05-21-2023, 08:14 AMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: Thanks for your post luke and for bringing some more data into this. I think it's also useful in clarifying some of the language around the topic. We keep talking about "parity" when you are right that this isn't actually really the core of the issue anymore, there are enough different teams winning at this point and not just singular powerhouses who stay on top forever. The core issue as I would define it is "predictability", the fact that at the start of a season you already pretty much know instantly who will have a chance to compete and who won't, and the latter category isn't just limited to the tanking teams, but includes the majority of the midfield as well. The surprise runs and upsets are so rare not just in #1 vs #16 series, but when the #4-#6 seeds are playing the #10-13 seeds as well, which is when thing should start to become wide open, but they don't.

CoAs observation that there isn't really a midfield anymore is a direct result of that, because naturally GMs have started to adapt to this competitive landscape. Over the last few years they have slowly learned that there isn't really a point in hanging around in that 7th to 12th place range, play a solid regular season and then hope to do some damage in the playoffs if you manage to run hot. They know that it's boom or bust, you either are among the absolute top of the league or in a rebuild, and everything between those two extremes is a waste of time. I don't think that's a good situation overall and having almost half of the league tanking/rebuilding at the same time doesn't seem like something we'd want to see.

Also, an additional point that we could take from your data, is considering changes to playoff seeding. I don't know how many options FHM gives us there, but maybe the fact that the same teams keep running into each other at the same points in the playoff tree are part of the problem. I have definitely heard some people talk about how they think it's boring that they are playing the same teams again and again in the playoffs, that their first and second round series are all against the same teams etc. It's not an issue I've looked at in-depth at all, but maybe there is some potential here to make things better in a rather non-invasive way.

RED, we need more data before we throw out anything as truth. I repeatedly said it in the article. There has only been 6 seasons of FHM8, we can’t simply say the #7-12 don’t have a chance at all because we don’t know. Manhattan was the 9 seed when they went to the finals twice and lost in game 7. I was the 6th in the league . 4 point difference between 6 and 7. Philly was the 5th seed when they won. The predictability of the 1 vs 16, yeah 99% of the time the 1st seed will win because the 16 team is just tanking. but anyone in the top 10 I believe can beat anyone, but we will just need time and data to prove that or disprove it. There just isn’t enough of a dataset to say it.


But I do agree with COA, but the range I more the 11-16 range of the “middle” that found that it’s not worth it and decided to tank harder(look at the section about tanking”. Clearly it’s a shift in mindset, and from that the shift to sign a lot of players that’s less than 600 tpe. It’s shown in the data that in the last 10 seasons the gap has widened because a lot more teams has used worse IA fillers.

For playoff seeding we basically have the NHL format(what we are using right now) or a 1-16 format where the 1 seed in the conference plays the 8th seed, 2&7, 3&6, 4&5