Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 I am loathe to create another lottery thread but I feel like this idea deserves its own thread. So far all the ideas I have seen for lottery changes are way too extreme about eliminating the "tank". A friend on HF sent me this idea yesterday and it is the only that I ever saw that IMO actually deserves consideration. It focuses less on preventing "tanking" and more on fairness. So here goes "I really like what they did to the draft lottery. For years I thought it was still too much in favour of the lower teams and it was stupid that only one ball was drawn and then the lottery was over. Also it made no sense that the 6th last overall team had worse odds than 5th but those odds were only to "win" and move up four spots. And as a Leafs fan, this is the year where I should be screaming bloody murder that they changed the odds on us just as we finally figured out how to ice a last overall team. But I realize it's for the greater good. Anyway, the only nagging concern I have with the draft lottery now is the repeat winners. I have no problem with there being repeat winners if they get really lucky - it's a lottery, after all, and luck has to play a part. But, winning a first overall pick doesn't in theory make you instantly better the following year. Even though a team has typically drafted a player capable of getting them out of the league basement, they don't typically get out of the basementimmediately, because no player can do that on his own at 18-19. So then they get another 1st-2nd overall pick that they don't necessarily "deserve". There needs to be a control in place to mitigate the possibility that a team stockpiles top picks. Here's what I would do: For the purposes of ranking teams for the draft lottery, take their point total from the season, and add to it as follows: To the teams that held the 1st, 2nd and 3rd overall picks the last year, add 7, 4, and 3 points. To the teams that held the top-3 picks the year before, add 5, 3 and 2 points. To the teams that held the top-3 picks the year before that, add 3, 2 and 1 points. To the team that held the 1st overall pick the year before that, add 1 points. Then with those points added in, you determine who now ranks as 30th, 29th, 28th, etc, and assign their odds accordingly. First tiebreaker is whoever had fewer points added to their total by the above rules will rank "higher" (lower in the draft). It's important that you do this not based on which team made the pick, but which team originally held the pick by virtue of their place in the standings and lottery result. If you trade the 2nd overall pick, you're assumedly getting a benefit of similar value. As an example, the bottom 14 this season are shaping up to look like this: Minnesota 91 Colorado 90 New Jersey 88 Carolina 86 Ottawa 83 Montreal 81 Arizona 78 Buffalo 78 Calgary 75 Winnipeg 75 Columbus 75 Vancouver 75 Toronto 73 Edmonton 70 So the draft odds would be determined in reverse order of this. But we'd then add to every team's total: 2015 draft: EDM 7, BUF 4, ARI 3 2014 draft: FLA 5, BUF 3, EDM 2 2013 draft: COL 3, FLA 2, TBY 1 2012 draft: EDM 1 The bottom 14 would then be: Minnesota 91 Colorado 93 New Jersey 88 Carolina 86 Buffalo 85 Ottawa 83 Montreal 81 Arizona 81 Edmonton 80 Calgary 75 Winnipeg 75 Columbus 75 Vancouver 75 Toronto 73 The draft odds are still based mostly on the most recent season's standings, slightly skewed in favour of teams that have not cashed in on high picks in past drafts. Keep in mind that this doesn't preclude a team like Edmonton from getting the best odds despite their incredible recent luck. If they managed to finish this season with 62 points or fewer, even with their "bonus" 10 they'd still have fewer than Toronto and you could reasonably make the case that they still "deserve" the best odds more than anyone else." http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=2051603&highlight= I maybe a bit biased as I really respect seventies and his contributions to the All Time Draft forum on HF. But I still think this is the best idea I have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 For the 3rd time it's fine the way it is, they just need to add a repeat tankers clause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Way too complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Gstank29 said: For the 3rd time it's fine the way it is, they just need to add a repeat tankers clause Guess you didn't bother to read as it specifically addresses the second part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Toews said: Guess you didn't bother to read as it specifically addresses the second part. I did read it but A its way too complicated B it just encourages team that are that have similar season as the Canucks to tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Neversummer said: Way too complicated. Why? We would know before hand how many extra points are to be added to each team's totals. Seems like a simpler idea than the one Doan suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gstank29 said: It just encourages team that are that have similar season as the Canucks to tank Why is this a problem? The Canucks deserve a top pick a lot more than a team like Buffalo or Edmonton. It's not about eliminating tanking as I already mentioned in the OP. It's about giving the best odds to the teams than haven't been accumulating top picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Lord Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 It's a great idea. Even though in some cases it might not end up being effective, it will never have a negative impact IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Toews said: Why is this a problem? The Canucks deserve a top pick a lot more than a team like Buffalo or Edmonton. It's not about eliminating tanking as I already mentioned in the OP. It's about giving the best odds to the teams than haven't been accumulating top picks. Do teams like LA who might have an offseason really need anything franchise piece to make there team even better? Bettman wants parity not a lopsided league with 5 dominate teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Gstank29 said: Do teams like LA who might have an offseason really need anything franchise piece to make there team even better? Bettman wants parity not a lopsided league with 5 dominate teams Are you sure you read the OP? Because the above has nothing to do with anything. LA would still have had one of the worst odds last year even with this system in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Toews said: Are you sure you read the OP? Because the above has nothing to do with anything. LA would still have had one of the worst odds last year even with this system in place. I said if they had a season like we did this year, same goes for any other team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Gstank29 said: I said if they had a season like we did this year, same goes for any other team If LA had a identical season to ours, then they are a bad team and they deserve to pick where they do. The only change this idea does is gives them the 2nd best odds rather than the 3rd best odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, Toews said: If LA had a identical season to ours, then they are a bad team and they deserve to pick where they do. The only change this idea does is gives them the 2nd best odds rather than the 3rd best odds. Umm no they won't. Imagine Quick gone for 4 months and Doughty gone for 2 months, boom they are in a similar position as us. Then next season they have Kopitar, Carter, Doughty, Quick and some other franchise type player. Is that really fair? What if it happens 2 times in 5 years? Would the league be balanced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 31 minutes ago, Toews said: I am loathe to create another lottery thread but I feel like this idea deserves its own thread. So far all the ideas I have seen for lottery changes are way too extreme about eliminating the "tank". A friend on HF sent me this idea yesterday and it is the only that I ever saw that IMO actually deserves consideration. It focuses less on preventing "tanking" and more on fairness. So here goes "I really like what they did to the draft lottery. For years I thought it was still too much in favour of the lower teams and it was stupid that only one ball was drawn and then the lottery was over. Also it made no sense that the 6th last overall team had worse odds than 5th but those odds were only to "win" and move up four spots. And as a Leafs fan, this is the year where I should be screaming bloody murder that they changed the odds on us just as we finally figured out how to ice a last overall team. But I realize it's for the greater good. Anyway, the only nagging concern I have with the draft lottery now is the repeat winners. I have no problem with there being repeat winners if they get really lucky - it's a lottery, after all, and luck has to play a part. But, winning a first overall pick doesn't in theory make you instantly better the following year. Even though a team has typically drafted a player capable of getting them out of the league basement, they don't typically get out of the basementimmediately, because no player can do that on his own at 18-19. So then they get another 1st-2nd overall pick that they don't necessarily "deserve". There needs to be a control in place to mitigate the possibility that a team stockpiles top picks. Here's what I would do: For the purposes of ranking teams for the draft lottery, take their point total from the season, and add to it as follows: To the teams that held the 1st, 2nd and 3rd overall picks the last year, add 7, 4, and 3 points. To the teams that held the top-3 picks the year before, add 5, 3 and 2 points. To the teams that held the top-3 picks the year before that, add 3, 2 and 1 points. To the team that held the 1st overall pick the year before that, add 1 points. Then with those points added in, you determine who now ranks as 30th, 29th, 28th, etc, and assign their odds accordingly. First tiebreaker is whoever had fewer points added to their total by the above rules will rank "higher" (lower in the draft). It's important that you do this not based on which team made the pick, but which team originally held the pick by virtue of their place in the standings and lottery result. If you trade the 2nd overall pick, you're assumedly getting a benefit of similar value. As an example, the bottom 14 this season are shaping up to look like this: Minnesota 91 Colorado 90 New Jersey 88 Carolina 86 Ottawa 83 Montreal 81 Arizona 78 Buffalo 78 Calgary 75 Winnipeg 75 Columbus 75 Vancouver 75 Toronto 73 Edmonton 70 So the draft odds would be determined in reverse order of this. But we'd then add to every team's total: 2015 draft: EDM 7, BUF 4, ARI 3 2014 draft: FLA 5, BUF 3, EDM 2 2013 draft: COL 3, FLA 2, TBY 1 2012 draft: EDM 1 The bottom 14 would then be: Minnesota 91 Colorado 93 New Jersey 88 Carolina 86 Buffalo 85 Ottawa 83 Montreal 81 Arizona 81 Edmonton 80 Calgary 75 Winnipeg 75 Columbus 75 Vancouver 75 Toronto 73 The draft odds are still based mostly on the most recent season's standings, slightly skewed in favour of teams that have not cashed in on high picks in past drafts. Keep in mind that this doesn't preclude a team like Edmonton from getting the best odds despite their incredible recent luck. If they managed to finish this season with 62 points or fewer, even with their "bonus" 10 they'd still have fewer than Toronto and you could reasonably make the case that they still "deserve" the best odds more than anyone else." http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=2051603&highlight= I maybe a bit biased as I really respect seventies and his contributions to the All Time Draft forum on HF. But I still think this is the best idea I have seen. How about something that is not like figuring out income tax? The teams that miss the playoffs ALL get EQUAL chance. Oh, but Alf that's just too simple. KISS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Gstank29 said: Umm no they won't. Imagine Quick gone for 4 months and Doughty gone for 2 months, boom they are in a similar position to us. Then next season they have Kopitar, Carter, Doughty, Quick and some other franchise type player. Is that really fair? What if it happens 2 times in 5 years? Would the league be balanced? How does the current system prevent what you are describing? Chicago loses Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa tanks and finishes in 30th place. The current system still gives them the best odds at a top pick. I think you are missing the point. 1 minute ago, Alflives said: How about something that is not like figuring out income tax? The teams that miss the playoffs ALL get EQUAL chance. Oh, but Alf that's just too simple. KISS. Simpler does not mean better. I do not think this idea is at all complicated and I am no genius. But I find that people just don't have the patience or the attention span to actually comprehend things that are slightly more complicated than 1+1=2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Toews said: How does the current system prevent what you are describing? Chicago loses Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa tanks and finishes in 30th place. The current system still gives them the best odds at a top pick. I think you are missing the point. The current system also has a 47.5% chance of them dropping out of the top 3 and a very high chance of them dropping at least one spot. This format doesn't have that variable and makes it much easier for teams to abuse it if they are in a bad position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 Just now, Gstank29 said: The current system also has a 47.5% chance of them dropping out of the top 3 and a very high chance of them dropping at least one spot. This format doesn't have that variable and makes it much easier for teams to abuse it if they are in a bad position You should really read posts instead of skimming through them. This idea is to be used in addition to the lottery not as a replacement to the lottery. After the extra points are added, a lottery is still held. The only impact this system has is it affects Edmonton, Buffalo and Arizona's lottery odds. I consider that a good thing. Edmonton currently is slated to have a top 5 pick, add 10 points to their total and they will be picking closer to 10 or 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Well it just deleted my long post in response........ Coles Note Form -You need a bigger sample size -Its 3x the headache -It would reward mediocre teams -the bottom 5 teams should have a higher chance at picking top end talent -With this system rebuilds could take even longer and divide between the good and the bad could get bigger -The bottom 5 is mostly the same every year, so with this system they would be moving up and up the pre lottery draft rankings, allowing better teams to aquire higher picks and the worst teams in the league wouldn't get better @Toews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, Gstank29 said: Well it just deleted my long post in response........ Coles Note Form -You need a bigger sample size -Its 3x the headache -It would reward mediocre teams -the bottom 5 teams should have a higher chance at picking top end talent -With this system rebuilds could take even longer and divide between the good and the bad could get bigger -The bottom 5 is mostly the same every year, so with this system they would be moving up and up the pre lottery draft rankings, allowing better teams to aquire higher picks and the worst teams in the league wouldn't get better @Toews I don't think it is rewarding the mediocre teams as much as punishing teams like Edmonton and Buffalo. Does Edmonton and Buffalo need a guy like Matthews? Those teams already have Eichel, McDavid, Reinhart and Draisatl. Meanwhile a team like Columbus has nowhere close to the quality of those forwards yet has worse odds than Edmonton. They had their opportunities to draft at the top of the draft, now they should give other teams those opportunities. They will still draft a good player wherever they pick. They need to supplement those top picks with good but not necessarily great players. Let Matthews end up in a place like Vancouver which desperately needs a star player of that quality. The fans in Vancouver would appreciate Matthews a lot more than the teams that keep drafting at the top of the draft and keep collecting stars as a result. It's also in the league's best interests to spread out the top talent rather than let it all accumulate with a couple of teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 54 minutes ago, Toews said: How does the current system prevent what you are describing? Chicago loses Toews, Kane, Keith, Hossa tanks and finishes in 30th place. The current system still gives them the best odds at a top pick. I think you are missing the point. Simpler does not mean better. I do not think this idea is at all complicated and I am no genius. But I find that people just don't have the patience or the attention span to actually comprehend things that are slightly more complicated than 1+1=2. Your proposed system is an improvement over what is currently used, but if each team that misses the playoffs gets an equal chance to be either first or fourteenth, that just seems super fair. Plus, there is no incentive to tank. Sometimes 1+1=2 is the best option. ps. Alf believes you to be very bright indeed. We may disagree A Lot, but I do have respect for what you say, and how you say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.