Tanking?

[dynastyninja]

I am not saying tonyan over Smith is a close call or a call I would make at all, and I haven't had to as I sold all my tonyan shares over a year ago, but I am saying that I have a tough time seeing it as egregious enough to penalize someone by removing picks when at that point in the season 5 times tonyan had been the higher scoring player and 6 times Smith had

Think about it like this.

Tonyan is averaging 6.8 PPG in 13 games this season. He is the TE19 on the season. For all intents and purposes, unless you play in a TE Premium league, a player who is a low-end TE2 is not really fantasy relevant. It's a desperation dart throw in the dark.

For comparison, here are the WR equivalent who are averaging around 6.8 PPG and have played in 13 games this season:

- Ben Skowranek (WR85)
- Olamide Zaccheus (WR78)
- DeMarcus Robinson (WR79)
- K.J. Osborn (WR84)

*Based on PPG of players who have played at least 7 games this season.

If someone benched DeVonta Smith (WR26) for any of the above players, would you think that they are in any way serious about winning a game? Because I wouldn't.

Granted, maybe there's more information we're missing here, but benching a WR26 for a player that's close to WR90 seems like pretty obvious point shaving.

Especially given the context that the owner was starting Smith all year and then once he was in a pivotal game vs the other last place team, he played Tonyan instead

One clarification in that he wasn't going against the other last place team, just another low scoring team that he had a chance of beating. Other than that I think you guys have summed up our decision well.

[jman3134]

That wasn't at all the context. He was not in play vs the last place team. Context is that the start of Tonyan did not impact outcome as the loss was more than 25 pts to a non-last place team. The other last place team is the one, who, the week before purposefully started two zeros the week before against me and nothing was done, despite my protests. Nyheim Hines was played for six consecutive weeks in his lineup.

When I asked how starting a player with a 5% snap share in any context is not tanking, I was told we have liberties to set our lineups as we please. I was given the example that a two tight end set, which I started one week prior (instead of Slayton) was perfectly valid (as the commish would not have done that himself). This was why I just went 2 TEs without thinking there would be any consequences to that decision. The issue is people seem to think Devonta is my "stud" must start.

Within the league, a leaguemate brought up efficiency of starting lineups lol, suggesting he is an analytics maven and that anyone below 80% efficiency rating was tanking. I guess he didn't realize that that implied half the league was "tanking". Garbage stats like this add 0 value to the conversation. Top heavy teams will always have better lineup efficiency and it is very clear that my efficiency went down as soon as Breece went on IR.

Fwiw, I have Tonyan going in my DLF playoff this week so I genuinely do not value him as low as others. Is he better than Smith? Not most weeks, def not. But, one week, yeah sure there are weeks where Smith goes ghost.

[dustyroads]

That wasn't at all the context. He was not in play vs the last place team. Context is that the start of Tonyan did not impact outcome as the loss was more than 25 pts to a non-last place team. The other last place team is the one, who, the week before purposefully started two zeros the week before against me and nothing was done, despite my protests. Nyheim Hines was played for six consecutive weeks in his lineup.

When I asked how starting a player with a 5% snap share in any context is not tanking, I was told we have liberties to set our lineups as we please. I was given the example that a two tight end set, which I started one week prior (instead of Slayton) was perfectly valid (as the commish would not have done that himself). This was why I just went 2 TEs without thinking there would be any consequences to that decision. The issue is people seem to think Devonta is my "stud" must start.

Within the league, a leaguemate brought up efficiency of starting lineups lol, suggesting he is an analytics maven and that anyone below 80% efficiency rating was tanking. I guess he didn't realize that that implied half the league was "tanking". Garbage stats like this add 0 value to the conversation. Top heavy teams will always have better lineup efficiency and it is very clear that my efficiency went down as soon as Breece went on IR.

Fwiw, I have Tonyan going in my DLF playoff this week so I genuinely do not value him as low as others. Is he better than Smith? Not most weeks, def not. But, one week, yeah sure there are weeks where Smith goes ghost.

Forget all the other stuff, if true, the bolded is why I would just leave the league. Moving to a new setting to devalue tanking efforts is nice and all, but that's not addressing the underlying problem. The league sounds like a boys club. And you ain't in it. Just about every previous post screams it, and again, assuming you aren't embellishing that, I'd want out. They'll just continue finding ways to bend rules for themselves and against you. Walk away and be happier. Soon as I heard I'd potentially be getting docked a pick I would have walked.

[jman3134]

It is cut and dry to me because I know Hines snap share. But, the guy's roster is the worst I have ever seen playing fantasy football tbf. To me, that is tanking as well - fielding an anticompetitive team.

[bjd5211]

Clown league, just find a new one.

[jman3134]

My goal in bringing this up was not to put people on blast, but to help me understand what is acceptable protocol in my scenario. If I am in egregious violation, I want to understand. I've never been in position to get the number 1 pick (never lost more than 5 games prior to this), so I don't understand what happens in other leagues. In the league where I commish, ironically, someone was complaining that Jameson Williams didn't start for the last place team last week. I didn't draft my team in this league and I will turn the outcome around next year. I didn't like how everything went down (and the fact that I won't have 2.01), but I have moved on.

[dynastyninja]

I understand the argument that it didn't flip the outcome, but the intent was clear. There's not an argument for benching Smith (as Cameron pointed out).

There were also lesser infractions such as benching Dillon for a few different people that would've given him the win when paired with starting Smith, but they're harder to prove so weren't worth mentioning when the league reviewed.

He got the 1.01 instead of the 1.02. Cost him a 2nd, so it was worth it for him. It's done now.

[Jigga94]

Clown league, just find a new one.

Yup. The Tonyan over Smith induced penalty by itself is already a slippery slope. Knowing there was worse/similar things going on, it sounds like a joke

[SteveMaddensShoes]

Clown league.

But would you have started Tonyan over Smith if you needed the win?

[frerichs5]

Regardless of what PPG say, if Tonyan has outscored Smith in half the games played, there absolutely is an argument for starting him in my opinion. He has proven he can score more points. And it’s not like he only did it once. Not saying I could do it, but stats don’t lie and you’d have been better off starting Tonyan half the time. That’s all that matters.

[jman3134]

I understand the argument that it didn't flip the outcome, but the intent was clear. There's not an argument for benching Smith (as Cameron pointed out).

There were also lesser infractions such as benching Dillon for a few different people that would've given him the win when paired with starting Smith, but they're harder to prove so weren't worth mentioning when the league reviewed.

He got the 1.01 instead of the 1.02. Cost him a 2nd, so it was worth it for him. It's done now.

This wasn't presented originally as an argument (because Dillon had like one good week at the time), but McKinnon was the guy I subbed in to tank. Guess I knew something. To me, this is a very slippery slope, but I agree that it is done as far as the league is concerned.

What I want to understand moreso is to question the paradigm of "tanking" as it exists. If you trade away every possibly good player, this isn't a "rebuild", this is tanking. It means that teams have a near auto win barring injuries. It disrupts competitive balance. If you are picking up a bottom 3 def like the Raiders right after Martinez retires, it is clear you are tanking. Picking up the worst possible def and qb option (Rypien) off waivers isn't a "smart" move, it is anticompetitive. The spirit of tanking laws is to enforce that there is not an anticompetitive dynamic. Trading away all your good players to the best teams to get the top picks does this in a nutshell and causes far more damage to a league than a Tonyan over Smith start. That isn't me deflecting, because I could very well have been wrong starting Tonyan, but I think that this race to the bottom is far more damaging for league integrity.

It only flipped the outcome if you assume I would have started the optimal lineup possible, which is unrealistic. In my two TE set, Taysom Hill had 13pts. McKinnon had like 14 from memory. If you take them out, it does nothing to the outcome.

Edit: again I was not putting this level of scrutiny in to my lineup when I am in 8 leagues and I am out of contention in this one. I had Smith out in another league because he was coming off a bad week and Tennessee is a possession team controlling time of possession. Less possessions means less targets and that was my logic. I was wrong. TEN secondary was shitty.

[Pullo Vision]

What I want to understand moreso is to question the paradigm of "tanking" as it exists. If you trade away every possibly good player, this isn't a "rebuild", this is tanking. It means that teams have a near auto win barring injuries. It disrupts competitive balance. If you are picking up a bottom 3 def like the Raiders right after Martinez retires, it is clear you are tanking. Picking up the worst possible def and qb option (Rypien) off waivers isn't a "smart" move, it is anticompetitive. The spirit of tanking laws is to enforce that there is not an anticompetitive dynamic. Trading away all your good players to the best teams to get the top picks does this in a nutshell and causes far more damage to a league than a Tonyan over Smith start. That isn't me deflecting, because I could very well have been wrong starting Tonyan, but I think that this race to the bottom is far more damaging for league integrity.

Situations like the one that's the focus of this thread usually have relevant details that eventually come out. But, this question isn't about the situation but general tanking thoughts.

Trading away productive players for unproductive ones (selling guys like Hopkins and Adams, buying guys like Jameson, Marquise and Kupp) is a valid strategy, and can be a long term gain for the team if executed well. Or, you could do it poorly, like Hopkins for a 3rd. Great, you got rid of his points, but the return was awful and doesn't measurably help the rebuild.

Doing a rebuild trade is the opposite side of trading young and/or unproductive players for production. When you're contending and trying to buy points, you can do it well or badly. A 3rd for Jamaal Williams when he was dominating the backfield and gobbling up red zone TDs, vs giving Jameson Williams for him .

Buying production is a great redraft move but the antithesis of true dynasty league play. Rebuild trades, when done right, are right in line of the long term mindset of dynasty. Your focus seems to be what the rebuilder does ("If you trade away every possibly good player"), which is wrong. The focus shouldn't be what the rebuilder traded away, but what they got. Big difference between getting 25$ waiver bucks vs 2 2nds. As a rebuilder, I'd talk to a contender to pair a 2nd with Kupp for my Hopkins. I get extra value and shed points, opening a chance to flip Kupp next offseason or keep him to compete next year.

I won't comment on picking up LV's defense or Brett Rypien. There are leagues where that makes sense, and others that don't. They do seem like sub optimal uses of roster spots, but that depends on league settings and waiver options. If they can still trade, maybe the thought is they might be able to flip them.

You're waaay too focused on "anticompetitive" rosters/lineups. Teams getting wrecked by injuries (like an aspiring contender in one of my leagues) or going through bye week hell look like "auto wins" for opponents. Those are all week to week variables, just like a team having a combo of great matchups and touch opportunities one week. Rebuilding teams generally are rebuilding all year, so every team would get a chance to get that "auto win".

[jman3134]

You are missing my point. I understand that rebuilding is a valid dynasty strategy. But, not this thing where proven players are being sold well below market value to contenders. An example is when I didn't want to start Dak one week, I was given the option by a leaguemate to trade for like a 3rd or something crappy. My illustration was not to point out rebuilding as bad, it was to illustrate a line where rebuilding becomes tanking. When you refuse to pick up valid waiver wire options that would cause you to win and instead have third string receivers alongside kenneth walker and Pacheco, you are taking things to an extreme and upending the spirit of why tanking rules exist in the first place. If you are playing young guys who get in the game, go right ahead. Don't play a guy with a 5% snap share and tell me this is a viable strategy because, well, rebuilding. It is a slap in the face. You don't surround Walker, Pacheco and picks with WR3 and RB3s (on their teams) in your starting lineups. In a 12 team league, no one should be starting RB3s or WR3s who don't get in the game. That is tanking, not rebuilding. It isn't smart, it is a legalistic work around.

[PigeonBoys]

I am not saying tonyan over Smith is a close call or a call I would make at all, and I haven't had to as I sold all my tonyan shares over a year ago, but I am saying that I have a tough time seeing it as egregious enough to penalize someone by removing picks when at that point in the season 5 times tonyan had been the higher scoring player and 6 times Smith had

Think about it like this.

Tonyan is averaging 6.8 PPG in 13 games this season. He is the TE19 on the season. For all intents and purposes, unless you play in a TE Premium league, a player who is a low-end TE2 is not really fantasy relevant. It's a desperation dart throw in the dark.

For comparison, here are the WR equivalent who are averaging around 6.8 PPG and have played in 13 games this season:

- Ben Skowranek (WR85)
- Olamide Zaccheus (WR78)
- DeMarcus Robinson (WR79)
- K.J. Osborn (WR84)

*Based on PPG of players who have played at least 7 games this season.

If someone benched DeVonta Smith (WR26) for any of the above players, would you think that they are in any way serious about winning a game? Because I wouldn't.

Granted, maybe there's more information we're missing here, but benching a WR26 for a player that's close to WR90 seems like pretty obvious point shaving.

I've said it before we had St. Brown, the WR11 get benched for Gallup, WR#80 or something like that. I have no idea how you could justify you trying to win by sitting your obviously better player. But nothing happened in our league because it always came down to we can't tell someone how to operate their team if they are playing a hunch. There's your get outta jail free card right there, it's just really tough to get some people to admit it's egregious because they could see why someone might do it. In my league it was because ARSB was playing the Bills - matchup play. I never bought that but that's what got our owner out of hot water

[Pullo Vision]

You are missing my point. I understand that rebuilding is a valid dynasty strategy. But, not this thing where proven players are being sold well below market value to contenders. An example is when I didn't want to start Dak one week, I was given the option by a leaguemate to trade for like a 3rd or something crappy. My illustration was not to point out rebuilding as bad, it was to illustrate a line where rebuilding becomes tanking. When you refuse to pick up valid waiver wire options that would cause you to win and instead have third string receivers alongside kenneth walker and Pacheco, you are taking things to an extreme and upending the spirit of why tanking rules exist in the first place. If you are playing young guys who get in the game, go right ahead. Don't play a guy with a 5% snap share and tell me this is a viable strategy because, well, rebuilding. It is a slap in the face. You don't surround Walker, Pacheco and picks with WR3 and RB3s (on their teams) in your starting lineups. In a 12 team league, no one should be starting RB3s or WR3s who don't get in the game. That is tanking, not rebuilding. It isn't smart, it is a legalistic work around.

Ok. I saw the below comment (especially the underlined) and saw it as thinking rebuilding wasn't a strategy, and that "rebuild" moves are really "tank" moves. But the above underlined definitely fixes things.

What I want to understand moreso is to question the paradigm of "tanking" as it exists. If you trade away every possibly good player, this isn't a "rebuild", this is tanking. It means that teams have a near auto win barring injuries. It disrupts competitive balance.