KRFL - a football simulation league
Forums
KRFL :: Forums :: KRFL Forums :: 2019 League Business
We need to talk about tanking << Previous thread | Next thread >>
Go to page   <<      
Moderators: noodles, MarkB
Author Post
mark
Fri Oct 11 2019, 01:03p.m.
Registered Member #45
Joined: Wed May 05 2010, 11:29p.m.

Posts: 584
Some questions?
Does”tanking”enable trading?
Is this a “tanking” league?
Are rookie picks worth less than carded players that are traded for?
Do people who trade a lot win more?
Would this league be better if coaches were playing more meaningful games or less?
If trading were limited to off season trading, would it help?

Back to top
noodles
Sat Oct 12 2019, 03:07a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1138
I think I can partially answer most of Cleveland Mark's questions after poking around in
the league history.

Does ”tanking” enable trading?
Without a doubt. The current system encourages teams to make a quick decision during
the early weeks of the season as to whether they can win this year or not. If they
decide that they just don't have enough juice to make the playoffs, it only makes
sense to trade away talent (especially on expiring contracts) for future possibility.

Is this a “tanking” league?
See answer above.

Do people who trade a lot win more?
The answer is, for the most part, yes. See the chart I posted earlier and will helpfully append
to the bottom of this post.

Are rookie picks worth less than carded players that are traded for?
This is a really interesting question. To rephrase it, do teams that accumulate
rookie picks through trades eventually outperform teams that trade away their picks for proven
veterans? The answer to that is no. The year to year advantage almost always goes to the teams that trade
away their rookie picks. The reason for that I think is pretty simple. Rookies are a crapshoot and picking
them is a game of speculation. Veterans come with statistically established performance numbers.
Historically, the most successful strategy in the KRFL has been to trade away rookie picks to build
a competitive team in the short term then repeat the process in subsequent seasons. (I'd also argue
that our rules about rookie contracts make it difficult to develop and retain drafted players - one year KEEP or DROP,
the second year SIGN or DROP. It takes a third year for many rookies to reach their potential so maybe
delaying the signing to year three would make rookie picks more valuable.)

Would this league be better if coaches were playing more meaningful games or less?
That is the question this thread is trying to answer. Just what kind of league do we
want to have? For me, anything that promotes parity is a good thing. I'm in favor of
anything that gets us closer to that goal. I prefer a league where the majority of
teams still have a fighting chance to make the playoffs more than halfway into the season. I'm
opposed to a league where a significant percentage of teams each year are giving up early and just
going through the motions. It's simply bad gaming protocol and I can't see how it can be fun for
anybody when they feel that their best approach to playing this year is to lose as many games as possible
in anticipation of the next.

If trading were limited to off season trading, would it help?
This idea has its merits so let's not dismiss it out of hand. It does not limit the quantity or quality
of trades that can be made, it just ends trading after the season begins. After that, teams make the best with
what they have. I know in-season trading can be fun and Mark's idea will be unpopular but it's worthy of
consideration.


Trading and Winning
As requested: a rough survey of the number of trades over 5 years correlated with W-L records over the same period.

While trading has slowed down a bit, surprisingly the number of players and draft picks traded has been relatively consistent.
Avg number of trades per year - 22
Avg number of rookie picks traded - 22
Avg number of players traded - 53

Teams that had 5 winning seasons over the 5 year sample averaged 6 trades per year.
Teams that had 4 winning seasons averaged 4 trades per year.
Teams that had 3 winning seasons averaged 3 trades per year.
Teams that had 2 winning seasons averaged 2 trades per year.
Teams that had 1 winning seasons averaged .3 trades per year.
Teams that had 0 winning seasons averaged 1 trade per year.

Avg number of trades per year by a super bowl winner - 3
Back to top
noodles
Wed Oct 16 2019, 07:34p.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1138
An interesting read:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-stop-nba-tanking-tie-your-fate-to-another-teams-record/

Back to top
MarkB
Thu Oct 17 2019, 05:36p.m.
MarkB

Registered Member #81
Joined: Mon Oct 14 2013, 08:54a.m.

Posts: 1044
Thank you asking the questions Mark and giving us your perspectives Cliff & Steve. I am hoping other continue to offer their opinions.
Back to top
noodles
Sat Oct 19 2019, 02:29a.m.
Webmaster

Registered Member #1
Joined: Mon Feb 18 2008, 02:12a.m.

Posts: 1138
I think I should explain why I'm pressing this issue. With zero playoff wins and a .500 winning percentage over my twelve years in the league,
I have to consider whether or not I should continue to field a competitive team each year while remaining mired in mediocrity. Each season I compete hard
and end up with a draft position somewhere between 10 and 16 - okay but never in contention for the elite player or qb prospect. Maybe I'm a crappy coach
or the football gods hate me but I'm frankly getting tired of the same old. After looking through recent league history I believe I have found a formula
for winning but it's one I am philosophically opposed to as a gamer. That formula is simple - trade away your future rookie picks to tanking teams
to build a super team this year then repeat with next year's rookie picks. (There are a couple exceptions to this, but the data bears out that this is
the most successful strategy). I don't like that formula because it discourages the patient building of a franchise through the draft and
savvy trading and cap management and relies on teams playing to lose. Moreover, the evidence shows that the strategy of tanking is for suckers since
rookie draft picks are undervalued in comparison to overvalued FA pickups with known performance.

I have no idea whether my concerns are shared by two-thirds of the league membership or not. I wish others who have been quiet would weigh in and those
who have responded would elaborate on their feelings and ideas so we could begin to find some consensus. Maybe I'm just wrong about this matter and need
wiser voices to explain why so that I'll shut up.

While I have your attention, though, I've read through a dozen ideas addressing this issue in the NBA and have cobbled together my own flawed
proposal that might work for us while trying to keep it as simple as possible. Here is a tweaked version of Salem's reverse draft order idea but with
a weighted lottery and safeguards to protect the teams that are truly bad through no fault of their own.

DRAFT LOTTERY

We divide the 12 teams that didn't make the playoffs in to two tiers - the top six finishers and the bottom six.
The top six are each given two chits in the draft lottery while the bottom six are each allotted one. In the lottery,
each top six team has an 11% chance of winning the first pick while the bottom six teams each have a 5.5% chance.

Modifiers:
Any team with two consecutive losing seasons is given an extra chit. Any team with three or more
consecutive losing seasons is given two extra chits. Any new owner whose team finishes in the bottom six
is given an additional chit. (Note: a losing season is defined as seven or fewer wins).

Last year's lottery would look like this today under this revision (modified chances of winning
the first pick in parentheses):

Top 6 - each get 2 chits
ALA (8%)
KUT (8%)
NEW (8%)
TEN - gets 2 additional chits for three or more consecutive losing seasons (16%)
VAN (8%)
WAR (8%)

Bottom 6 - each get 1 chit
BAY - gets 1 additional chit for two consecutive losing seasons (8%)
BEN (4%)
DES - gets 2 additional chits for three or more consecutive losing seasons (12%)
TAM (4%)
BLK (4%)
WSS - gets 2 additional chits for three or more consecutive losing seasons (12%)
Back to top
Go to page   <<       

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System