The CSL

WillyJakkz wrote:

NuggOlesk wrote:

Gallo is 21 ppg with very good shooting and playing like a star! Why shouldn't he be in the lineup

Gallo is playing well but should he be starting SG?

If player has that kind of numbers and EFF 20+, yes he should start.

Thing is, he's splitting minutes between SG and C.

Jestor wrote:Thing is, he's splitting minutes between SG and C.

That ofc should be wrong, at the same time, here in CSL Harden plays PF/C in the Finals and brings home a Titel, so from that point of view, if Gallo owns, there is no problem

Was just googling as there are already so many ideas on different lottery systems online but came across this one. It's a big change but sounds like it could be fairly fun to even. I do like that even if it didn't pan out one season (worst record pushed backwards a little), it means the next season you're still making taking the first choice. More importantly, all teams would be trying to win every single game.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... event.html

I got it from here which had a few other systems also but this was the winner.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how- ... ms-record/

I think Marcos brought up a similar idea to that once a while ago, if I'm not mistaken. It does sound fun and interesting, but the site doesn't explain how it would work for traded picks. For example, say the Suns had the worst record the previous year and I thought the Kings would have the worst record the next year, but it turns out you've traded your pick to some other team, so I can't choose that pick.

The only thing I can think of is that only teams that own their own pick get to partake in this "You're the Worst" draft of sorts.

I'm no more knowledgeable than reading that article but I don't think it has anything to do with picks. Just draft order.

So if the Suns had the worst pick and you thought the Kings were the worst for next season but the Mavs held that pick, then if the Kings were worst, the Mavs are in the Kings position. No different really to where the Kings fall without this system, the Mavs fall there as they own it.

I think it's just to determine order only. Teams try and win as many games as they can whilst trying to predict who will be worst. Not pushing for this system or anything like that. Just thought it was an interesting take that might be worth investigating or even trying as it definitely does promote winning. You'll definitely have those seasons where you think a team is going to be poor but they're not and same the other way though.

Future picks will be problem and need many side rules and exceptions.
+ The team who chooses me to suck, I will trade for that pick, and tank
I start season OK, get my pick value down and get it cheaper.
Or I find a GM who also tanks, and give them the pick, that will be good if they suck.
With side rules it can be avoided, but that would limit pick trading, we probably have it too much, but still.
And maybe lose future pick trading, or yeah who will pick who sucks with my 18 pick? Me or OKC or League?

After reading the thread about draft solutions proposals etc I say let teams tank etc because tanking doesn't = guaranteed top pick.

Look at how many years DAL jumped to #2 over teams that tanked.

Yr 1 I stopped playing guys near seasons end to improve draft position so no guarantee of a higher or lower pick.

Leave it as is. I think the real issue is guys wanting to make their teams better at the lowest cost possible and that is not a reality.

I actually love that "You are The Worse" idea.

There are no complications guys. It's simple:

Trading for picks BEFORE selecting which team will it be tied to:
If I trade for, say, Magic's pick right before selecting the team Magic's pick will represent, it means that when it's up to Willy to choose the "worst" team for him, no matter if he's choosing 5th, 20th, whatever, I will choose in his place. I mean, when the Magic are up to choose their "Worst" team, I'll do it instead. Then the Magic pick will be linked with the team I (ME) choose moving forward. If I have multiple picks, I'll choose multiple teams when it's up to my picks to choose. And each pick stays linked to the team I selected in that slot.

Trading picks AFTER selected which team it will be tied to:
Picks are essentially linked to the team the GM chose as the worst until the draft. So, here's an example:
I choose Phoenix Suns as the team that will represent my 1st CHI 2018.
If I trade that pick somewhere, I'm trading the Chicago Bulls pick, LINKED TO the Phoenix Suns' record.

Trading future picks
Same case as the first one. If I acquire 2020 1st from Phoenix, that means I'm going to pick the team I believe will be the worst one when it's up for Phoenix to select in the referred year.

It's pretty simple just make a table with the pick and which team's record is it linked to.

Yeah I dont like the idea of future drafts being determined by who people think are the worst.

Hidden agendas anyone?

I'm going to be brutally honest here. That's the worst tanking solution idea I've ever heard.

Seriously, I'm not seeing an issue with tanking. There hasn't been a LeBron James or even an Anthony Davis to tank for yet, and all teams are doing is driving their own players' trade value down. If that's what GMs want to do with their team, fine by me.

Show me one team that has actually benefited from blatantly tanking so far in the new CSL. I'll wait.

I want to address the "tanking penalty" as someone who will probably never input strategies totaling <16... It's pretty dumb to penalize a team for not running high pace or high defensive intensity. Not every team has the depth or discipline on their roster to play intense defense or full-court defense. And there are a lot of teams that you shouldn't zone against either. If you don't have a team that can defend without fouling, and you're up against a team you can't zone, you probably shouldn't be spending more than 8 points between DI, Zone, and FC. The minimum of 16 points basically forces that team to run 8 pace. That's how you get upwards of 100 FGA in games. In my opinion, in order to minimize fatigue and foul trouble on a shallow team, you'd want 5 pace, 5 def intensity, 1 zone, 1 fc against a good team. It's a modest game plan so that your big man doesn't foul out against Anthony Davis and his backup surrenders 40+ points to Davis.

Just my $.02

BizGilwalker wrote:Seriously, I'm not seeing an issue with tanking. There hasn't been a LeBron James or even an Anthony Davis to tank for yet, and all teams are doing is driving their own players' trade value down. If that's what GMs want to do with their team, fine by me.

Show me one team that has actually benefited from blatantly tanking so far in the new CSL. I'll wait.

I want to address the "tanking penalty" as someone who will probably never input strategies totaling <16... It's pretty dumb to penalize a team for not running high pace or high defensive intensity. Not every team has the depth or discipline on their roster to play intense defense or full-court defense. And there are a lot of teams that you shouldn't zone against either. If you don't have a team that can defend without fouling, and you're up against a team you can't zone, you probably shouldn't be spending more than 8 points between DI, Zone, and FC. The minimum of 16 points basically forces that team to run 8 pace. That's how you get upwards of 100 FGA in games. In my opinion, in order to minimize fatigue and foul trouble on a shallow team, you'd want 5 pace, 5 def intensity, 1 zone, 1 fc against a good team. It's a modest game plan so that your big man doesn't foul out against Anthony Davis and his backup surrenders 40+ points to Davis.

Just my $.02

Stoped reading your post after the marked part (nor did I read more than like 3-4 posts here). But Embiid has potentials very very close to Davis.
However, I really miss the NLL. When Donkey (NLL headadmin) introduced nearly the same rule no one complained and everyone liked it, because everybody hates tanking snd it helps preventing tanking.
Here, why ever, the admins get called dumb and so on. Just my two cents though.

Which doesnt mean you shouldnt let admins know your opinions.

I think the OP is a fun idea, but it wont stop tanking. Teams will just tank down to 4th or 5th if 4th is too risky.

Overall i like the idea it moves tanking from the bottom to the middle, but it makes tanking more interesting.

The futures idea has a lot of holes to fill. Ill come up with an idea that fills all those holes. Tanking completely removed/Bad teams can still improve through the draft/no loop holes/no agendas/no possibility for collusion.

BizGilwalker wrote:Seriously, I'm not seeing an issue with tanking. There hasn't been a LeBron James or even an Anthony Davis to tank for yet, and all teams are doing is driving their own players' trade value down. If that's what GMs want to do with their team, fine by me.

Of course you don't see an issue with tanking. You've already said previously that you'd probably tank if you ever decided to rebuild. So of course you'd like to keep that option open.

The fact that we have teams losing games on purpose to get top draft picks means that we have an issue. Those top picks should be going to the truly worst teams. They shouldn't suffer because they're trying to win games.
How we go about fixing the tanking has yet to be decided, but it's definitely an issue.

Yeah, if we say tanking isn't bothering us, then lets allow tanking, and we start to see 0-82 seasons. I put my 6 rookies on 9 pace, 1,1,1 and point guards start as centers, centers start as pg's, I can tank like no other, if we say let all tank, tanking is allowed

BizGilwalker wrote:There hasn't been a LeBron James or even an Anthony Davis to tank for yet, and all teams are doing is driving their own players' trade value down.

But soon LeBron retires, Durant is 28 already, or you mean ahh 3-4 more seasons, so no problem? You can ride you Harden train until he is 32 and then we make a league restart?
Draft is the only way new superstars come to the league...the ones who are here will get old.
Soon there will be some new superstars, and it would be sad if some good/talented team gets the pick not the team who really needs it! The team who tries to win, but lucks out in FA and doesn't have talent. He need the pick, as the most interesting league is a balanced league.
Ofc that will also need a good GM, but we don't have a big waiting list, that we can fire bottom GM's to take new in, so we need other things, to keep our GMs and make life easier for teams that rebuild and are still learning or just luck out in FA and can not make trades they like.