Jump to content

Photo

Changes to the draft lottery


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 roomtemp

roomtemp

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:22 PM

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


  • 0

#2 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:32 PM

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.


  • 0

#3 roomtemp

roomtemp

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:36 PM

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, 20 August 2014 - 03:37 PM.

  • 0

#4 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,747 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:42 PM

Hey everything's working okay? Let's change it. The NHL way.
  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#5 dmann422

dmann422

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,603 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 03:48 PM

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.
  • 0

#6 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:24 PM

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, 20 August 2014 - 04:28 PM.

  • 0

#7 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,906 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 05:18 PM

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.  


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#8 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 07:31 PM

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
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#9 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,906 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 09:50 PM

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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#10 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 08:50 AM

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?


  • 0

#11 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:06 AM

 


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.co...s.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. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#12 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,906 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:38 AM

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

 

http://oilers.nhl.co...s.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.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#13 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:49 AM

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. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#14 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,885 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:49 AM

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
  • 0

#15 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:11 PM

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

 

http://oilers.nhl.co...s.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, 21 August 2014 - 02:13 PM.

  • 0

#16 redruM

redruM

    Hockey God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,516 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:38 PM

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


  • 0
Posted Image

2006 Pat Burns Award Winner(Most emotional Poster)
2006 JHL CHAMPION!!
2005 CHAMPION of the 1st Annual NJDevs Fantasy Wrestling League!!!
2005 Finalist 1st Annual NJDEVS Fantasy Baseball League
2005 Pat Burns Award Winner(Most emotional Poster)
2004 LockOut Trivia CHAMP!!!


Keeper of The original Welcome to Hell Forum, Jimmy Dowd, Brian Rolston, "Christmas Tree" Jersey's and the Original Trade Documents of the FREEZE man!!


BOM U11G Dynamite

Posted Image

#17 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,893 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 02:51 PM

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. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#18 LOTCB

LOTCB

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,977 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 03:23 PM

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, 21 August 2014 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

Tim Murray (Buffalo Sabres GM) Quotes:  'It's Easy To Spend Money' "I’ve said at the start that if you don’t want to be here we’ll make it happen'

“We’re more competitive. We’ve got a lot of character now. We have leadership now. That’s important to me when you’re adding young players every year"

 

Truly, The Anti-Regier


#19 Satans Hockey

Satans Hockey

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,249 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 01:06 PM

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.
  • 0

#20 DevsMan84

DevsMan84

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 01:29 PM

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.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users