Baggins Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I think it should go the other way. Only the bottom 10 teams in the lottery. You just miss the playoffs you shouldn't be in the lottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I just wish they'd put a limit on the amount of times a team can win a pick in a time period. A limit of one 1OA in 3-4 years, one 2OA in 3-4 years, one 3OA in 3-4 years. That sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, Coconuts said: I just wish they'd put a limit on the amount of times a team can win a pick in a time period. A limit of one 1OA in 3-4 years, one 2OA in 3-4 years, one 3OA in 3-4 years. That sort of thing. that was included in my plan, no tanking, teams would need to tank 3 to 5 years and they still would not get more than 1 first overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 1 minute ago, TheGuardian_ said: that was included in my plan, no tanking, teams would need to tank 3 to 5 years and they still would not get more than 1 first overall I'm open to just about any idea that stops Edmonton from having a monopoly on top three picks tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Or we can just scrap the draft lottery. Then have a snake draft. So the worst team gets 1st. But in round two they don't pick until 62 Then round 3, they pick 63. This way the Stanley Cup winning team gets last pick of the first round, and the first pick of the second round. Because the draft lottery is doing nothing to stop tanking. And this does give contenders a chance to have a decent 2nd and 4th round pick. I see your change and change it to be even simpler. Teams pick from regular season worst to first every round. Doesn't matter what you do in the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, Heretic said: I see your change and change it to be even simpler. Teams pick from regular season worst to first every round. Doesn't matter what you do in the play offs. Doesn't prevent tanking actually encourages bigger tank jobs, my method prevents a intentional one season tank the entire firt round coud be based on the previous 3 to 5 years with special circumstances for playoff teams. Right now even more teams are tanking to get better odds, look att he last few drafts how late teams move up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 51 minutes ago, Heretic said: I see your change and change it to be even simpler. Teams pick from regular season worst to first every round. Doesn't matter what you do in the play offs. The snake draft helps prevent tanking. Because GM's and scouts have to think, plan and strategize. It also really changes demand on 2nd round picks. I don't think it will lead to dynasties. Just good teams will still get a good 2nd round pick to help keep things going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeMac Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 The best thing the new draft system accomplishes is to make tanking pointless. But I agree it is still flawed, maybe Ive seen the Canucks get screwed too many years in a row now.. Im not sure. I have another system in mind, Ill elaborate. A variable lottery system based off of all teams who missed the playoffs win percentage. The worse a team is, against the league avg, increases their chance of winning the pick or vice versa. Essentially youd get a pie and slice it 16 equitable ways based off each teams performance. Yes, teams could tank to increase their percentage. But when you run the numbers against 16 other teams the percentage gains arent enough to outweigh the negatives of tanking. Other teams could also tank which would work to even the odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 57 minutes ago, TreeMac said: The best thing the new draft system accomplishes is to make tanking pointless. But I agree it is still flawed, maybe Ive seen the Canucks get screwed too many years in a row now.. Im not sure. I have another system in mind, Ill elaborate. A variable lottery system based off of all teams who missed the playoffs win percentage. The worse a team is, against the league avg, increases their chance of winning the pick or vice versa. Essentially youd get a pie and slice it 16 equitable ways based off each teams performance. Yes, teams could tank to increase their percentage. But when you run the numbers against 16 other teams the percentage gains arent enough to outweigh the negatives of tanking. Other teams could also tank which would work to even the odds. Exactly. That's why I don't care if teams tank or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 4 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said: I came up with a full proof draft system that prevents tanking, multiple #1 overalls, helps the truly needy teams, is simple and transparent. It also takes into account teams that are not spending to the cap and just really badly run. Basically it has to do with the first round only, can be either the bottom 3 to 5 picks, uses multiple years in the standings, no single season tanking for an advantage of top 3 to 5 selections even for the bottom 3 to 5 teams, rotates #1 overall so no team can get that pick more than once every 3 to 5 years, takes into account a team that makes the playoffs or is a bottom feeder longer than 3 to 5 years and bumps the next worst up to the 3 to 5 lottery. The remainder of the rounds are by current standings. A team getting a the number one overall might be determined by the other two teams that are the worst in the league for the same time period, if the same bottom three team for three years each would end up with a #1, 2 & 3 then the #4 (or 5 & 6 if the same 3 bottom team for three years) team bumps a team out of the bottom three lottery, Bottom three lottery teams could be known before the TDL every year and teams could build around foreknowledge of draft position, other teams would/could be more encouraged to make trades knowing their likely drat position, they could set a value. I had all the possibilities mapped out but unfortunately the thread was erased because it was basically in the wrong forum and already there was content similar. As an example Vancouver, Buffalo and Arizona would be the bottom three teams in a lottery for #1 overall but Buffalo would be exempt from #1 because they got one last draft so Arizona and Vancouver would essentially be inn a two team lottery for #1 with Buffalo being in a two team lottery for #2, because they already, not team can be bottom three lottery for more than three years. Sounds interesting but the question arises as to why the line is drawn at the bottom three teams as opposed to the bottom five, bottom seven, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 6 hours ago, BlastPast said: Uhh, relative advantage does take into account absolute advantage, that's how you come to the number. Relative is a function of the absolute. Who cares if the absolute is 2 or 3 or 10, it's the relative that shows how big the advantage actually is. Because a 50% relative advantage could be either 1.5% vs 1% (0.5% absolute difference) or 75% vs 50% (25% absolute difference). Very different interpretations would follow from the 'same' relative advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said: Because a 50% relative advantage could be either 1.5% vs 1% (0.5% absolute difference) or 75% vs 50% (25% absolute difference). Very different interpretations would follow from the 'same' relative advantage. Yeah half of 10 is 5 and half of 100 is 50 . so ? Very different interpretations? Like what? Relative advantage is all that matters. You can't see the diff. between 1% vs 11% and 39% vs. 49% ? Both have 10% absolute advantage but if you think both are equal advantages I don't know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Where's Wellwood Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 hours ago, BlastPast said: Yeah half of 10 is 5 and half of 100 is 50 . so ? Very different interpretations? Like what? Relative advantage is all that matters. You can't see the diff. between 1% vs 11% and 39% vs. 49% ? Both have 10% absolute advantage but if you think both are equal advantages I don't know what to say. Speaking from a health profession background, whenever relative rates are brought up, we should always clarify the expected absolute change as well. Yes, the relative advantage in your model may seem consequential but the absolute 2.5% difference between last and 15th in a one and done lottery is miniscule. That's currently the difference between the 30th and 29th or 29th and 28th place teams and you'd potentially be spreading that out over every non-playoff team. Your model equalizes the differences in odds for two roughly equal teams but in doing so makes the team that just missed the playoffs have odds far too close to the genuinely terrible teams. The relative advantage may still seem large but there'd be almost no practical advantage for the bad teams that need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 This should be in the armchairing forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyHarry Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 18 hours ago, Baggins said: I think it should go the other way. Only the bottom 10 teams in the lottery. You just miss the playoffs you shouldn't be in the lottery. I think every team should be in the lottery, just with different odds according to where you place at end of season. Just like the Crosby walkout season draft. Lottery system is the fairest system for the draft, and I’m on team tank have been all season. I just want and hope for the odds of picking high are in Canucks favor this draft. So JB can choose his guy he wants , not a player that’s lower on JBs list. some day Canucks will be at the top of the league again and I’m greedy so I would also like a lottery pick regardless even if it slime odds. Last place team gets 31 balls in lotto machine top team gets just 1..... It’s simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 13 hours ago, Kevin Biestra said: Sounds interesting but the question arises as to why the line is drawn at the bottom three teams as opposed to the bottom five, bottom seven, etc. That is the beauty of the system, it can be whatever you want but the first round is always based on three or more seasonal positions in the standings, playoff appearance, number of top 3 or 5 picks, truly to go to any more than 5 will handcuff needy teams too much and too long. If they have been that bad for that long they really need the help, if a team lets say for a three year and top 3 selection, was bad for 3 years in a row the best they could get would be one 1rst, one 2nd and one third picks over 3 years, the assumption being player that good would pull them out of the competition for the bottom three and if they were still bottom three then the #4 team bumps them out for the top 3 lottery and the 2nd round reverts to the present seasons standings for the rest of the draft. Tanking by multiple team would get nothing special top 3 or 4 picks. No tanking for one year to get a McDavid, Mathews, Eichel or Dahlin. And if the team was running less than 80% of cap max there opportunity could/would be reduced by a year's lottery opportunity. As an example, Arizona, Buffalo and Vancouver have been the worst teams over the last 3 years so they would be the three teams in the lottery for the top 3 picks, Buffalo, because they got a #1 overall last year are bumped from that lottery, Arizona and Vancouver would essentially flip a coin and get the #1 overall, then whoever lost would do the #2 lottery with Buffalo and top 3 are done, the next draft would be similar with the previous year's loser being awarded the #1 etc... each year in the bottom three is like seniority, three years at the bottom awards the #1 if that team hasn't had one yet, if they have they can only get a 1,2,3 once over a three year period and then they get bumped by the #4 worst team over the previous three seasons. It is possible no three teams will ever be the same once the system is in it's second draft. While it looks complicated it can be worked down to a simple number system where requirements are given numerical value, maybe even to the point of not needing a lottery but keeping the lottery would still work and give the NHL something to sell. It should open up trading a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlastPast Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 10 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said: Speaking from a health profession background, whenever relative rates are brought up, we should always clarify the expected absolute change as well. Yes, the relative advantage in your model may seem consequential but the absolute 2.5% difference between last and 15th in a one and done lottery is miniscule. That's currently the difference between the 30th and 29th or 29th and 28th place teams and you'd potentially be spreading that out over every non-playoff team. Your model equalizes the differences in odds for two roughly equal teams but in doing so makes the team that just missed the playoffs have odds far too close to the genuinely terrible teams. The relative advantage may still seem large but there'd be almost no practical advantage for the bad teams that need help. Speaking from a poker professional background , when looking at how consequential an odds advantage is the relative advantage tells me a lot more about the scale of the advantage. If I'm looking at an all-in situation and I have the choice of two scenarios where I'm bound to concede a ten percent (absolute) difference in equity to an opponent and the scenarios are (disregarding other all-in players) : 1) 1% vs. 11% or 2) 30% vs 40% it doesn't take a lot of analysis to see which is less disadvantageous for me. As for the fairness,we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that if a team is twice as bad they should get 2X the odds, no more or less. Although this method does give them the benefit of dropping 1 spot max. so last place teams no longer have an almost 50% chance of picking fourth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mephnick Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I'd rather just give the bottom 5 teams an equal 20% chance to move to 1OA and no one else moves position. Bad teams get better, but the worst team doesn't automatically get it. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 14 hours ago, mephnick said: I'd rather just give the bottom 5 teams an equal 20% chance to move to 1OA and no one else moves position. Bad teams get better, but the worst team doesn't automatically get it. Simple. Far better option than the OP, IMO. You don't have to have double the point to be considered twice as good as another team. There are too many factors in play. Teams that are close to the playoffs should not have anywhere near the same odds as a true bottom feeder, especially in the garbage point system we have now with shootouts. If we had three point for regulation time wins, the OP plan might make more sense as I suspect the point impact would better reflect the respective quality of the teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Pre lottery and the current lottery are just fine. You just can't please everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.