RBSL Forums

This post is outdated, please find the most recent thread regarding coaching for the latest info.

The league has really been improving lately, and we have the best crop of GMs that we've had in a long time.  The trade markets are active and there is a ton of interest in the league - more than I've ever seen, probably.

We have a real problem, though.  We have something like 5 teams really "going for it", and a bunch of tanking/rebuilding going on. The problem is simple - there's really not a significant penalty for tanking, and it's pretty easy to rebuild in FBB3 (especially when other teams are looking to tank and you can pick up vet talent for pretty cheap.  The other problem is that there isn't a real reason to shoot for being a 4th or 5th seed - the game right now is dominated by mega teams and it's hard for a 52 win team to go far in the playoffs, so why bother?  Just tank and try to build your own mega team.  Of course, that only exacerbates the mega team problem - with half the league tanking, it means that valuable talent is pretty cheap on the trade market for the few teams trying to repeat.

So, we need a solution that discourages tanking and encourages winning 50 games, even if it's unlikely you'll win the championship this year.

Here's the proposed solution:

"Coaching" is a statistic that affects your training camps.  There are 5 skills that coaching can improve - Inside, Shooting, Handling, Post D, Perimeter D.  The higher the coaching stat, the more likely your players are to improve in that statistic during training camp.  Right now every GM's coaching is set to the same B rating to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field.

But what if we allowed GMs to improve their coaching statistics through successful seasons, and "punished" them for tanking seasons?  Here's the proposal:

There will be 3 possible values for each coaching stat: B (the standard/starting value), A (the "improved" value), and C (the "weak" value).  And if you are required to improve/decrease a stat, you must first bring any heightened/weakned stats back to "normal" before increasing/decreasing another stat (e.g., if you went +1 in one stat, and then the next year you had to go -1, you have to reverse the +1 stat to make everything "B," and if you went -1 in a stat, you must return that to "B" before improving another stat).

At the end of each season, each GM's coaching stat is adjusted based on performance, as follows:

• 45+ wins = +1 in your lowest stat (or you choose if all stats are the same)
• 35-44 wins = no change
• 20-34 wins = -1 in your highest stat (or you choose if all stats are the same)
• Less than 20 wins: Your two highest stats are decreased by 1 value (or you choose if all stats are the same)

[/list]

I think this will have the desired effect.  It makes making the playoffs, even as a late seed, somewhat valuable, and it gives GMs a reason to shoot for the 4th seed, even though that might not result in a championship.  If you just barely missed out on the playoffs, you shouldn't be punished, and if you're one of the worst teams in the league, you should be punished.  Repeat offenders will be punished harsher (by losing 2 stats). 

What I don't want to do is have this create dynasties (I don't want to make it so the good teams just never get bad or anything like that). The best proposal we have for that is that stat increases and decreases will only last for 3 seasons (maybe it should be 4?), but I'm particularly open to ideas on this issue.  It needs to be a valuable increase for a GM but I don't think it should be permanent because I fear that will create 2 tiers of teams permanently.

New GMs will have their coaching stats reset to B.

I'm proposing that this go into effect beginning with the 2085 season.  That gives everyone two full seasons to prepare, and should help to prevent some of the tanking that will undoubtedly happen before the real draft in 2086 (AS A REMINDER, THE REAL DRAFT WILL BE NO STRONGER OR WEAKER THAN AN AVERAGE DRAFT, but I know people tend to tank for it because they recognize the players' names).

Thoughts/comments are appreciated, but I would very much like to do something largely based on the above proposal.   

Would this apply to winning it all in the D-League, too?

Stating publicly that I fully support this system.

In the WA chat, Ed with the Suns suggested that it be wins based and not playoffs based.  Perhaps having the threshold be 50 wins.  I kind of like that.

Otherwise, I'd propose that there not be a top tier gain of 2 ratings.  Just one for making the playoffs.

I support it

To be clear, my opinion isn't that super teams are the problem. Dynasties are good for the league, but super teams are formed (in a big way) because the lack of competition surrounding them. For that, we have a bit of a problem. As of this second, the problem isn't huge, but it could go one of two ways; it could become nothing and nature is just running its course, or it could be the start of a big problem. To me, I don't think the ramifications of these rules are severe enough to cause problems if this is just nature running its course. With that said, it's more important to be proactive and ahead of the curve - try to cut off the tanking problem at the legs before it spreads/gets worse.

It's absolutely correct that there are no benefits from being a perennial 4th-6th seed, which is the problem. In the NBA, purgatory is the 7-10 seed. In the RBSL, it's 4-12, which is a shame. So, GMs then resort to tanking (a lot of the time unsuccessfully - ending up with the 7th pick). This could lead to 10-20 GMs tanking for Markelle Fultz in 2086 (for example - not just because it's a real draft). With that all said, it's a great idea adding the importance of winning, and adding a bit of a caution flag to those teams that have been comfortable with taking shot after shot in the draft when there are other avenues of improving.

Suggestion from Chris in the chat:


Discuss.  For the record, I'm on board with both.

Thanks.  This is the fix, I think - that we can tweak a little bit here and there.  But we are going to do something like this. The incentive/disincentive will begin in 2085-86 season.

I also agree with both points. I think it's gonna be beneficial for the league.

Semi-related -

Discussion of this rule change in the WhatsApp Group (Seriously, Mavs. We miss you, baby. Come join us!) segued into a discussion of revamping the rookie TBD extension system as follows.

Current groupthink, though other people may want to chime in, is that rookie tbd extensions, as-is, are too good. So we are proposing changing the TBD extension rules so that:

1) Rookie Contracts which are TBD extended past their 4th year are extended for a 5th year whose cap value is 200% the cap value of their fourth year.

2) Only multi-year deals are eligible for TBD extensions.

With regards to on-topic, I think most people are on board with adopting Suns' proposed edit to make coaching points accrue based on win totals rather than seeds.

As a reminder, this is going to be put in place for the 2085 season.  I'll finalize a few of the nits/nats (we made some minor changes to the way the points work that I think everyone agrees are positive) and post up the final rules at some point this offseason.

Here are the win totals;

60 or more wins +2 attributes,
45-59 wins, +1 attribute
35-45 wins, no change
20-35 wins, -1 attribute
Less than 20 wins, -2 attributes

I like the idea, but I think it would be better to keep it +1 even for 60+ wins since the goal is to prevent tanking and not to reward best teams. Just my opinion.

I agree with the Celtics on this.

Other thoughts?  I'm fine with that in principle, but we'll have to see how it plays out (if the possibility of losing 2 but not being able to gain 2 means that most everyone is between C and B, maybe we need to change something to incentivize winning). 

Fine with it, incentive for pushing from 45 to 60 is contending for the title. We'll just have to watch how it balances out.

Concur

Agree.

I like how 35-45 it pushes. Landing in that area isn't difficult if you participate in FA.

I like the notion you gain a benefit to your coach just by ccontending for a title. Seems like a great benefit to reward the almost teams even if they don't win.

I think their should be a cap as to the coaching improvements. Because it will just make the rich get richer.

Question. Doesn't the game from time to time retire coaches?

Yes, we'll have a spreadsheet or something that keeps track of where everyone is so that we can plug in the new values.

So we start with this rule this season?
Does teams with 60+ wins get +2 or +1?

I did some analysis with previous standings from FBB3.

Option 1:
60 or more wins +2 attributes,
45-59 wins, +1 attribute
35-44 wins, no change
20-34 wins, -1 attribute
Less than 20 wins, -2 attributes

(https://i.imgur.com/0a0fy0p.png)
27 teams finished with 60 or more wins, 101 teams finished with 45-59 wins, etc.

This means our teams would get total +24 coaching skill over last 10 seasons.


Option 2:

45 or more wins, +1 attribute
35-44 wins, no change
20-34 wins, -1 attribute
Less than 20 wins, -2 attributes

(https://i.imgur.com/UF8tNWw.png)

Means our teams would get total -3 coaching skill over last 10 seasons.


Personally I am still much in favor of Option 2 because I really think Option 1 favors elite teams to much.

Rule is in place starting this season.  60 wins only gets +1 rating for the reason Celtics identified.

Great stats!

Really cool seeing the math on this and I think it does a great job of showing that capping the increases to +1 is the way to go.

Reminder that beginning this season, the anti-tanking rules are in place and rookie contract extensions set the 5th year at 2x the previous year's salary.

Regarding coaching attributes changes. I believe we should set the rule that you can only increase your lowest attribute and decrease your highest attribute. Otherwise GM could simply decide to decrease scouting attribute to F, rely on html scouting and leave other training camp attributes unaffected.

For instance, the team that got -2 this season must split -1 over two attributes and in case he get -1 next season it must be assigned to third attribute that.

I think this is a smart idea and a good catch of a loophole that might not have been obvious until it was being exploited. We can see already that virtually every team forced to lose points has so far elected to have them taken from the scouting section. Another less elegant option would be to simply eliminate the ability to increase/decrease the scouting attributes, but I think Gasper's suggestion is better and sort of simulates an overall organizational decay/improvement which I find more realistic than a team cratering or excelling in a single area. In real life a winning or losing culture snowballs and permeates an entire organization.

I agree with both Kile and Gasper. As a tanking team who decreased my scouting, I probably wouldve taken advantage if this.

Yes, this is the way it works. 

I did not know that this had been decided.  This thread (http://rbslforums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg139551#msg139551) should probably say something about that, as there are teams already selecting -2 scouting.

There are only 3 ratings.  A B and C.  You simply cannot go -2 from B in any role in any event.

Pretty sure it was said B to B- then C+ and so on.

I remember it was discussed on whatsapp when i asked by what point? 75 to 74 or something like that.

No one said otherwise

https://imgur.com/a/6ssct

Read the initial post.  It has been crystal clear the whole time.

There will be 3 possible values for each coaching stat: B (the standard/starting value), A (the "improved" value), and C (the "weak" value)

k. Done.

Didnt we decide 1 point for 1 through 4 aswell

Nope, we got rid of that because of fear it would be too strong for superteams.

wat I was saying is there is only 1 point up advantage no matter how good u r

Yes.

This promotes being good over an extended period of time, rather than having a superteam for 3 years and leaving with a +6.

?

Want to discuss whether, beginning next season you can't extend one year contracts with TBD. Was discussed earlier in this thread but it never made it into the rulebook.

Discuss.  I am fine with the change but don't think it's a big deal either way.

The main argument in favor of the rule is when good but overpaid players get cut and signed mid season.  These guys would obviously not accept a small extension.  The general principle applies to everyone who signs mid season, because we auto sign them for 1 year vet min, which they normally might not accept. 

Yeah I agree that min signings should not be extendable, at the least.  Too much potential for super-cheap extensions.

I agree. Make it a rule starting next season.