|
Post by octstuff23/MagicGM on Jan 11, 2021 12:15:03 GMT -5
I have question to all of you guys here.
If you got 6 active players during last day of the matchup and you want to win TO, is it ok to sit and not playing half of your players ? How is that different to tanking ? Both are using same method to achive different goal, one is short term while second is long term. Should we always play all our available players ?
Would love to hear your opinion.
|
|
Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jan 11, 2021 12:31:06 GMT -5
I have question to all of you guys here. If you got 6 active players during last day of the matchup and you want to win TO, is it ok to sit and not playing half of your players ? How is that different to tanking ? Both are using same method to achive different goal, one is short term while second is long term. Should we always play all our available players ? Would love to hear your opinion. Well, when you tank you generally are trying to deliberately lose to improve your draft pick odds. If you sit players because you’re trying to win a category (TOs, FG%) then it’s a strategy to win a matchup and completely fine. The methods are not the same - winning a matchup vs deliberately losing a matchup. Tanking = trying to lose on purpose when you own your draft pick Sitting players strategically to win a category = trying to win a matchup I have a sneaking feeling you’re bringing this up because Miami opted to sit a couple guys. He didn’t sit those guys to lose to you. Why would he? He doesn’t own his 2021 pick. He had no incentive to tank a matchup. He was trying to preserve categories and his only shot was to flip TOs. This strategy also isn’t new. We’ve seen teams do it for years. If you’re playing to win and your only option is to hold the line or sit guys to flip a category, it’s been done time and time again. It’s a smart strategy. Anyone who has ever been in a close playoff or finals matchup like this has done the same thing. There’s no parallel to tanking in this example when you’re actively trying to win.
|
|
|
Post by octstuff23/MagicGM on Jan 11, 2021 12:46:33 GMT -5
Method is exactly the same. You are not playing your best players or best available players during the day or whole matchup. If that is part of the rules i was never aware of that, i never seen that in rules, but i seen this...
"INTEGRITY OF THE GAME CLAUSE Teams are required to keep their top 7 players in the active lineup if they do not plan on setting their lineup every day. If a team cannot decide on their top 7, I will make that executive decision."
|
|
Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jan 11, 2021 12:53:34 GMT -5
Method is exactly the same. You are not playing your best players or best available players during the day or whole matchup. If that is part of the rules i was never aware of that, i never seen that in rules, but i seen this... "INTEGRITY OF THE GAME CLAUSE Teams are required to keep their top 7 players in the active lineup if they do not plan on setting their lineup every day. If a team cannot decide on their top 7, I will make that executive decision." Integrity of the game was imposed to prevent tanking. Not to prevent teams from strategically setting lineups to give them the best chance of winning. It’s not the same. How can it be the same if one method is to win and one method is to deliberately lose? How can you make an argument that a team trying to win is the same as a team trying to lose? It’s like a six foot tall Wookiee living on Endor. It does not make sense.
|
|
|
Post by octstuff23/MagicGM on Jan 11, 2021 13:02:40 GMT -5
You wrote the rules not me. I can see there, that we are REQUIRED to do it, can't see anywhere that it is optional. Can you show me where this is optional ?
|
|
Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jan 11, 2021 13:18:08 GMT -5
I’m so confused with what is happening right now.
The integrity of the game clause is to discourage tanking. Plain and simple. You set your lineups to put you in the best position to win.
If you have NO other choice but to play for one category that could get you a W and that category is the one that is scored inversely to the rest (I.e. fewer turnovers is better than more turnovers), are you saying you are not allowed to play to win?
In the words of the great Michael Scott, you have play to win. But you also have to win to play.
I don’t know what else to tell you. This isn’t new.
|
|
|
Post by MemphisGM on Jan 11, 2021 13:19:18 GMT -5
You wrote the rules not me. I can see there, that we are REQUIRED to do it, can't see anywhere that it is optional. Can you show me where this is optional ? Only if you're not planning on setting your lineups every day, it says so literally. Since he adjusted his lineup on the last day, this does not go. This rule is to prevent tanking by acting like you "forgot" to set your lineup. Intentionally losing matchups by not fielding your players is bad. Not fielding certain players in order to win is fine. While the actions might look the same, I'd say it's easy to distinguish if said team doesn't own their own pick.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jan 11, 2021 13:24:22 GMT -5
I'd also add that Miami literally messaged me to let me know what he was doing and not to adjust his lineup for him. It was unnecessary because I was able to use common sense to deduce what was happening, but I did appreciate him doing that.
|
|
|
Post by octstuff23/MagicGM on Jan 11, 2021 13:30:46 GMT -5
Ok. Quick question. If after day one i will be winning FG%, FT% and TO and after that i will be playing only PF/C players to win REB and BL category, its all fine ?
|
|
Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jan 11, 2021 13:55:09 GMT -5
Ok. Quick question. If after day one i will be winning FG%, FT% and TO and after that i will be playing only PF/C players to win REB and BL category, its all fine ? Well don’t other players get rebounds and blocks? How would you expect to win categories if you don’t play the players who will help you in those categories in which a higher number is better than a lower one? Anyway, I see what you’re doing. I’m not sure why you’re trying to fabricate a rule out of thin air, but you’re giving it a go. Sitting players for the final day in a matchup to try to win a category that can only be won by not playing players isn’t the same thing as tanking. It’s just not and you know that. Listen, I think the sentiment is the same. You’ve had 3 people, including two moderators explain this rule to you. I don’t know how much clearer this can be.
|
|
|
Post by octstuff23/MagicGM on Jan 11, 2021 13:55:11 GMT -5
I’m so confused with what is happening right now. The integrity of the game clause is to discourage tanking. Plain and simple. You set your lineups to put you in the best position to win. If you have NO other choice but to play for one category that could get you a W and that category is the one that is scored inversely to the rest (I.e. fewer turnovers is better than more turnovers), are you saying you are not allowed to play to win? In the words of the great Michael Scott, you have play to win. But you also have to win to play. I don’t know what else to tell you. This isn’t new. If i want to win Points i play best scorers, if i want to win Rebounds i play best rebounders, if i want to win Turnovers i play none or half team . You quoting someone from real life, now you can tell me when anyone won basketball game by playing 3 vs 5. This is new for me. And the worst is that in this case, he played to win and he lost.
|
|
|
Post by fernans (MIAMI HEAT) on Jan 11, 2021 13:55:42 GMT -5
bro, be happy with the W lol. i'm pissed. fg% was close, you took the lead in rbs, i took the lead in TOs. rubio and schroder, to me, were only going to be negatives since i already won assists and where they could hurt me was fg% and TOs, so i sat them. going into the final game i needed to hold TOs and come back on rbs, i was down 4-5. it was between oubre and green. oubre's fg% has been horrid and i expected more TOs from him based on recent games so i opted for green. wrong choice. oubre got 2 less TOs and enough rbs to allow me to win. had i played everyone, i would have lost regardless. my only chance of winning was to hold TOs while taking the lead back in rebounds. might i add that i was up 5-4 until green had that last turnover in the 4th quarter.
|
|
Tampa Bay Bull Sharks
Moderator
2012 NBA Champions, 2015 NBA Champions, 2016 NBA Champions, 2024 GM League Cup Champions
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Tampa Bay Bull Sharks on Jan 11, 2021 13:58:17 GMT -5
I’m so confused with what is happening right now. The integrity of the game clause is to discourage tanking. Plain and simple. You set your lineups to put you in the best position to win. If you have NO other choice but to play for one category that could get you a W and that category is the one that is scored inversely to the rest (I.e. fewer turnovers is better than more turnovers), are you saying you are not allowed to play to win? In the words of the great Michael Scott, you have play to win. But you also have to win to play. I don’t know what else to tell you. This isn’t new. If i want to win Points i play best scorers, if i want to win Rebounds i play best rebounders, if i want to win Turnovers i play none or half team . You quoting someone from real life, now you can tell me when anyone won basketball game by playing 3 vs 5. This is new for me. And the worst is that in this case, he played to win and he lost. I’m not trying to be a dick, but this isn’t new for you. You’ve been here for years. And yeah, he lost, so why are we discussing this? He tried a strategy - the only strategy he had in his arsenal to win - and he still lost. Playing to win one category in one game in a close matchup where that category can only be won by limiting your lineup is a sound strategy.
|
|
|
Post by octstuff23/MagicGM on Jan 11, 2021 14:02:24 GMT -5
Ok. Quick question. If after day one i will be winning FG%, FT% and TO and after that i will be playing only PF/C players to win REB and BL category, its all fine ? Well don’t other players get rebounds and blocks? How would you expect to win categories if you don’t play the players who will help you in those categories in which a higher number is better than a lower one? Anyway, I see what you’re doing. I’m not sure why you’re trying to fabricate a rule out of thin air, but you’re giving it a go. Sitting players for the final day in a matchup to try to win a category that can only be won by not playing players isn’t the same thing as tanking. It’s just not and you know that. Listen, I think the sentiment is the same. You’ve had 3 people, including two moderators explain this rule to you. I don’t know how much clearer this can be. What i am doing here is using this loophole to tank, maybe. This could be me excuse. After day 1 i was winning FG%,FT% and TO, by not playing most of my players i am sure i will win TO, bigs most of the time have great FG% so this is another one for me, FT% there are some players PF/C with good % and then i fight like a lion for Rebounds and Blocks. If i loose all games by playing like that, surely you can't acuse me for tanking. Btw i dont own my pick and i will try to win my matchup no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Miege22 on Jan 11, 2021 14:06:37 GMT -5
Alright, I'm convinced. This is a bit. You cannot tell me otherwise.
|
|