Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
roomtemp

Changes to the draft lottery

20 posts in this topic

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=459859

 

Its a two year change

New odds (old odds)

1. 20.0% (25.0%)


2. 13.5% (18.8%)


3. 11.5% (14.2%)


4. 9.5% (10.7%)


5. 8.5% (8.1%)


6. 7.5% (6.2%)


7. 6.5% (4.7%)


8. 6.0% (3.6%)


9. 5.0% (2.7%)


10. 3.5% (2.1%)


11. 3.0% (1.5%)


12. 2.5% (1.1%)


13. 2.0% (0.8%)


14. 1.0% (0.5%)

 

And in 2016 it'll be for the top 3 picks. This just feels like an overreaction to some perceived problem that isn't running rampant in the NHL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh it works both ways really.  I mean it forces a team to lessen the likelyhood of tanking for generational talents but on the other side if a team truly is bad, then that would suck where in 2016 you get the #4 pick in a weak draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh it works both ways really.  I mean it forces a team to lessen the likelyhood of tanking for generational talents but on the other side if a team truly is bad, then that would suck where in 2016 you get the #4 pick in a weak draft.

Also increases the conspiracy theory possibilities where a Penguins team with a few key injuries falters to a 8th or 9th worst record and get a 1st or even 2nd pick with a Tarvares or even better quality player at the top. I say just let the chips fall where they may but I don't run a sports league

 

This is what the NBA has gotten since the last time the worst team (25% chance better then what the NHL is going to have) won the top pick

 

2005) 6th worst

2006)5th

2007) 6th

2008) 9th

2009)2nd

2010) 5th

2011) 8th

2012) 3rd

2013) 3rd

2014) 9th

 

idk if that is better then the worst team getting the top pick

Edited by roomtemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everything's working okay? Let's change it. The NHL way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh it's not a big deal IMO either way, although I will say that it's suspicious that this "experiment" is starting in a year when there's supposedly two generational talents coming in.

I like the fact that they're trying to prevent tanking but you don't want to go too far in the other direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh it's not a big deal IMO either way, although I will say that it's suspicious that this "experiment" is starting in a year when there's supposedly two generational talents coming in.

I like the fact that they're trying to prevent tanking but you don't want to go too far in the other direction.

 

Edit: Nevermind

Edited by DevsMan84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everything's working okay? Let's change it. The NHL way.

 

They already changed how the draft lottery works before - that if you win you move up to be #1.   

 

Now the GMs aren't the brightest but what they can see is that the NHL basically had 30 years of zombie franchises and/or expansion teams.  These teams would usually finish last by a dreadful amount and there'd be no accusation of tanking because how could they not lose a billion games?  There's an exception for the 84 Penguins, of course, who had to intentionally be awful just to compete with how terrible the 1984 Devils were.  Well with salary cap floors and no expansion teams, that's mostly all done with - who finishes last overall is largely a matter of (bad) luck.  Occasionally you get a team like the Oilers who are really terrible, but I don't see anything like that coming on the horizon for anyone - even the Sabres, who were dreadful last year, should probably be better this year - they started off with a horrendous coach and terrible players, and they've upgraded a lot of those players.

 

What the NHL wants to forestall is a race to the bottom, where 2 teams see that they're going to be the ones who finish worst, and try to outdo one another with losing.  They're a little lucky that they haven't really been in this spot much the last few years, but it's bound to happen some year, and it looks horrible.  At the very least, these changes reward that sort of behavior less.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already changed how the draft lottery works before - that if you win you move up to be #1.

Now the GMs aren't the brightest but what they can see is that the NHL basically had 30 years of zombie franchises and/or expansion teams. These teams would usually finish last by a dreadful amount and there'd be no accusation of tanking because how could they not lose a billion games? There's an exception for the 84 Penguins, of course, who had to intentionally be awful just to compete with how terrible the 1984 Devils were. Well with salary cap floors and no expansion teams, that's mostly all done with - who finishes last overall is largely a matter of (bad) luck. Occasionally you get a team like the Oilers who are really terrible, but I don't see anything like that coming on the horizon for anyone - even the Sabres, who were dreadful last year, should probably be better this year - they started off with a horrendous coach and terrible players, and they've upgraded a lot of those players.

What the NHL wants to forestall is a race to the bottom, where 2 teams see that they're going to be the ones who finish worst, and try to outdo one another with losing. They're a little lucky that they haven't really been in this spot much the last few years, but it's bound to happen some year, and it looks horrible. At the very least, these changes reward that sort of behavior less.

Yeah, but the flip side is that there's a better shot that a so-so team, or even a good team that had a key injury or two moves up to 2 or 3.

I liked the old system, where the best you could do was move up four spots.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the flip side is that there's a better shot that a so-so team, or even a good team that had a key injury or two moves up to 2 or 3.

I liked the old system, where the best you could do was move up four spots.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Sure, but that team's only down there for a year - whatever.  

 

The old system implicitly encourages losing in the fashion that the Oilers did.  The Oilers took a very long time to actually tank, but they did get there eventually.  And the other thing is that with so many #1 overalls playing for the same team, it also damages other franchises' ability to bring in star talent through the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this change, didn't even know it's on their radar. I've always hated how you could secure yourself a better draft position by losing, it presents teams with a potential conflict of interest. This is a pretty good compromise between helping the teams who need it the most and just doing a complete random draft for the 14 teams on the outside.


I liked the old system, where the best you could do was move up four spots.

You liked the system where finishing last netted you a 75% to retain the number 1 pick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You liked the system where finishing last netted you a 75% to retain the number 1 pick?

 

According to this, finishing last gave you a 48.2 percent chance of picking first, at least in 2011. 

 

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=558177

 

I don't have a huge problem with that much of a chance for the number 1 pick, since it's a guarantee that a good team that happened to have a bad year will under no circumstances land someone like a McDavid or even an Eichel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this, finishing last gave you a 48.2 percent chance of picking first, at least in 2011. 

 

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=558177

 

I don't have a huge problem with that much of a chance for the number 1 pick, since it's a guarantee that a good team that happened to have a bad year will under no circumstances land someone like a McDavid or even an Eichel. 

 

No, it's not.  That's the point.  You get a few injuries, your team shoots like garbage, and your goalie sucks - you can finish way down there.  Philadelphia did in 2007.  Right now everyone is picking out Buffalo, but try this:  name 4 teams right now, see if you can pick any team that finishes in the bottom 2.  I bet you are even money to not get any teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not.  That's the point.  You get a few injuries, your team shoots like garbage, and your goalie sucks - you can finish way down there.  Philadelphia did in 2007.  Right now everyone is picking out Buffalo, but try this:  name 4 teams right now, see if you can pick any team that finishes in the bottom 2.  I bet you are even money to not get any teams.

 

We'll go back and see:  I'll predict Florida, Buffalo, Calgary and Carolina.  I'll bet you one dollar.

 

Otherwise, if you want to split hairs, whatever.  The point is, is that I liked a system where there are fewer teams in the running for the number 1 overall.  I'm not losing any sleep over it one way or another though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not. That's the point. You get a few injuries, your team shoots like garbage, and your goalie sucks - you can finish way down there. Philadelphia did in 2007. Right now everyone is picking out Buffalo, but try this: name 4 teams right now, see if you can pick any team that finishes in the bottom 2. I bet you are even money to not get any teams.

Buffalo, Calgary, Carolina, Arizona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this, finishing last gave you a 48.2 percent chance of picking first, at least in 2011. 

 

http://oilers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=558177

 

I don't have a huge problem with that much of a chance for the number 1 pick, since it's a guarantee that a good team that happened to have a bad year will under no circumstances land someone like a McDavid or even an Eichel. 

Doh, apologies you are  correct on the total percent.

Still, wrt to the "good team/bad year landing a super star" concern, I would rather there be a random chance of that occurring (even if it's more likely, it's harder for a team to shoot for it), then a pretty heavy mathematical advantage to tanking. In the old and current system you are still guaranteed to finish no worse then second. I say re-seed all non playoff teams with those new tables for the first round, but this change is pretty good too.

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you want to end tanking, relegate the worst 2 teams to the AHL, and bring up the 2 AHL finalists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you want to end tanking, relegate the worst 2 teams to the AHL, and bring up the 2 AHL finalists...

I guess this is a Swiftian modest proposal, but I think the PA would just have a wee bit of hesitation. 

 

As Tri has noted, tanking rarely happens, and when it does, there is usually more than one team that's trying to do it.  A lottery of some sort prevents it from being that effective a strategy even on its own terms.  The salary floor also helps.  You'll always need a few veterans that you'll have to pay a decent piece of coin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1999: Bret Hull in the crease: Bettman quickly changes the crease rule 72 hrs AFTER the game...72 hours folks...to save face, amazing to see this league work so quickly.

 

Buffalo now might have a great chance at Eichel or McDavid or heck even BOTH if the Islanders tank it, what does Bettman do? Let's decrease the chances.

 

If one of his beloved 'NBC Six' (Rangers, Blackhawks, Red Wings, Flyers, Pens, and Bruins) were in this situation, I would bet almost ANYTHING this does NOT get changed.

 

Why the sudden need Gary?

 

Nothing to see here. I am used to his hate.

Edited by LOTCB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you want to end tanking, relegate the worst 2 teams to the AHL, and bring up the 2 AHL finalists...

This country will be long gone before regulation ever has a chance of happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This country will be long gone before regulation ever has a chance of happening here.

 

I agree and I think the gap between the NHL and AHL in terms of quality is much greater than that of the EPL and the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0