Keeping the play "Fair"

Hello again,

Another issue that may come up over the next few weeks needs to be addressed now. When Greg and I designed the structure of this league we put a lot of thought into how certain rules and/or features might affect the league. We tried to find a balance with the rules, and chose to adopt a cascading rule for keepers and draft picks.

This rule works great for most of the year because people are competing hard and making an effort to maximize their roster's fire power. The competition is "fair" in that everyone is trying to win using their best players.

At this time of year, however, some GMs who are out of contention may feel the urge to put some of their "weaker" players onto their starting rosters to maximize their 1st overall draft pick and/or number of keepers in September. This is something that is NOT good for the league as a whole, however, because it makes it that much harder for GMs who are trailing by a game or two (and who are still in contention) to catch the leaders.

We all know that any team can win on any given week if they get the right match-ups, and it's in Joel's or Scoop's or Greg's best interest right now for me and Mike to lose. However, it will be very difficult for Mike and I to lose if we're facing teams that are not maximizing their rosters with the best players.

So please consider this a plea for "fair play" throughout the season. Everyone deserves a chance to compete until the bitter end. The rules we've set up in this league will only work if everyone abides by this "gentleman's" principle.

Thanks,
Matt & Greg

I agree, as last place team. I hope to play spoiler to both you and Mike. I know that if the roles were reversed and I was in first (funny, i know). I'd be very pissed if I was Greg and I'd be throwing the week against Mike. What goes around comes around.

At any rate. I don't want any of you chumps stealing my thunder this late in the season! lol. I'm first overall next summer, grrrrr.

This exact issue caused a huge problem in one league and I ended up coming in and taking over a team from a guy who just couldn't stand tanking.

My own personal take on tanking is that it's not something I would want to do because it usually doesn't end up being all that great for a team. Sure there is a the odd year where a Crosby comes along but many times tanking for a great spot is still a crapshoot and you've given out your money for the year and still ended up in last place.

But to the degree that it effects the head to head matchups then I can understand at least putting a word to say ' Let's Keep our best roster iced at all times' It's a pretty good rule to live by and I don't know that there is much more we would want to do beyond that.

One of the potential solutions to discourage tanking is to have a draft lottery.

Another is to have the bottom 4 teams from the regular season play in a mini-playoffs at the end of the season and the WINNER of that actually gets the #1 pick. A very interesting rule that I've heard of a few times but never actually tried. I've been a little too chicken!

Thanks for your veteran perspective, Joel. Greg and I were talking about how we might implement a draft lottery if this became a problem, but as long as everyone agrees to avoid "tanking" their team at the end we can probably avoid this issue.

The mini playoff thing sounds like an interesting idea to be honest. I hate draft lotteries though. Cause that in itself is a crap shoot. But I'd be interested in trying out that mini playoff thing next year.


My only problem with "putting your best team out" is that its very subjective. I might put different players on the roster for one team, and that said owner might put out a completely different roster that very same week. And what constitues "best roster?" Most games played? Most stars activated for playing that week despite playing 1 or 2 games the whole week?

Again, I think we should find a way to discourage tanking, and Joel's idea sound like a solid one.

fitzsystars schrieb:

Thanks for your veteran perspective, Joel. Greg and I were talking about how we might implement a draft lottery if this became a problem, but as long as everyone agrees to avoid "tanking" their team at the end we can probably avoid this issue.

I really dislike lotteries, I'd rather have the mini-playoff thing.

You're right to say that assembling your roster for the week is something of a subjective matter. However, if a person is "tanking" it's generally pretty obvious. Putting young guys who haven't been performing into play when there are proven players who have been performing well sitting on their bench, with a perfectly decent schedule that week. Or playing guys who are on long-term injured reserve instead of healthy guys. That sort of thing.

Believe me, Greg and I do not want to become policemen on this issue. We shouldn't have to. Now that the issue is out in the open I think the league will police itself somewhat, and if a issue looks like it's arising then we can deal with it at that point.

I don't think a draft lottery will be necessary.

If things go along fine this year and we end up discussing a draft lottery for future years during the summer, it would probably be "cascading" draft (I love that word). For example, the bottom three teams would be in a mini lottery where the last place team would end up with no less than a 3rd overall pick (ie. as though they had finished 8th). Same with teams placed seventh through fifth, there could be a three team mini lottery. Same with teams placed fourth through second, there could be a three-team mini lottery. The first place team would get the last pick no matter what, as they won the title.

Anyway, those are some ideas to consider. And if everyone follows the gentleman's rule then we probably won't even need to consider it.

having the bottom 4 do a playoff wouldn't work in this league because 8 teams make the playoffs don't they?

i like the lottery for the bottom 4 with
10 getting 4 balls
9 --3
8--2
7--1

of course we wouldn't do this until 2010 summer draft. i think this is a serious topic to bring up at the summer meeting. or even make a decision now for 2010.

after reading matts msg i like the 3 way mini draft. my vote is that for 2010.

Lottery is probably simplest and helps to keep things on the up & up. It emulates the real NHL too.

http://forum.santabanta.com/showthread.htm?t=74492

Razor, some food for thought can be found at the link listed above. I usually go for the blondes too (see Anna!) but there are some other elements here that might Stokke your fire! Where are the great red heads? Certainly none in this grouping of 10 sports celebs believe in silicon!

SCOOP

4 was just the number of teams I have heard thrown out there in other leagues, I actually didn't even think of a number for this league.

If one day I cut down on the number of leagues I am in and decide to Commish my own league I may put in the mini-tournament idea since it sounds like a fun way to engage the bottom feeders during the 'post season' as well as give some drama to the draft seeding.

But it probably is an idea which wouldn't work here.

Regarding Joel's idea, I suppose in this league the bottom two teams could duke it out over the last six weeks to see who gets the first overall pick. Right now that would be Jay and Richard.

Either way, both teams are guaranteed a top two pick.

Thoughts?

That'd be interesting, however, am not in favor of changing anything right now, seeing ashow we can't make changes during the season LOL or at least that's what I've heard

In a leagues this size it would be tough to do the playoff deal I suppose. Would need at least another 2 teams.

three teams would actually be best, with the last place team getting a bye in the first round, seeing as how he's last, it guarentees him a top two pick, which would be fair. Seeing as how he is last.

Yeah, the way this league is set up it would probably be best to dual it out between the bottom two teams for the 1st overall pick.

The other valid option that some others seem in favour of would be to do a "cascading" lottery format whereby the bottom three teams (10th - 8th) have a mini lottery, so the 10th placed team is guaranteed no lower than a 3rd overall pick. The 4th to 6th placed teams do another mini lottery, and the 7th to 9th placed teams do another mini lottery. This way a team would move only two places at most (so it wouldn't kill them), but it might better dissuade tanking.

Anyway, those seem to be the most logical options at the moment.

Thoughts? Preferences?

No lottery.

Sounds to me like we have three votes for the cascading lottery (me, Scoop, Brandon) and one vote for the playoff between the two bottom teams (Jay). Joel didn't really state his preference.

Anybody else?

I'd prefer to have nothing - and that seems to be the case for most, if not all of us.

Given that it would just be a head's up battle for the top pick I think I'd rather just see a lottery in that case. It's much more fun if it is 4 teams at least.

Yeah if it came down to it, I'd rather have nothing than a lottery. I can't stand lotteries, because it actually might penalize a team that just might suck.

It wouldn't penalize them much. The last place team would either have the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd overall pick. They would have a great pick no matter what.

As Scoop also mentioned, this is the way they do it in the NHL.

Bottom line: hopefully we won't find ourselves in a position where we need to consider it. I just wanted to start a discussion to see what people were thinking.

I think they penalize players enough to not warrant it. And actually the way the NHL does it is slightly different, if the last place team doesn't get 1st overall, he's guarenteed 2nd overall. A team can jump as high as 4 spots, but never fall more than one. That's if my memory serves me correctly. But this is only because GMs actually tanked year after year (pittsburgh the most recent example). Not only that but the way they do a lottery is by having more balls for the last place team, and reduce the number of balls by one for each position. So there is a greater chance for the lower place teams to seed themselve in a better position.

There can be a big difference in between a #1 pick and a #3 pick. If there wasn't that much of a difference, we wouldn't need to worry about people tanking, because they'd still be getting a good pick. And the discussion would be moot. But they won't be. Compared to the other 7 GMs who had a shot at the money they might have the better pick. But now the person might potentially be losing out on all the money and forced to give up his pick based on luck of the draw.


Now I know we won't be implementing this for this season, but for further on done the road, it still doesn't sit well with me. Taking this year as an example, lets say we had a lottery. And I finish in last place, what if I traded my pick away because I was last, and had a very decent pick. I'd imagine that the person recieving the pick wouldn't be happy to find out he's dropped three spots and paid a good price for the draft pick. Yes all GMs should note that there was a lottery. But its not very easy trading a draft pick based on not knowing what kind of pick it will be until draft day, or a week or so prior.


I might be a pain on this subject, but I've never been in a league where it was needed, or wanted. We seem to be a good group here. And if anyone is caught tanking, then by all means I think we should find other ways to penalize them instead of giving two other people an advantage.

i vote lottery

damn you

LOTTERY!! LOTTERY!!! LOTTER!!! haha sorry jay

one think also is the number of keepers- a person may be in a situatin that if they lose on the last game of the week they will probabley fall down one spot in the standings and get to keeper 1 extra player next year. how can we change that to eliminate any temptation to do so?