked as though he didn't for draft purposes.
Not all that counts can be counted. Not all that can be counted counts.

honcho55
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:45 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby honcho55 » Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:53 am

Man, I do *not* like some of the fixes in this thread. Some of em are fine, anyways.

I think the key is to find people that are likeminded. There’s plenty of leagues out there. If you vehemently hate tanking of any sort, find 11 or so other guys that think the same. Shouldn’t be too tough.

If you wanna argue the definitions and logic of it, it’s clearly kinda a mess. I mean, from a purely cause/effect standpoint, how much different is it to sell an aging “win now” guy, or benching him? I’d strongly argue it’s much much much smarter to sell than bench, but in terms of ethics, morals? Is there really that strong a distinction?

And a quick injection to the PP talk, I hate it. I suck at lineups, so it tends to end up with me having a fringe playoff team and picking late, lol.
main league, half PPR, all TDs 6, -3 for INT
12 team. 2019 champ, 2020 runner up, ‘21 3rd
start 2SF, 2RB, 2WR, 1TE, 2WRT

QB: T Lawrence, K Cousins, R Wilson, Z Wilson
RB: K Walker, T Ettiene, JK Dobbins, D Gore, J Hasty, D Johnson, L Rountree
WR: JJ, AJB, A Cooper, Juju, C Kirk, J Dotson, N Westbrook-Ikhine, I McKenzie
TE. T Kelce, Pitts, Albert O, D Parham, J O’Shaunessy

1.03, 1.11, 2.02, 2.09
Extra 24 1st

Ice
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Ice » Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:10 am

Phaded wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:09 pm
Ice wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:31 pm
Phaded wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:16 pm

Without getting into it too much as we already discussed it..

I feel like it's a workaround to tanking without actually addressing the ethics of that owner or the cultural impact on the league. I feel like leagues would be better off disposing of those owners rather than coddling them.

I don't like potential points, but I dislike catering to those owners even more.
Tying potential points to tanking exclusively is pretty disingenuous IMO.
I never said it was exclusively tied to tanking, but if you notice - every single time tanking gets brought up throughout all the years here, someone brings up using potential points as the solution. It's not the solution to tanking and ignores the underlying issues.

I understand the argument for those that like it but I don't like it and I personally think it's silly. I feel that if you want to do potential points, you may as well go all the way and play best ball or eliminate H2H.
Wasn't meant as an attack on you personally but to point out multiple reasons leagues use the model but if the goal is simply to remove an owner then is it really okay to reward a new owner the top pick as an example because the cheater was removed?

I see zero relevance to best ball or the elimination of H2H.

Our league uses H2H as the 1st tiebreaker for playoff teams. We only use PP for non playoff teams. One other reason we use PP is we do not have trade deadlines in this salary /contract IDP league and teams will rebuild late in the year. PP, Like it or not, does level the playing field if they trade high scoring studs late in season. Those points are accounted for all weeks owned.

In reality, we may see a flip of 1 or 2 draft slots for the bottom feeders of the league out of the playoffs some years.

No issues if you don't like or use it as that is really an individual league management decision.
The Clock is Running and there are no Timeouts

User avatar
snaps06
Captain
Captain
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:08 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby snaps06 » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:54 pm

ckrumm24 wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:31 pm
snaps06 wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:51 pm Also, here's why potential points is not my cup of tea: last week I started Chris Godwin over James Washington. If we use potential points, I get a 12.1 point penalty for submitting a lineup that, prior to last week, looked like the correct decision? How is that fair?
I don’t follow this at all - I’m not even sure what your example is arguing for/against. Potential points takes into account your entire teams potential fantasy output over the season and therefore is a more than sufficient gauge of who’s roster top to bottom is better/worse and therefore a fair means of setting a draft order.

So, The argument for PP is that Ideally, poor roster selection or bad luck (play against high scoring teams every week) shouldn’t be the metric for awarding the top pick, it should be the lack of quality/choices across your entire roster.
I guess I also don't follow why potential points is such a good indicator of determining draft order. It's literally deciding draft order through best ball scoring.

Bad luck is easily remedied by adding in a wild card spot or two.

Just make owners set what they believe is truly their best lineup each week. If they aren't doing that, then it is easily identified, they don't belong in the league, and they should be removed. Simple. Tanking is so easily identified that there shouldn't be a need for potential points.

juke05
Practice Squad
Practice Squad
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 6:26 am

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby juke05 » Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:51 pm

I feel like our league has figured out a pretty good way of dealing with tanking:

If someone starts an inactive player or someone on a bye, that team is automatically given the points of the highest scoring player (same position) on their bench, but the points (and wins if the points difference would have resulted in a win that week) are only added to the overall points for/wins at the end of the year to determine rookie draft position. So for example if Julio Jones is started on a bye, and Zay Jones scores 20 points on the bench, 20 points is added at the end of the year and if that causes that team to jump from the 1.01 to the 1.02, they pick at 1.02. If the 20 points would have led to a win for that team, a win is added at the end of the year for draft position only. If it's a situation where they started Zay Jones over Julio Jones (both active, not on byes), the rest of the league members vote on whether or not the bench points should be added or not (consensus decision on whether tanking occurred). If this occurs multiple times throughout the year, the points exponentially increase (i.e. highest scoring player on bench x1 first time, highest scoring player on bench x2 second time, x3 third time etc.). 2nd violation also adds a win no matter what, and third violation moves all their picks to the end of each round of the rookie draft.

User avatar
thebeast
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5645
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:40 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby thebeast » Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:07 pm

juke05 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:51 pm I feel like our league has figured out a pretty good way of dealing with tanking:

If someone starts an inactive player or someone on a bye, that team is automatically given the points of the highest scoring player (same position) on their bench, but the points (and wins if the points difference would have resulted in a win that week) are only added to the overall points for/wins at the end of the year to determine rookie draft position. So for example if Julio Jones is started on a bye, and Zay Jones scores 20 points on the bench, 20 points is added at the end of the year and if that causes that team to jump from the 1.01 to the 1.02, they pick at 1.02. If the 20 points would have led to a win for that team, a win is added at the end of the year for draft position only. If it's a situation where they started Zay Jones over Julio Jones (both active, not on byes), the rest of the league members vote on whether or not the bench points should be added or not (consensus decision on whether tanking occurred). If this occurs multiple times throughout the year, the points exponentially increase (i.e. highest scoring player on bench x1 first time, highest scoring player on bench x2 second time, x3 third time etc.). 2nd violation also adds a win no matter what, and third violation moves all their picks to the end of each round of the rookie draft.
This sounds like a ton of work. Even if you just set a fixed amount of penalty points like +20 it’s a ton of work for a commish to go through every week to see if any penalties need to be added to teams. I know because I used to do it this way and then just switched to potential points. I really don’t understand any argument against using PP. guys in this thread are funny about kicking people out of leagues and the such, who wants to have to make those subjective decisions. We didn’t have tanking problems, but using PP is the fairest way of awarding draft picks vs random scheduling variance and bad lineup decisions.

User avatar
Orenthal Shames
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Orenthal Shames » Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:26 pm

thebeast wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:07 pm
juke05 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:51 pm I feel like our league has figured out a pretty good way of dealing with tanking:

If someone starts an inactive player or someone on a bye, that team is automatically given the points of the highest scoring player (same position) on their bench, but the points (and wins if the points difference would have resulted in a win that week) are only added to the overall points for/wins at the end of the year to determine rookie draft position. So for example if Julio Jones is started on a bye, and Zay Jones scores 20 points on the bench, 20 points is added at the end of the year and if that causes that team to jump from the 1.01 to the 1.02, they pick at 1.02. If the 20 points would have led to a win for that team, a win is added at the end of the year for draft position only. If it's a situation where they started Zay Jones over Julio Jones (both active, not on byes), the rest of the league members vote on whether or not the bench points should be added or not (consensus decision on whether tanking occurred). If this occurs multiple times throughout the year, the points exponentially increase (i.e. highest scoring player on bench x1 first time, highest scoring player on bench x2 second time, x3 third time etc.). 2nd violation also adds a win no matter what, and third violation moves all their picks to the end of each round of the rookie draft.
This sounds like a ton of work. Even if you just set a fixed amount of penalty points like +20 it’s a ton of work for a commish to go through every week to see if any penalties need to be added to teams. I know because I used to do it this way and then just switched to potential points. I really don’t understand any argument against using PP. guys in this thread are funny about kicking people out of leagues and the such, who wants to have to make those subjective decisions. We didn’t have tanking problems, but using PP is the fairest way of awarding draft picks vs random scheduling variance and bad lineup decisions.
Agree. Seem like unnecessary micro-managing.

An established league should damn near run on autopilot.
16 team league
1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 2 Flex (RB/WR/TE)
26 upman rosters - full point ppr
2015, 17, 18, 19, 20 Champs

QB: Watson, Flacco
RB: Bijan, Gibbs, McLaughlin
WR: Olave, Addison, Flowers, Rice, Downs, Mims, Douglas, Tillman
TE: Kittle, Chig, Woods
24 Picks: 1.08, 1.14, 2nd x2

User avatar
Hottoddies
Player of the Year
Player of the Year
Posts: 2309
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:29 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Hottoddies » Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:42 pm

honcho55 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:53 am Man, I do *not* like some of the fixes in this thread. Some of em are fine, anyways.

I think the key is to find people that are likeminded. There’s plenty of leagues out there. If you vehemently hate tanking of any sort, find 11 or so other guys that think the same. Shouldn’t be too tough.

If you wanna argue the definitions and logic of it, it’s clearly kinda a mess. I mean, from a purely cause/effect standpoint, how much different is it to sell an aging “win now” guy, or benching him? I’d strongly argue it’s much much much smarter to sell than bench, but in terms of ethics, morals? Is there really that strong a distinction?

And a quick injection to the PP talk, I hate it. I suck at lineups, so it tends to end up with me having a fringe playoff team and picking late, lol.
Potential points should never be used to set the playoffs. Being a fringe playoff team and picking late every year has everything to do with poor roster management and nothing to do with potential points. Potential points are meant to fix bad rosters not bad management skills. No amount of high draft picks will make you a better manager.
"Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average people from their experiences, stupid people already have all the answers." - Socrates

User avatar
lukkynumber13
GOAT
GOAT
Posts: 13531
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 2:41 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby lukkynumber13 » Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:38 pm

Cult of Dionysus wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:44 pm PPs all but eliminate tanking. I don't understand how you can argue otherwise...

If a team decides not to pickup a prospect for fear he may score PPs on the bench, that is not an instance of tanking. That's a roster management decision, and a short-sighted one at that.
Seriously :clap: :clap:
TEAM A - 12T (22 R/U, 20 R/U, 19 R/U, 18 Champ, 17 R/U)
HERBERT, Baker
BIJAN/KAMARA/MIXON, A Jones
HILL/AJB/DK/G WILSON/D Adams, Pittman, Z Flowers, Evans
KITTLE
/
TEAM B - 16T, SF, TEP (22 R/U)
HURTS/MINSHEW, Cousins, D Jones
JT/JACOBS, Mostert, Gus E
HILL/MCLAURIN/DEEBO
KELCE/KITTLE, LaPorta
/
TEAM C - 14T, SF (Joined in 22)
GENO
HENRY/A JONES, Gus E
HILL/DIGGS/K ALLEN
WALLER
/
TEAM D - 14T, 1QB (Joined in 22)
MAHOMES, Goff
BIJAN/BREECE/POLLARD
CHASE/DIGGS/G WILSON/AIYUK, DJM, Pittman
KITTLE, Goedert
/
TEAM E - 14T, SF, 2TE (Started in 22)
MAHOMES/T-LAW, Carr
BIJAN/CMC/SAQUON/POLLARD, Hall
HILL/AIYUK/EVANS/GODWIN, Hollywood, Thielen
MCBRIDE/ENGRAM, Goedert, Chig
/
TEAM F - 16T (Joined in 23)
R WILSON, Minshew
SAQUON/KAMARA/MIXON, Monty
DIGGS/GODWIN/AIYUK/EVANS, Thielen, A Cooper
KELCE, Schultz
/
TEAM G - 12T, SF & TEP (Joined in 23)
HERBERT/TUA, Kyler
BIJAN/MIXON, Spears, J Warren
JJ/G WILSON/WADDLE/OLAVE, Godwin, J Reed
LAPORTA

juke05
Practice Squad
Practice Squad
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 6:26 am

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby juke05 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:58 am

Orenthal Shames wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:26 pm
thebeast wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:07 pm
juke05 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:51 pm I feel like our league has figured out a pretty good way of dealing with tanking:

If someone starts an inactive player or someone on a bye, that team is automatically given the points of the highest scoring player (same position) on their bench, but the points (and wins if the points difference would have resulted in a win that week) are only added to the overall points for/wins at the end of the year to determine rookie draft position. So for example if Julio Jones is started on a bye, and Zay Jones scores 20 points on the bench, 20 points is added at the end of the year and if that causes that team to jump from the 1.01 to the 1.02, they pick at 1.02. If the 20 points would have led to a win for that team, a win is added at the end of the year for draft position only. If it's a situation where they started Zay Jones over Julio Jones (both active, not on byes), the rest of the league members vote on whether or not the bench points should be added or not (consensus decision on whether tanking occurred). If this occurs multiple times throughout the year, the points exponentially increase (i.e. highest scoring player on bench x1 first time, highest scoring player on bench x2 second time, x3 third time etc.). 2nd violation also adds a win no matter what, and third violation moves all their picks to the end of each round of the rookie draft.
This sounds like a ton of work. Even if you just set a fixed amount of penalty points like +20 it’s a ton of work for a commish to go through every week to see if any penalties need to be added to teams. I know because I used to do it this way and then just switched to potential points. I really don’t understand any argument against using PP. guys in this thread are funny about kicking people out of leagues and the such, who wants to have to make those subjective decisions. We didn’t have tanking problems, but using PP is the fairest way of awarding draft picks vs random scheduling variance and bad lineup decisions.
Agree. Seem like unnecessary micro-managing.

An established league should damn near run on autopilot.
Takes literally 30 seconds each week. And it is necessary with some of the idiots we have. We also use ESPN and I don't think they track PP do they?

User avatar
Pac_Eddy
Legend
Legend
Posts: 5044
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Pac_Eddy » Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:06 am

juke05 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:58 amWe also use ESPN and I don't think they track PP do they?
That is something that I hadn't thought about. Maybe most league hosting sites don't calculate this for you. That would be an impediment.
Not all that counts can be counted. Not all that can be counted counts.

User avatar
Orenthal Shames
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Orenthal Shames » Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:30 am

juke05 wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:58 am
Orenthal Shames wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:26 pm
thebeast wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:07 pm

This sounds like a ton of work. Even if you just set a fixed amount of penalty points like +20 it’s a ton of work for a commish to go through every week to see if any penalties need to be added to teams. I know because I used to do it this way and then just switched to potential points. I really don’t understand any argument against using PP. guys in this thread are funny about kicking people out of leagues and the such, who wants to have to make those subjective decisions. We didn’t have tanking problems, but using PP is the fairest way of awarding draft picks vs random scheduling variance and bad lineup decisions.
Agree. Seem like unnecessary micro-managing.

An established league should damn near run on autopilot.
Takes literally 30 seconds each week. And it is necessary with some of the idiots we have. We also use ESPN and I don't think they track PP do they?
Or just rid yourself of the idiots.
16 team league
1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 2 Flex (RB/WR/TE)
26 upman rosters - full point ppr
2015, 17, 18, 19, 20 Champs

QB: Watson, Flacco
RB: Bijan, Gibbs, McLaughlin
WR: Olave, Addison, Flowers, Rice, Downs, Mims, Douglas, Tillman
TE: Kittle, Chig, Woods
24 Picks: 1.08, 1.14, 2nd x2

User avatar
Cult of Dionysus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:02 am

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Cult of Dionysus » Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:06 am

Lol, like I said elsewhere, the appeal of higher drafts picks is terribly alluring and there are always a few poor souls who succumb to the temptation.

Also, there's subtle forms of tanking which are very hard to identify.

User avatar
Orenthal Shames
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Has anyone tried to objectively define tanking?

Postby Orenthal Shames » Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:16 am

Cult of Dionysus wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:06 am Lol, like I said elsewhere, the appeal of higher drafts picks is terribly alluring and there are always a few poor souls who succumb to the temptation.

Also, there's subtle forms of tanking which are very hard to identify.
I have a few of them in my league. Attaining the 1.01 is almost like their championship. Whatever floats your boat, as long as you're paid up.
16 team league
1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 2 Flex (RB/WR/TE)
26 upman rosters - full point ppr
2015, 17, 18, 19, 20 Champs

QB: Watson, Flacco
RB: Bijan, Gibbs, McLaughlin
WR: Olave, Addison, Flowers, Rice, Downs, Mims, Douglas, Tillman
TE: Kittle, Chig, Woods
24 Picks: 1.08, 1.14, 2nd x2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bronco Billy, esloan35, Google [Bot] and 33 guests