|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 3, 2021 23:18:06 GMT
If you let teams over the hard cap choose which players are stretched then there could actually be a benefit to being over the hard cap, as they would be the only teams able to utlize a stretch provision in D5
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 3, 2021 23:19:08 GMT
If implemented today, only two teams are close to this: Sacramento and Golden State. Most teams near the hard cap don't have atrocious contracts (Aldridge has turned into one) Most teams with those really bad contracts are tanking teams who took those contracts on with picks. I see no good argument here except "punishment" It's like we don't want to introduce balance and encourage competition as every time we try to take two steps forward we're taking one step back that inevitably leads teams back to the same strategies we're seeing today. Competing teams need to be "punished" and the only viable strategy is to be worse than any realistic NBA team would ever be for years while you hoard picks I don’t see a stretch provision as a punishment to teams who are good; this is more about ensuring GM accountability through compliance with a rule. If there is no repercussion for exceeding the hard cap, why have a cap at all? Losing picks does not seem to be one that was popular amongst D5 GMs, but if a GM knows they will exceed the hard cap by seasons end (which we’d all know by the roster page) and they do not make the effort to get compliant, that is on them. The trade deadline just had an example of this kind of sacrificial trade in Theis going to Chicago for Mo Wagner. Boston would’ve faced the repeater tax, pushing them even closer to hard cap non-compliance. Did they want to deal Theis? I’d bet they didn’t— probably would’ve wanted to move TT instead— but they did what was necessary to reset their luxury tax and become compliant. If there isn’t an appetite to implement a tax in D5, then there needs to be consequences for exceeding the HC. A stretch provision isn’t that bad when juxtaposed to the current penalty of draft pick loss— especially if this change means tradable BRs that would afford GMs the ability to maneuver into compliance without feeling like they’re going to get bent over on trade value. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 3, 2021 23:21:31 GMT
I think I said this in the Discord so I'll echo it here. Does anyone play Warzone? Or any other multiplayer game really, but Warzone in particular. I'll use that analogy because I'm familiar with it.
The DMR was a broken gun. By broken, it was overpowered. It got to the point where if you WEREN'T using the DMR, good luck because you're going to need it. Every game became a mess of "pop pop pop" from everybody's DMRs. In an ideal state, you should have personal preferences with multiple paths to victory. But in this broken state, there was only one - use the DMR. If you were really really good, you may be able to use a different gun, but it's rare.
Any objective of a competitive multiplayer game with choices is to have balance and multiple paths to success.
Currently, we have a broken strategy. Not necessarily because it's OP in of itself, but because its popularity is OP that drastically alters the competitive landscape. We need to nerf the DMR and buff other viable weapons.
We don't need to eliminate a strategy as a path to success, we just need to introduce other viable strategies.
We need to nerf pick hoarding and bottomed out tanking and buff competitive strategies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 3, 2021 23:25:00 GMT
If implemented today, only two teams are close to this: Sacramento and Golden State. Most teams near the hard cap don't have atrocious contracts (Aldridge has turned into one) Most teams with those really bad contracts are tanking teams who took those contracts on with picks. I see no good argument here except "punishment" It's like we don't want to introduce balance and encourage competition as every time we try to take two steps forward we're taking one step back that inevitably leads teams back to the same strategies we're seeing today. Competing teams need to be "punished" and the only viable strategy is to be worse than any realistic NBA team would ever be for years while you hoard picks I don’t see a stretch provision as a punishment to teams who are good; this is more about ensuring GM accountability through compliance with a rule. If there is no repercussion for exceeding the hard cap, why have a cap at all? Losing picks does not seem to be one that was popular amongst D5 GMs, but if a GM knows they will exceed the hard cap by seasons end (which we’d all know by the roster page) and they do not make the effort to get compliant, that is on them. The trade deadline just had an example of this kind of sacrificial trade in Theis going to Chicago for Mo Wagner. Boston would’ve faced the repeater tax, pushing them even closer to hard cap non-compliance. Did they want to deal Theis? I’d bet they didn’t— probably would’ve wanted to move TT instead— but they did what was necessary to reset their luxury tax and become compliant. If there isn’t an appetite to implement a tax in D5, then there needs to be consequences for exceeding the HC. A stretch provision isn’t that bad when juxtaposed to the current penalty of draft pick loss— especially if this change means tradable BRs that would afford GMs the ability to maneuver into compliance without feeling like they’re going to get bent over on trade value. I support a stretch. I just think the GM should choose that player. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 4, 2021 11:49:24 GMT
It's fine if the GM wants to choose the player to get released and "stretched". Although they should have a 2 day window in which to do that before the choice is made for them. When the choice is made for them an objective method would be their lowest rated player/s, but we can instead use a subjective method that tries to choose their least valuable player/s instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 5, 2021 11:41:19 GMT
Proposed Changes to Rules:
Hard Cap2024/25: (140% of Salary Cap)
2023/24: (145% of Salary Cap)
2022/23: (150% of Salary Cap)
2021/22: (150% of Salary Cap)
2020/21: $163,710,000 (150% of Salary Cap)
2019/20: $163,710,000 (150% of Salary Cap)
2018/19: $178,270,750 (175% of Salary Cap)
2017/18: $198,186,000 (200% of Salary Cap)
2016/17: $207,114,600 (220% of Salary Cap)
2015/16: $161,000,000 (230% of Salary Cap)
Bird Rights - Starting 2023Bird Rights are the key to building a powerful team. Bird Rights (1) allow teams to exceed the salary cap when re-signing players and (2) give the re-signing team an advantage against competitors by allowing the re-signing team to offer five year long contracts instead of four years. A team possesses the Bird Rights to a player (1) if that player's contract was originally 3 years or more in duration when it began or (2) if that player has been with the re-signing team for three years or more and not been traded. Basics
- GMs must claim a player's Bird Rights by posting in the 'Claim Bird Rights' thread that is posted in the Off Season Free Agency Section at the end of the regular season.
- The deadline date for claiming Bird Rights is the first day of OSFA.
Cap Holds
- If a GM claims a player's Bird Rights a Cap Hold is placed on the team's salaries.
- The amount of money will be equal to a player's previous year's salary, except for expiring rookie-contracts which will be 150% of a player's previous year's salary.
Further Details
- From the start of OSFA 2023 Bird Rights can be traded.
- Players with Bird Rights will tend to sign later during the OSFA period for the realistic reason that real-life players who have Bird Rights also tend to wait, to allow their teams the slight advantage of only having a cap-hold on their salaries whilst looking for other talent.
- If a GM has already claimed Bird Rights but then wishes to renounce them at a later time during the off season, a reply to the original claim thread will suffice to relinquish Bird Rights to a player and clear a cap hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 5, 2021 15:52:43 GMT
Ian Noble, would this sum up the Hard Cap rule amendments, or did I miss anything? - A team that exceeds the 140% Hard Cap when OSFA begins will be required to waive and stretch player(s) until within compliance of Hard Cap rules
- Stretched players remain on the salary cap of the team for three seasons
- GMs have two days from the start of OSFA, once being notified they are over the hard cap, to indicate which player(s) they would like stretched to reach compliance. Should they not indicate within that period their stretch candidates, player(s) will be selected based on subjective perceived value from least valuable onwards until the team is salary cap compliant
- Hard capped teams or those close to the hard cap are still bound by the same FA rules prior to this change, including being able to sign only veteran minimum contracts (or whatever MLE amount available)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Apr 5, 2021 15:57:27 GMT
Ian Noble, would this sum up the Hard Cap rule amendments, or did I miss anything? - A team that exceeds the 140% Hard Cap when OSFA begins will be required to waive and stretch player(s) until within compliance of Hard Cap rules
- Stretched players remain on the salary cap of the team for three seasons
- GMs have two days from the start of OSFA, once being notified they are over the hard cap, to indicate which player(s) they would like stretched to reach compliance. Should they not indicate within that period their stretch candidates, player(s) will be selected based on subjective perceived value from least valuable onwards until the team is salary cap compliant
- Hard capped teams or those close to the hard cap are still bound by the same FA rules prior to this change, including being able to sign only veteran minimum contracts (or whatever MLE amount available)
Good point I completely missed these bits off! |
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Apr 5, 2021 16:47:26 GMT
- Stretched players remain on the salary cap of the team for three seasons
Could be easier if the contract is stretched always to double amount of years? Example 2 x 15mil contract is stretched to 4 x 7.5mil |
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on Apr 5, 2021 17:00:41 GMT
- Stretched players remain on the salary cap of the team for three seasons
Could be easier if the contract is stretched always to double amount of years? Example 2 x 15mil contract is stretched to 4 x 7.5mil That might work, though when I suggested the stretch years I tried to model it off the NBA’s provision for an expiring contract that is stretched, which the formula is the remaining non-guaranteed salary divided by three to get the amount per year on the cap. Since we don’t differentiate between guaranteed and non guaranteed portions of contracts, your approach might be easier, though I’d think we’d want to cap the contract length that can be stretched. For example, if a team’s only viable option to stretch is a player with a four year deal, that’s eight years it remains on their cap. To me the max number of years a contract should be stretched is four |
|
|
|
Post by Arvydas Sabonis on Apr 5, 2021 17:09:17 GMT
Could be easier if the contract is stretched always to double amount of years? Example 2 x 15mil contract is stretched to 4 x 7.5mil That might work, though when I suggested the stretch years I tried to model it off the NBA’s provision for an expiring contract that is stretched, which the formula is the remaining non-guaranteed salary divided by three to get the amount per year on the cap. Since we don’t differentiate between guaranteed and non guaranteed portions of contracts, your approach might be easier, though I’d think we’d want to cap the contract length that can be stretched. For example, if a team’s only viable option to stretch is a player with a four year deal, that’s eight years it remains on their cap. To me the max number of years a contract should be stretched is four I agree having a maximum amount of years that the contract is stretched is probably good idea. For clearer administration in roster page also |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 5, 2021 18:53:28 GMT
As I said in the Discord, I don't see how my post has changed into a HC rule-change.
Allowing BRs to be traded won't implicate the HC, because cap holds are still a thing.
IMO the waive-and-stretch idea is too harsh. There should be tradeoffs and disincentives for exceeding the HC (only possible through mid-contract increases) but dismantling a team is too steep a penalty IMO.
Decreasing the HC is totally fine. Not sure why we have to change the associated restrictions/penalties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 5, 2021 18:56:38 GMT
As I said in the Discord, I don't see how my post has changed into a HC rule-change. Allowing BRs to be traded won't implicate the HC, because cap holds are still a thing. IMO the waive-and-stretch idea is too harsh. There should be tradeoffs and disincentives for exceeding the HC (only possible through mid-contract increases) but dismantling a team is too steep a penalty IMO. Decreasing the HC is totally fine. Not sure why we have to change the associated restrictions/penalties. If teams can exceed the hard cap then it's not really a hard cap and we should call it something else. The waive and stretch idea ensures the hard cap is never exceeded for any reason. Seems like common sense to me |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 5, 2021 19:21:17 GMT
As I said in the Discord, I don't see how my post has changed into a HC rule-change. Allowing BRs to be traded won't implicate the HC, because cap holds are still a thing. IMO the waive-and-stretch idea is too harsh. There should be tradeoffs and disincentives for exceeding the HC (only possible through mid-contract increases) but dismantling a team is too steep a penalty IMO. Decreasing the HC is totally fine. Not sure why we have to change the associated restrictions/penalties. If teams can exceed the hard cap then it's not really a hard cap and we should call it something else. The waive and stretch idea ensures the hard cap is never exceeded for any reason. Seems like common sense to me Fine, rename it then. I think we both want greater league parity, and I also think that most people involved in this discussion want that too. I just think there are other ways to achieve parity that don't involve removing players from teams. The Hard Cap isn't the only or even best vehicle to effect increased parity in the league. Sure, we want to increase competitiveness, and it's in response to the 'superteam' v. tanker dichotomy that has emerged/become exacerbated over the past few seasons. But we should be trying to make 'superteams' more difficult to achieve, not impossible. Forcing teams to waive players is against the entire idea of what makes a simulation league like D5... well, fun. I fully support introducing obstacles and/or disincentives to 'superteams,' but a rule that forces GMs to cut a player simply because their mid-contract salary increases have exceeded a certain number represents a stark departure from all previous D5 rules. There are so many other options that we can and should explore implementing - RFA, s hortening rookie contracts, lowering the MLE to match IRL levels, and in my opinion most importantly - a fundamental re-evaluation of our OSFA market. I'm sure there are others that I'm not touching upon, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Apr 5, 2021 19:28:56 GMT
That all seems needlessly complicated. A real hard cap ensures parity.
If we don't want half the league tanking that's the most effective way
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 5, 2021 19:31:29 GMT
A real hard cap ensures parity. I don't agree with this statement. And even if it were true, it doesn't mean it's the best method. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on Apr 5, 2021 19:43:42 GMT
I agree with James Kay.
I fear our OSFA market getting even worse. There is virtually no market for mid level guys at the moment because tanking teams don't want them and competing teams can't afford them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Apr 14, 2021 15:25:03 GMT
Can we revisit this? I didn't realize we were actually seriously considering implementing the stretch rule thing.
Or am I the only one that finds that to be a ridiculous rule? It just feels so arbitrary and clunky and unrealistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 14, 2021 15:51:34 GMT
Just wanted to bring something up that I mentioned in Discord, and I think is an important point:
If we succeed in creating a league with serious parity, what we're really doing is increasing the influence that the sim engine from 15 years ago has on our results. The greater similarity between teams talent/rating, the greater the impact of the behind-the-curtain calculations done by NBA LIVE 06.
Talent parity is fine and desired IRL because innumerable intangible factors like chemistry, playstyle fit, coaching, reputation, leadership, etc, all influence a team's success. We have none of those things here. We like to pretend that we understand how the sim works but in reality we have no idea.
Right now, GMs can distinguish themselves by assembling a team of highly rated players and hoping for the best, more or less. In a league where there are 10+ contenders, those contenders are completely at the mercy of a sim engine designed in 2006. Essentially, all contending teams will basically be entered into a raffle governed by an system outdated in not only its computing technology but in basketball-thinking, which has progressed significantly over the past decade.
With this in mind, I believe we should be designing systems of parity that lead to greater turnover in contenders/tankers - not putting a ceiling on those teams. And this waive-and-stretch rule puts a ceiling. Make it easier for tankers to turn their teams around, don't make it impossible for contenders to reach that level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 14, 2021 17:27:01 GMT
Just wanted to bring something up that I mentioned in Discord, and I think is an important point: If we succeed in creating a league with serious parity, what we're really doing is increasing the influence that the sim engine from 15 years ago has on our results. The greater similarity between teams talent/rating, the greater the impact of the behind-the-curtain calculations done by NBA LIVE 06. Talent parity is fine and desired IRL because innumerable intangible factors like chemistry, playstyle fit, coaching, reputation, leadership, etc, all influence a team's success. We have none of those things here. We like to pretend that we understand how the sim works but in reality we have no idea. Right now, GMs can distinguish themselves by assembling a team of highly rated players and hoping for the best, more or less. In a league where there are 10+ contenders, those contenders are completely at the mercy of a sim engine designed in 2006. Essentially, all contending teams will basically be entered into a raffle governed by an system outdated in not only its computing technology but in basketball-thinking, which has progressed significantly over the past decade. With this in mind, I believe we should be designing systems of parity that lead to greater turnover in contenders/tankers - not putting a ceiling on those teams. And this waive-and-stretch rule puts a ceiling. Make it easier for tankers to turn their teams around, don't make it impossible for contenders to reach that level. I'm not sure I agree with this. Not that the sim engine is very good, but I don't think it's so bad to want to avoid it's influence. In a league with 10+ contenders, so long as any one of those teams win, how can we distinguish between good sim results and bad sim results? Real life is often unpredictable, so the sim should be a bit unpredictable too. There might be an argument that the sim is unpredictable in a bad way, but again, how could we even tell? The Raptors just recently lost to OKC, one of the worst teams in the NBA, then in their next game beat the Warriors by 53. If we saw those sim results, would we say that's a bad job and evidence for how shitty NBA Live is? I think we can really only judge the sim as bad over a long timeline, and only two instances come to mind for me. One being that year the Cavs roster sucked but they somehow still won 50+ games, and the other is the consistent struggles of the Chicago Bulls despite having a very good roster on paper. Overall though, even agreeing that the sim engine isn't very well designed, the results have still been realistic and plausible over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 14, 2021 17:50:48 GMT
In a league with 10+ contenders, so long as any one of those teams win, how can we distinguish between good sim results and bad sim results? Yes, this is my point, which I don't think you're understanding. I'm not just saying that the sim engine is bad. I'm saying that we have no idea how it works, and have no influence over it. We really don't know how chemistry, primacy, lineups, bench players, etc impact the sim. Due to this non-understanding, we have essentially only one thing we can control - player rating. The most effective way for a GM to influence their team's success is by acquiring more highly rated players. In real life - GMs have film and data to study and use to influence their team's construction and development. They can identify certain play-styles or combinations of players that work well together. They can hire better trainers, implement development regimens, foster team chemistry, fire a bad coach, demand different strategies. We have box score results that are calculated completely independently from the game score. While we can change primacy and lineups, we have very little to no understanding of how these impact success outside of the OVR player rating. If player rating is spread out to more teams resulting in 10+ teams regarded as contenders, GMs have little more to do than just pray the sim looks favorably upon the particular ratings of the team they've assembled. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 14, 2021 19:03:00 GMT
In a league with 10+ contenders, so long as any one of those teams win, how can we distinguish between good sim results and bad sim results? Yes, this is my point, which I don't think you're understanding. I'm not just saying that the sim engine is bad. I'm saying that we have no idea how it works, and have no influence over it. We really don't know how chemistry, primacy, lineups, bench players, etc impact the sim. Due to this non-understanding, we have essentially only one thing we can control - player rating. The most effective way for a GM to influence their team's success is by acquiring more highly rated players. In real life - GMs have film and data to study and use to influence their team's construction and development. They can identify certain play-styles or combinations of players that work well together. They can hire better trainers, implement development regimens, foster team chemistry, fire a bad coach, demand different strategies. We have box score results that are calculated completely independently from the game score. While we can change primacy and lineups, we have very little to no understanding of how these impact success outside of the OVR player rating. If player rating is spread out to more teams resulting in 10+ teams regarded as contenders, GMs have little more to do than just pray the sim looks favorably upon the particular ratings of the team they've assembled. I understand what you're saying, my point is that I don't really see how it's a problem. If the results are plausible, then they're believable, and if they're believable then they're acceptable. None of those other factors you describe are part of D5 now, so it's not like our decision making or other behaviour would change. Whether it's 5 teams praying the sim looks favourably upon them or 10 teams, it's the same process. The whole argument is that it's better to have more teams hoping things go their way, and believing that it's a possible outcome. Also, despite the fact that actual GMs have a lot more they can control with real life factors in play, they don't fully understand different strategies, play styles, chemistry or how anything else will actually impact winning. They're doing the same thing we are, which is acquiring as much talent as possible, and ultimately are still just on the sidelines hoping results go their way as well. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 14, 2021 19:11:43 GMT
]I understand what you're saying, my point is that I don't really see how it's a problem. If the results are plausible, then they're believable, and if they're believable then they're acceptable. None of those other factors you describe are part of D5 now, so it's not like our decision making or other behaviour would change. Whether it's 5 teams praying the sim looks favourably upon them or 10 teams, it's the same process. The whole argument is that it's better to have more teams hoping things go their way, and believing that it's a possible outcome. Also, despite the fact that actual GMs have a lot more they can control with real life factors in play, they don't fully understand different strategies, play styles, chemistry or how anything else will actually impact winning. They're doing the same thing we are, which is acquiring as much talent as possible, and ultimately are still just on the sidelines hoping results go their way as well. I strongly disagree with basically every thing you said, lol. 1) How do you not see the difference between 5 teams and 10+ teams hoping that the sim looks favorably on them? Those 5 teams have been able to distinguish themselves from the other 25. Take it to the extreme and you can clearly see the problem. Imagine all 30 teams with a relatively even distribution of talent. What is the point of even participating in the league at that point? The ability to assemble teams with a significant concentration of talent is the only thing D5 GMs can do to actually impact their team's success. Diminishing their ability to do that necessarily diminishes their ability to impact their team's success, which is the whole point of a sim league. 2) I don't agree that actual IRL GMs don't understand those things - but even if they don't, they at least have the resources to study the game and the tools to implement different strategies. We have neither of those. We have no idea WHAT SPORT we are even playing because we don't know the rules because we do not understand the sim. All we know is that high rating number goes in, good score comes out. That's the extent of out understanding, lol. 3) To your earlier point, yes, none of those factors are a part of D5 now, but increasing parity takes away GM impact on the ONE factor that we DO have now - player ratings. Edit: It has very little to do with plausibility/believability, which you keep bringing up. It has to do with the level of influence a GM can have on their team's success. We could have completely realistic results but if GMs aren't able to make meaningful choices then what does it matter? |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 14, 2021 20:09:27 GMT
I strongly disagree with basically every thing you said, lol. 1) How do you not see the difference between 5 teams and 10+ teams hoping that the sim looks favorably on them? Those 5 teams have been able to distinguish themselves from the other 25. Take it to the extreme and you can clearly see the problem. Imagine all 30 teams with a relatively even distribution of talent. What is the point of even participating in the league at that point? The ability to assemble teams with a significant concentration of talent is the only thing D5 GMs can do to actually impact their team's success. Diminishing their ability to do that necessarily diminishes their ability to impact their team's success, which is the whole point of a sim league. I still fail to see how this is a problem, whether it's 5 teams of 30 distinguishing themselves, or 10 of 30, it's the same strategy either way, and having a greater number of teams believing they have a chance is better for the league as a whole. What's the point of playing if putting together a winning team is an insurmountable task? There is no risk of all 30 teams have a relatively even distribution of talent. That whole part is a straw man. Basketball is inherently unequal. There is no team sport that has a larger influence from individual players. The only thing that comes close is an NFL quarterback. If you're going to win in the NBA or D5 you're still going to need one of the few superstars that really impacts things. 2) I don't agree that actual IRL GMs don't understand those things - but even if they don't, they at least have the resources to study the game and the tools to implement different strategies. We have neither of those. We have no idea WHAT SPORT we are even playing because we don't know the rules because we do not understand the sim. All we know is that high rating number goes in, good score comes out. That's the extent of out understanding, lol. There is a difference between "don't understand" and "don't fully understand" but whatever, there's no value in that debate. My point is that any honest GM would say that luck is a huge factor. They have their data, and their analysis, but they're all just hoping for the best in the end. We're ultimately doing the same thing. For us it's 'higher rating number goes in, good score comes out' and for them it's 'better talent goes in, good score comes out'. A good team and bad team could be identical in every other way and it wouldn't matter. 3) To your earlier point, yes, none of those factors are a part of D5 now, but increasing parity takes away GM impact on the ONE factor that we DO have now - player ratings. Edit: It has very little to do with plausibility/believability, which you keep bringing up. It has to do with the level of influence a GM can have on their team's success. We could have completely realistic results but if GMs aren't able to make meaningful choices then what does it matter? Where does this argument end though? Why not get rid of any limitations from the hard cap or anything else? Why not make D5 a complete free for all and let one team differentiate themselves? There will always be meaningful choices because talent is a limited resource. Acquiring talent is always the key challenge. But even in that, it's not like there's a linear relationship between or choices and our results. The draft is a crap shoot, player development is a crapshoot, free agency is a crap shoot. Luck is universal in everything we do. All we're doing is influencing our outcomes, and this is true in D5 and the NBA. So I don't see how increasing parity negatively impacts anything. It just gives more teams a chance, which will make more teams try and win. |
|
|
|
Post by James Kay on Apr 14, 2021 21:37:24 GMT
I still fail to see how this is a problem, whether it's 5 teams of 30 distinguishing themselves, or 10 of 30, it's the same strategy either way, and having a greater number of teams believing they have a chance is better for the league as a whole. What's the point of playing if putting together a winning team is an insurmountable task? There is no risk of all 30 teams have a relatively even distribution of talent. That whole part is a straw man. Basketball is inherently unequal. There is no team sport that has a larger influence from individual players. The only thing that comes close is an NFL quarterback. If you're going to win in the NBA or D5 you're still going to need one of the few superstars that really impacts things. I wasn't claiming that there was a serious risk of all 30 teams having an equal distribution of talent. I'm explaining that the greater the distribution of talent, the less there is to distinguish teams from one another. Honestly, this entire response is ridiculous, Alex. "It's all luck anyway." What kind of answer is that? Let's assume for a second that an increase in parity gets us to about 10-12 teams that have an average rating between 85-88. Given that we have essentially no idea what distinguishes those teams, we cannot meaningfully predict which team will win and so these teams can be said to have even odds to win. So, assembling a team within that 85-88 range gives you a 1/12 chance at winning. Once you've reached that 85-88 rating, you're done. You've capped yourself, you've reached your ceiling. You have no remaining meaningful choices that will increase your odds at winning. I find that much less interesting then a league where you can make meaningful choices that will increase your odds. Greater parity = greater involvement of luck. Obviously luck is inherent in every aspect of D5 GMing and IRL GMing, Alex. That doesn't mean we need to accept even more of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Apr 14, 2021 22:21:36 GMT
I wasn't claiming that there was a serious risk of all 30 teams having an equal distribution of talent. I'm explaining that the greater the distribution of talent, the less there is to distinguish teams from one another.Yes that's the idea. Honestly, this entire response is ridiculous, Alex. "It's all luck anyway." What kind of answer is that? I honestly can't tell if you're not understanding my point, or if this comment is in bad faith. I feel like I'm running out of ways to try and communicate myself effectively. My position in this whole discussion is this: Luck is an inherent part of everything we're already doing, so the benefits of increasing parity at the cost of some increase in the role of luck is hardly a price to pay. It's all a net benefit. Let's assume for a second that an increase in parity gets us to about 10-12 teams that have an average rating between 85-88. Given that we have essentially no idea what distinguishes those teams, we cannot meaningfully predict which team will win and so these teams can be said to have even odds to win. So, assembling a team within that 85-88 range gives you a 1/12 chance at winning. Once you've reached that 85-88 rating, you're done. You've capped yourself, you've reached your ceiling. You have no remaining meaningful choices that will increase your odds at winning. I find that much less interesting then a league where you can make meaningful choices that will increase your odds. Greater parity = greater involvement of luck. Obviously luck is inherent in every aspect of D5 GMing and IRL GMing, Alex. That doesn't mean we need to accept even more of it. What have you been doing for years? You've had a contending team for ages and you've won two championships. There's not really much you can do to increase your odds at this point. By any measure you're "done" as you say. So in all this time, have you not been making meaningful choices? Scouting/drafting? Trades? Cap management? There are always meaningful choices. Exactly what you've been doing for the last 5+ years is what all the other contending teams would be doing as well, it's just that instead of there being 4 or 5 teams, there'd be 10. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Apr 14, 2021 23:29:18 GMT
Just wanted to bring something up that I mentioned in Discord, and I think is an important point: If we succeed in creating a league with serious parity, what we're really doing is increasing the influence that the sim engine from 15 years ago has on our results. The greater similarity between teams talent/rating, the greater the impact of the behind-the-curtain calculations done by NBA LIVE 06. Talent parity is fine and desired IRL because innumerable intangible factors like chemistry, playstyle fit, coaching, reputation, leadership, etc, all influence a team's success. We have none of those things here. We like to pretend that we understand how the sim works but in reality we have no idea. Right now, GMs can distinguish themselves by assembling a team of highly rated players and hoping for the best, more or less. In a league where there are 10+ contenders, those contenders are completely at the mercy of a sim engine designed in 2006. Essentially, all contending teams will basically be entered into a raffle governed by an system outdated in not only its computing technology but in basketball-thinking, which has progressed significantly over the past decade. With this in mind, I believe we should be designing systems of parity that lead to greater turnover in contenders/tankers - not putting a ceiling on those teams. And this waive-and-stretch rule puts a ceiling. Make it easier for tankers to turn their teams around, don't make it impossible for contenders to reach that level. I agree with this. Especially the very last paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 18, 2021 12:19:33 GMT
Hey Ian Noble just a quick clarification on the rules as written: So we say "starting 2023" but then we say "when salaries progress to the following year". Just wanted to clarify, does this rule kick in when salaries progress to the 2023/2024 season (i.e. players will be stretched on July 1, 2023)? Or does it kick in when salaries progress to the 2024/2025 season (i.e. players will be stretched on July 1, 2024)? |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 18, 2021 20:31:33 GMT
Hey Ian Noble just a quick clarification on the rules as written: So we say "starting 2023" but then we say "when salaries progress to the following year". Just wanted to clarify, does this rule kick in when salaries progress to the 2023/2024 season (i.e. players will be stretched on July 1, 2023)? Or does it kick in when salaries progress to the 2024/2025 season (i.e. players will be stretched on July 1, 2024)? Yes - the rule kicks in when salaries progress to 2023/24 season. Traditionally on July 1st 2023. edit: However I've not read any of the replies to this thread since I spent hours and hours pouring over it all and making what I thought was a consensus decision  I need to re-read all the latest stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 18, 2021 20:58:11 GMT
Can we revisit this? I didn't realize we were actually seriously considering implementing the stretch rule thing. Or am I the only one that finds that to be a ridiculous rule? It just feels so arbitrary and clunky and unrealistic. Ok seems like all the talk was about the sim engine, this was the only thing about the stretch rule. To me the stretch rule seems like a good idea?! Are there any other options we should consider? Certainly when it comes to forcibly releasing a player I would work with the GM of that team to ensure an amicable resolution. |
|
New Orleans Pelicans
San Antonio Spurs
Houston Rockets
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Charlotte Hornets
Brooklyn Nets
Denver Nuggets
Cleveland Cavaliers
I need to re-read all the latest stuff.