• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

107 Good

About westvandude

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect
  1. I'm surprised there is so much hate for Sekeres and Price! I know they're out of towners, but I find them much more objective and interesting to listen to than the old dudes (Bro Jake and Moj) who all seem so subjective in their anlaysis.. basically like talking to old guys who are stubborn about their gut feelings. BMac is probably best as far as analysis and being a homeboy. And of course the new guy Sat I'm biased towards since I went to high school with him and wanna see him succeed.
  2. The whole premise for this idea or something similar is to take out luck (and therefore unfairness) in draft positioning, and rewarding good scouting and good strategic analysis. As has been shown clearly over the past several years, some years you have a generational player (McDavid), some years you have a couple generational players (Matthews, Laine) and some years you have none (arguably this year or some years before McDavid's)... if your team happens to suck at the right time AND you win the lottery, you get the generational player. And if not, you're at a major disadvantage. From a game/league design point of view, this is a major flaw that produces outcomes based on factors out of the teams' control. A good game would never have a lottery system unless there is absolutely no other better way to do it, and even then, the winner of the lottery must lose something else (and the loser must gain something else) in order balance the luck out at least a little bit. I know my idea has a lot of holes, but I strongly believe in the premise behind why we need such an idea. This particular idea is based on the fact that usually the really clear better picks are the top of the first round, and for those, each team must be giving up something else to get them. In this version of the idea, no one actually owns any 1st round picks. They're all up for auction. You can't trade 1st picks, only 2nd to 7th. Not sure if it's better to limit every team to only one 1st rounder (so teams would bid more to get the highest possible one) or multiple 1st rounder (so teams would have to be more strategic with their bids, and if they can read other GMs strategies well enough, they could end up with multiple 1st rounders at good prices). For example in McDavid's year, the team with the most picks (value adjusted) can guarantee to win him, but at the cost of having the rest of their picks be 7th rounders (unless the rest of the 1st round players are also valuable enough that teams pay lots of picks for). Everything else equal, Buffalo would have had him, unless they weren't willing to give up all their picks and Oilers were.
  3. I generally cheer for: Jets, Sens and Habs I generally cheer against: Leafs, Oilers, Flames But my current standing are: 1st For: Sens: obviously for burrows 2nd For: Jets: fan base deprived of hockey team for all those years deserve a cup or a good run; generally likable team 3rd For: Habs: cocky fan base, but I'd always cheer for rivals of Leafs and Bruins; also like their main stars (Price etc.).. F Julien tho 3rd Against: Leafs: cockiest fan base, but been going through rough times for over a decade, went through a good rebuild, got lucky with Matthews but compared to other teams, they "deserved" it (odds basis) 2nd Against: Flames: don't like their goony attitude and team build, players seem cocky. last two playoff defeats still have major negative feelings for me 1st Against: Oilers: F-ing luckiest team ever... did not deserve McDavid (all those other 1st rounds and Buffalo had better odds). A franchise that gets lucky with Gretzky and McDavid in their history! As a whole my dream finish this year: - Sharks win the cup so we get our 1st rounder (of course Hansen score SC winning goal) - Sens lose in east finals (so I don't feel bad about Burrows losing another cup final!) - Habs get Bruins and sweep them in 1st round - Leafs just miss the playoffs so they don't get their coveted playoff experience - since Oilers and Leafs both are pretty much guaranteed playoffs, hope they lose embarrassing losses in first round, or if they play each other, a grueling injury filled series which flames would win - We win #1 lottery, Jets win #2 - I win the actual lottery, buy the Canucks, let JB and TL run the team and get the full rebuild done - Trump is impeached, republicans infighting and leaks of their dirty laundry comes out, and they lose respect of their own fan base, Sanders (or a Sanders clone) win 2020
  4. Wut in imagination?! (+cowboy hat)
  5. Actually on another note, imagine if you turn this into a live auction (instead of a silent auction). What a show that would be! New rules: they have to bid for all of first round picks values are the same as original post if you win an auction, you may not bid again (so you can only win 1 auction/pick) at the end of the auction, all the unused picks get bumped up to fill up the empty spots of used up picks in the auction; then the rest of the empty spots at the bottom get distributed among the teams based on standings So 30 picks, about 2 minutes per pick/auction, that's 1 hour of exciting and nerve-wrecking show for the fans. Everyone would be yelling at their TVs like "BID MORE YOU IDIOT!!!"
  6. Well the idea behind this system is that you don't "own" a first round pick yet until you earn it by bidding your other picks. You just happen to have the better chance at bidding for the pick you are holding (the pick you would have gotten in a normal system) than others below you in standing. So here, they either have to pay to have that pick, or they don't bid and lose that pick, but keep the rest of their picks and potentially get bumped 1 level each if the winner had paid with picks higher than theirs. Does that make sense? So like if Canucks had bid their 2nd to win Toronto's 1st, Canucks get the first overall pick, and every team (including Toronto) who has picks behind Canucks's 2nd pick would get bumped up 1 position
  7. One of the main purposes of this system would be to create a market for the top picks, so a year where a generational player is in play like McDavid or Matthews, one team doesn't get lucky to win that lottery, and instead they would have to pay a higher price in picks in order to get such a fundamental player that everyone else also wants. The current system is just way too luck-based. From lottery draws, to which year your team sucks to draft high and if there are as good of a top draft picks as previous years. With a system like this, really good players would cost a lot of picks regardless of who wins it.
  8. Yes that's the main drawback of this system. But again, I think such highly valued franchises can afford to pay an analyst/consultant to come up with an optimized strategy.
  9. I think the long post may have caused this point to be missed, but if the original holder wins their pick, they lose all of the picks they used as bidding price (as payment for having the high pick): If the original pick holder has the highest bid, they give up all the picks they have used as their bid price (replaced with lowest possible picks: last 7th round picks), and everyone else's picks gets bumped up
  10. EDIT: Having thought about it more, I think the system I described doesn't work quite well if the team winning the bid has to pay the "holder" all the picks because it still heavily rewards the "holder" for being in that position. I've added some edits in red font to change this. Summary: Here's an outline of a new entry draft system that eliminates luck based outcomes like lottery picks The new silent auction system is more complicated than current system, but very interesting strategically, and much more fair than the current system If you're interested, read through the Structure, and for clarity read the Example; and a short Pro vs. Con list at the end Generally, I hate random lottery style rewards. If you win it's great, but if you lose, it's hard not to feel you've been treated unfairly, specially if the prize is worth a lot. I didn't just feel this last year for Canucks, but any year a lottery team wins like McDavid's year. You can now see what a major difference that one pick makes between Oilers and Sabers to be playoff teams, and that pick was purely luck-based! In a salary cap league, IMO tanking should be considered a legitimate strategy with its downsides to consider (losing mentality, etc.), so I would be happy with a pure standing-based draft positions (i.e. no lottery at all). But say you wanted to not reward tanking (the same idea behind current lottery system... so still lower teams have an advantage, just not as much as a no lottery system). Here's a radical proposal that I think would be quite interesting from a strategic point of view, but also from a fairness point of view: Structure: Initial draft positions are set with the reverse of standings as is right now (so the last team is the "holder" of pick 1) BUT, every team has an opportunity to bid on top 10 picks all of the 1st round picks; no team actually owns any of these picks... they only have 2nd to 7th round picks The bidding currency is that year's draft picks (of course whatever picks you actually have after all the trades etc.) The worth of each pick is equal to 211 181 minus Pick# (example: 1st pick is worth 210 points31st pick is worth 150 points, 80th pick is worth 130 101 points, and 210th pick or the last pick of the draft is worth 1 point) The math works so (assuming team's haven't traded any picks) the lowest ranking team would have 840 630 bidding points total, and every rank higher would have 7 6 points less than the previous rank This is a silent auction: each team provides what they are willing to pay for each of the top 10 31 picks, and all bids for each pick are revealed at the same time The winner of each pick would have to give up all the picks their bid, every other team's picks below the given up picks get bumped up by a position to fill up the empty spots; at the end of the auction, all the picks that have opened up at the bottom (since the picks above have been bumped up to fill the empty spot of original winner picks given up in auction) get redistributed amongst all teams based on reverse of standings pay whatever price they bid to the team that held that draft position before the auction (the "holder") The bidding resolution steps are as follows: Pick 1 bids get resolved first The team with the highest price wins the pick and pays the price to the original pick holder If the original pick holder has the highest bid, they give up all the picks they have used as their bid price (replaced with lowest possible picks: last 7th round picks), and everyone else's picks bumps up to fill those picks The tie-breaker goes to the team that finished lowest in standing Then Pick 2 bids get resolved If the team that won pick 1 has used up any of the picks included in their bid for other picks, those bids are disqualified now only have available picks (so their values are reduced by the already used up pick). Alternatively, you could only allow one auction win per team, in which case all other bids of the winning bidder are disqualified Continue until all 10 30 auctions have been resolved An example (say for 2016 draft): Obviously Matthews is very highly regarded, followed by Laine and then by Puljujarvi and then closely by Dubois and Tkachuk Some teams might be willing to give up all of their picks to have Matthews, while they probably wouldn't in a draft like 2017 For a simple example, let's assume 3 teams only are bidding for pick 1 for Matthews: Leafs really want Matthews so they bid all their picks: 1st (210 points), 2nd (180 points), 3rd (150p), 4th (120p), 5th, 6th and 7th... total points bid = 840 points Oilers don't really need him as much so only bid: 1st (209 points), 2nd (179 points), 3rd (149p) and 4th (119p), total points bid = 660 Canucks also really want Matthews and bid everything they got: 826 points So the winner here is Leafs, but they give up all of their remaining picks, and if they had bid in any of the other auctions, their bids would disqualify (or get reduced in value, depending on which type of system we're using) since they spent the picks already; basically the price to have Matthews was all their other picks in this year's draft Now for pick 2 Laine, between Oilers and Canucks: Oilers bid their 1st (209p), 2nd (179p) and 6th (59p) and 7th (29p): total is 476 points Canucks bid their 1st (208p), 3rd (148p), 5th (88p), 6th (58p) and 7th (28p): total is 530 points So Canucks win this bid, and pays all of those picks to Oilers as the original holder of pick #2 The Oilers are now the "holder" of pick 3 since that was part of the price Canucks paid.. and if they included their 1st pick in any of the bids for the remaining picks, the new worth of their 1st is now 207 points instead of 208 points (since it's a 3rd now instead of a 2nd) Once all top picks auctions are resolved, any team that won their own pick and gave up picks for it, would receive the same # of picks they given up at the bottom of 7th round (the picks that have opened up since their original owners were bumped up to fill the "given up" picks) Pros of this system: No more luck based decisions, if you want a pick and you have enough worth in picks to get a player, you can get him, but you have to pay the price Every team has a chance to get the top 30 picks The team that loses it's pick to a higher bidder gets paid a decent return of multiple lower picks, instead of getting nothing if they lose the lottery in the current system This would take out the luck part associated with good vs. bad draft years, since in good draft year where generational players are available, teams would bid a lot to get them, and so to keep that #1 pick if you're the lowest ranked team, you have to be willing to give up a lot of picks as well; and in drafts were the top picks aren't as highly valued, the lowest rank team wouldn't have to bid as much to keep their pick... this results in having either a Matthews and pretty much no other picks, or a Nolan Patrick and a bunch of lower level picks; so the total value to the lowest ranked team in each of those years is much closer than the current system Cons: A fairly complex strategical analysis to see what you should bid on each pick, and throughout the season as you're including picks in trades, you should consider their worth in the upcoming draft... but this complexity should be nothing that $100M+ franchises shouldn't be able to handle That's all I can think of! Potential for collusion amongst friendly GMs?
  11. Both wins feel good despite getting further away from 29th, because the young guys are showing a lot of promise. I would have liked Miller traded at deadline so he doesn't "steal" games anymore, but Bachman doing it is definitely great! Let's hope Arizona also continues their winning streak. I still think we're gonna lose most of our remaining games.. but if we do end up winning enough to move out of a good draft position, hopefully it will be because of the play of the young guys, not from getting lucky and outshot and having Miller save our asses, because that would be useless to the future of this team.
  12. Let's not turn this into a pissing match... you make a good point, but discredit yourself when you feel the need to make personal attacks. No I haven't watched a single panthers game outside of against the canucks. I'm going purely based on stats and standings. I'm not convinced if I (or you or anyone) watch a bunch of their games, I can provide an objective view of if they're good enough or bad enough to be in my "easy" category. It will just be a feeling that's irrelevant to this analysis of numbers not hockey knowledge and feelings. This analysis is about generalizations based on the most used stats. You have to draw the line somewhere when you do an analysis like this. Florida is definitely close to the line... you could make the argument that Kings should be there instead of Panthers, or Blues, or none of them. But it doesn't change the conclusion of the analysis. If you take out Panthers, we still have enough less "easy" games than both Dallas and Arizona to finish lower them, everything else equal.
  13. You say that in such a negative way... Let me reword that: this is the time of year tankers who believe the current team is not good enough to try to and ultimately fail to make the playoffs, therefore want to see as high of a pick as possible to speed up the inevitable rebuild process. If the team plays the young guys and they play good enough to win a bunch of games and we finish at the $&!#ty spot of just outside of playoffs, I wouldn't be upset at all because that shows that our young guys are that good! On the other hand, if the young guys lose the games, we get a higher pick and they have some valuable experience... so win/win in my view. The only "lose" option is if we stick too much with older guys that aren't gonna be around the rebuilt team in the future just so we get a small meaningless chance at making the playoffs.
  14. It always amazes me how so many people still believe in superstition. A lottery is pure luck, what has happened before or your gut feeling or the weather that day or... doesn't change the odds one bit. The only thing that does change the odds is where you finish in the standing. That's all you can (somewhat) control. This is of course unless you believe in conspiracy theories... As for some of the comments about the analysis being flawed, it's just what any predictive analysis is. You look at possible outcomes, hold various factors the same, and see what the most likely outcome is. It's not saying this will happen for sure, it's just saying it's the more likely outcome. A crappy hockey team has about 1/3 chance of beating a top hockey team (look at the top and bottom team's win/loss record of the previous seasons). So even though a team is above you in standing, doesn't mean that they will most likely beat you. What I tried to look at is how good these teams are, and how likely they are to play hard to either make playoffs or get better a playoff seed. The "easy" (hence the quotation marks) is just to note that. Based on this definition, and Coyotes and Canucks remaining schedule, and the fact that you can't really argue that Canucks are any better than Coyotes right now, everything else equal, the odds of Cayotes making up that 8 point difference is better than not covering it.
  15. Well yes looking at points alone, you're right. But that was the whole point of looking at schedule toughness. And Arizona's schedule is much much easier than us. Question will be if they can win enough of those "easy" games to make up the gap.