What is tanking?

Since there hasn't been a lot of discussion on here recently, I thought I'd post about a chat I had with GK.

Tanking:

My definition: Managing your team with the intent of improving your draft pick.

GK's definition: Deliberately losing games on the court.

There are a couple of vital differences between the two definitions. In mine, cutting some aging vets who can still play would be tanking, but under GK's definition that would be fine. Benching them would not be.

Also, if there's a FA available who could help your team win a few extra games and you don't pick him up even though you've got the roster and cap space to do so, that would be tanking according to me, but not GK.

So, anyway, what's your definition of tanking?

My definition of tanking is closer to GK's. Because this is essentially a keeper league, decisions about roster management have to be made with an eye toward prolonged success. Keeping a more talented older guy around, to eat up the minutes of a younger developmental player, doesn't make sense unless you're going for a championship, or have a legitimate shot at contending. Similarly, signing a FA to take up cap space (particularly because we can't cut anyone with a year left on their deal) doesn't make sense in terms of team management.

However, if someone were to put a team on the court that consisted of starting their worst players, or benching their best, that would be indicative of tanking. Also, changing settings to assure poor performance would be tanking as well.

The most concrete example I can provide is the Boston Celtics when Danny Ainge took over as president of basketball operations. The team had gone to the eastern conference finals in the previous season, but was old, expensive, and not positioned to compete for the long term. Ainge made a number of trades, collected draft picks, released veterans, and finally reacquired Antoine Walker (this season) as a final piece in the rebuilding puzzle. That is sound management, not tanking. Therefore, I'm with GK on this one.

I would have to sign with Gretel on this one. I don't see why anyone would feel like a cheesey tanker if there were good FAs out there that they don't want on their team. No one has to sign any player that they don't want to sign.

I don't see any problem with releasing old farts that can still play. Again, no one has to have anyone on their team that they don't want on their team.

Benching good players might be considered tanking by some people. However, playing time does improve a player's chances of vitals improvements during the off-season. One season I did bench some good players to start some young whipper snappers. I didn't do it to lose games for a better draft slot, but to get my young guys some valuable playing time.

In the end, it all depends on the intent. If you intend to lose on purpose, then yeah, you're tanking. However, none of us are mind readers. You can accuse someone of tanking, but you cannot prove it.

Interesting. Thanks for your responses, guys. I appreciate the discussion.

The thing I'm wondering then is what's the difference between tanking and "long term strategy?"

Trying to lose to get a top draft pick is a good strategy, one that will make your team better in the long run. Is there anyone that would disagree that getting the #1 pick 5 years in a row is a good way to make a strong team? The reasons I don't like this strategy are:
It seems like we should be trying to win games, not lose them.
It creates a race condition for the bottom as everyone tries to get the best draft pick they can.

Your responses above (and GK's from chat) basically say that it's not okay to have a decent team and make them play like the worst team, but it's okay to go out and make the worst team if you're "developing."

Suppose you're planning for a title in the future and you've managed to get a nice group of 22 year-olds who you plan to have as your core team. In your opinions it would be a completely acceptable strategy to cut any good veterans on the squad and replace them with the bottom of the FA list? How is that any different than just benching those same veterans?

well, which is more important? Vitals or stats?

the only way to truely see what a young player will do in a role or position is to get them play time.

That's called developing.

IF you were to sign a 38 year old Center who is only a little better in Vitals, you won't get the opprotunity to see what that prospect is capable of doing. Winning 3-5 more games in the short term, and setting back your development by seasons? I'll pass.

I'll make Twank happy and use L1 Football as an example. I joined an alreday established league. I had a mediocre team. A lot of older guys that I knew I could not count on to win right now, and I expected to be pushing the window to be around and viable, by time I did get my team in order. So I traded them away for youth, we lost more games then we won my first season. I drafted an AA QB with my first pick in that resulting draft who probably wouldn't have been there IF I had won 2 more games. The next season we went about .500 the rookies got some play time, I got to see what they were capable of. I drafted a few more players in the next draft and went 15-1 beating Twiby in the Championship game.

so that's cellar to top in three seasons. And called devloping.

This season we aren't perfect, but I expect to continue to develop and make a strong run at the Title again. I consider a large portion of our success due to my youth getting time to play, and me being able to guage their performances from that.

IF I had run with the old guys, I wouldn't be where I am now, and would be slipping this season worse.

Now the flip side, IF I have a contender, but don't feel I can win it all this season, so I make sure to change my sets, and line-ups to garuntee a rather poor performance to get that last stud I want, that's not developing, that's tanking.

My personal viewpoint is that "tanking" is a legitamate strategy - if you are tanking so you can rebuild. Being that this is a subscription league - I think that we can run our teams anyway we want. If you are destroying your team to help your friends since you know you are not re-upping and the trades are complete farces - that is about the only scenario that I would object to. But if you get some joy out of trying to win with a 30 million cap then enjoy your "Donald Steling" success.
I personally never try to lose to gain a better spot - but then my two other teams have only missed the playoffs one year out of the 20 plus combined years played. If I felt my team was old and falling apart then I probably would be more apt to "tank" for the chance at a great pick.

It looks like there is no clear-cut concensus on just what tanking is, or even if it's "good" or "bad". Personally, I'm a never-say-die kind of guy. If my team is down by 10 runs in the last inning, I'm playing as hard as if it were a tie game with two outs in extra innings. It's a matter of pride for me. I cannot intentionally lose. I just can't do it. In L2, I planned on not spending a single penny to to train or buy players from other teams to get to that gargantua dome. But, we've started the season with a losing record, so I'm out offering cash for decent players. Why? I hate to lose.

It really just depends on intent, to me. I can accept losing if it's the by-product of giving young players playing time to improve their vitals in the off-season. Intentionally losing on purpose is something I can't do, but I've never complained about anyone doing it since pro teams, especially NFL, do it all the time.

I think some people don't like it because you're receiving something "good" (#1 draft pick) for doing something "bad" (tanking). The first place team in the league receives a 1st place trophy. Teams 2 thru 31 receive nothing. Team #32 receives the #1 draft pick. Maybe it's as simple as that as to why some people hate it.

I just can't lose on purpose, one, for pride's sake, two, for finances. The worse your winning percentage, the less you can charge for tickets, the less money you make, the less you can advertise, the less you money you make, the less you can train, the less you can offer in bonuses, the worse your team does, the worse your winning percentage................

I would have to say that I personally think tanking is very difficult to quantify. I have a team in league #24 where I have constantly gotten rid of the aging players on my team only to pick up some young guy. I have 10 guys averaging at or close to 20 minutes a game. I am doing this so they get playing time and then can improve more during the offseason. I have almost 8 million in cap space with all but 4 players signed to contracts with 6 years or more on them. My team has been around the 8th playoff spot for the past 2 seasons. Some might say since I dont sign any of the good aging players I am tanking.... personally I am getting my young guys playing time so I can train them more in the future. This is a very slippery slope to start on.

word.

Yeah, the Apex Theory are a threat to win the championship every season.

That was sarcasm.

they have played as many playoff games as you im willing to bet ...

either way they are young and will continue to develop however that isnt what i was saying i was saying you dont need a lot of money to win in this game

and that my friend is FACT!

finances in basketball really arnt all that ... i run a micro economy just fine ...

A team throwing 3-4 play-off race games has far more impact then a team that sucked all season long.

Kinda had a feeling this would lead to the lottery again.

[img]smile.gif[/img]

The 15 win thing wouldnt be fair You get a bad hand or a few injuries and its hard to win at times. I think we have a pretty good system in place With the telling someone if there player sits on th dl to long and i hope someone sure as heck tells me because i tend to forget stuff alot No telling how many players i lost that i wanted to keep because I left the on the dl in football and forgot about them.

The only way to tell if someone is really Tanking is if they bench there stars and keep them benched for awhile.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by King Z-ster:
I just can't lose on purpose, one, for pride's sake, two, for finances. The worse your winning percentage, the less you can charge for tickets, the less money you make, the less you can advertise, the less you money you make, the less you can train, the less you can offer in bonuses, the worse your team does, the worse your winning percentage................

---

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">From what I've found, tanking doesn't hurt finances that badly -- not compared to what you can get for it, and especially not like it would in real life!

I tanked for the first season in L36. It was somewhat of a setback to be sure, but I now have the largest stadium and I've had enough cash to buy players and pay bonuses. I'm also fame rank 4.

In L31, I know my team isn't going to win the championship this year. I could have tanked the whole season and not had it hurt my finances much at all. I started the season with a top 5 fame rank, the second largest stadium in the league, and plenty of contracts. Tanking would have cost me what, $20-$30 million? Very little for my team. I certainly can't buy a #1 draft pick for that much.

I agree that tanking is a good strategy. My gut feeling is that it shouldn't be, and since we can't get Scott to change the game, we either have to do something in this "gentlemen's league" or just accept that people are going to shoot for the bottom. Sadly, once one person does it, everyone else with weak teams has to do it too or else they'll lose their "proper" position in the draft.

I'm not saying that this is the only reason for having a lottery, but I do think that a lottery will help avoid a race to the bottom. Sure some teams my throw a game or two at the end of the season to improve their odds, but to me that's a lesser problem than people making the strategic decision to suck for a whole season (or several seasons.)

I suppose if I really had my choice we'd go to an even probability lottery and include all the teams from the worst to the league champs. Then there'd be no incentive to throw a game ever. Another alternative would be to require at least 15 wins per season. If your team can't meet that threshold then you're booted from the league, someone buys out the rest of your seasons, your players are released, and we hold some sort of expansion draft to create them a new team.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
A team throwing 3-4 play-off race games has far more impact then a team that sucked all season long.

Kinda had a feeling this would lead to the lottery again.

[img]smile.gif[/img]

---

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Hey, no fair! I mentioned the lottery in a post about several different things one could do about tanking.

To address your point though, anyone throwing games at anytime distorts the "true" outcome of the league. If 3 teams in my division decide to throw games when they're mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, how is that any different from one guy in your division tanking the whole season? And that doesn't even consider the perfectly rational benching of starters that a playoff team will do when they've got their seed locked up.

There are going to be games thrown in the league no matter what kind of rules we implement. I'd much rather see guys just drop the last couple of games rather than have someone gun for the top draft pick from day 1.