roomtemp Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roomtemp Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) 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 August 20, 2014 by roomtemp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Hey everything's working okay? Let's change it. The NHL way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) 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 August 20, 2014 by DevsMan84 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) 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 August 21, 2014 by squishyx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 you want to end tanking, relegate the worst 2 teams to the AHL, and bring up the 2 AHL finalists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTCB Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) 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 August 21, 2014 by LOTCB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.