WordsOfWisdom Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 THE PROPOSALFor every team that makes the playoffs, one ball in the machine.For every team that misses the playoffs, two balls in the machine.Televise the event.Count from 30th up to 1st. PROSEliminates tankingPrevents #1 draft pick stackingTeams that try for the playoffs and just miss (ie: Leafs) are not punished for doing soFairStatistical balance over time CONS... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Cons? The Stanley Cup champs get Connor McDavid? The draft is supposed to help the bad teams get better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Cons? The Stanley Cup champs get Connor McDavid? The draft is supposed to help the bad teams get better. The bad teams would have better odds of winning, but the separation between "good" and "bad" would be "playoff" or "non-playoff", you wouldn't get any benefit from finishing 30th for example. I know I'm in a minority, but I'm perfectly okay with the defending Stanley Cup champs getting the #1 draft pick. It's highly unlikely, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It would all even out over time. I'd rather see Connor McDavid playing on the Kings than playing on the Oilers. Plus, with a salary cap, teams can't be stacked anymore. There are no dynasties in the NHL today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Fascinating... It would have to heavily weighted in favor of the teams missing the playoffs. Say 4 balls for the worst 7 teams, 3 Balls for the next 7 worst teams (that totals to 14 for the non playoff teams), then 2 balls for the 8 teams out in the 1st and 2nd rounds, then 1 ball for exiting in the 3rd and 4th rounds except the Stanley Cup champions who get none (the small price paid by winning it all). That's a total of 62 balls. It weighs more heavily in the bad teams getting the top pick or even a few teams getting multiple 1st rounders. Out of 62 balls, only 3 balls would go to the 3rd and 4th round exits (again, none for the champs), and only 12 for the 1st and 2nd round exits, leaving 47 balls for the non playoff teams... (note, my balls might be off there because I didn't chart it out but you bet the idea, and yes, I just said that!) I say you go through all 62 balls because that accounts for close to the 1st and 2nd rounds. Heck you could modify it to go all the way through the first 3 rounds by changing the ratio of balls and have 90 balls total. It takes allot of balls to go three rounds. Or, we could just keep it the same.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 OK, so here's a scenario, though an unlikely one. ..two years from now the Leafs finally make it to the Stanley Cup finals...you'd be ok if their opponent was the defending champ Los Angeles Kings who now have Connor McDavid AND the first overall pick from the 2016 draft on their team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 Fascinating... It would have to heavily weighted in favor of the teams missing the playoffs. Say 4 balls for the worst 7 teams, 3 Balls for the next 7 worst teams (that totals to 14 for the non playoff teams), then 2 balls for the 8 teams out in the 1st and 2nd rounds, then 1 ball for exiting in the 3rd and 4th rounds except the Stanley Cup champions who get none (the small price paid by winning it all). That's a total of 62 balls. It weighs more heavily in the bad teams getting the top pick or even a few teams getting multiple 1st rounders. Out of 62 balls, only 3 balls would go to the 3rd and 4th round exits (again, none for the champs), and only 12 for the 1st and 2nd round exits, leaving 47 balls for the non playoff teams... (note, my balls might be off there because I didn't chart it out but you bet the idea, and yes, I just said that!) I say you go through all 62 balls because that accounts for close to the 1st and 2nd rounds. Heck you could modify it to go all the way through the first 3 rounds by changing the ratio of balls and have 90 balls total. It takes allot of balls to go three rounds. Or, we could just keep it the same.... Now I can't stop laughing whenever you say the word balls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 OK, so here's a scenario, though an unlikely one. ..two years from now the Leafs finally make it to the Stanley Cup finals...you'd be ok if their opponent was the defending champ Los Angeles Kings who now have Connor McDavid AND the first overall pick from the 2016 draft on their team? Fine by me. They have 20 players, 60 minutes of ice time to share, and 1 puck to go around. Someone is going to be on the bench and someone won't fit under their salary cap. They would have to shed star players. People always look at worst case scenarios. If you look at the standings today, and assume the same team placement every year, the #1 pick in a two-tiered draft system like I'm proposing would unfold something like this: year 1: Devilsyear 2: Wildyear 3: Canucksyear 4: Sabresyear 5: Red wingsyear 6: Flyersyear 7: Coyotesyear 8: Kings etc... For every 2 times that one of the 14 non-playoff teams win, one of the 16 playoff teams wins once. (Roughly.) Non-playoff teams have a ~4.5% chance of winning.Playoff teams have a ~2.3% chance of winning. You could also tweak it to have 3 balls for the non-playoff teams and 1 ball for the playoff teams, but I wouldn't go any higher than that. (As my preference.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Interesting. But I really don't like it. I prefer the deliberate attempt to jump start a bad team and the ebb and flow of strong teams over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Fine by me. You say that now. I live in Ontario too. It's been 22 years since the Gretzky/Gilmour incident and you guys still aren't over it. Imagine if that was the finals? They have 20 players, 60 minutes of ice time to share, and 1 puck to go around. Someone is going to be on the bench and someone won't fit under their salary cap. They would have to shed star players. During the ELC years they would likely have to shed 4th liners. Thats the part I hate...a chmpion getting high quality talent on the cheap. People always look at worst case scenarios. If you look at the standings today, and assume the same team placement every year, the #1 pick in a two-tiered draft system like I'm proposing would unfold something like this: year 1: Devils So the Devils get McDavid? Thats even worse! year 2: Wildyear 3: Canucksyear 4: Sabresyear 5: Red wingsyear 6: Flyersyear 7: Coyotesyear 8: Kings etc... For every 2 times that one of the 14 non-playoff teams win, one of the 16 playoff teams wins once. (Roughly.) Non-playoff teams have a ~4.5% chance of winning.Playoff teams have a ~2.3% chance of winning. You could also tweak it to have 3 balls for the non-playoff teams and 1 ball for the playoff teams, but I wouldn't go any higher than that. (As my preference.) I hate the thought of Edmonton picking first or even near first again. If you want to ban teams from picking top 5 more than 2 or 3 times in a 10 year span or something to that effect, I'm in. But a cup champion should NEVER get the first overall draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 THE PROPOSALFor every team that makes the playoffs, one ball in the machine.For every team that misses the playoffs, two balls in the machine.Televise the event.Count from 30th up to 1st. PROSEliminates tankingPrevents #1 draft pick stackingTeams that try for the playoffs and just miss (ie: Leafs) are not punished for doing soFairStatistical balance over time CONS... ? That last teams to "tank" were the 1983-84 Pens and Devils (for obvious reasons). Do we really need to revise a lottery system that already does not guarantee the worst team the #1 pick because of something that hasn't happened in 30 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 How about one small ammendment: The Stanley Cup champion can't get the #1 overall pick. The highest they can possibly draft is #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 That last teams to "tank" were the 1983-84 Pens and Devils (for obvious reasons). Do we really need to revise a lottery system that already does not guarantee the worst team the #1 pick because of something that hasn't happened in 30 years? The only problem I have with the current system is that the 30th place team still has the best odds of drafting #1, which means there is incentive to finish last. It's not absolute of course. Finishing 30th doesn't guarantee the #1 pick, but it's something like a 30% chance where the next closest team is maybe 15% or something. So if you're 27th, 28th, or 29th in the standings, you're going to make an effort to get to 30th one way or another. It is in your best interests to be dead last, and that affects the integrity of the playoff races late in the season. If teams 17-30 all had the same chance of drafting #1, the problem of tanking (or even the suspicion of tanking) goes away forever. It becomes a dead issue because it is mathematically impossible to tank. There would never again be a story about tanking and the integrity of the sport is guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The only problem I have with the current system is that the 30th place team still has the best odds of drafting #1, which means there is incentive to finish last. It's not absolute of course. Finishing 30th doesn't guarantee the #1 pick, but it's something like a 30% chance where the next closest team is maybe 15% or something. So if you're 27th, 28th, or 29th in the standings, you're going to make an effort to get to 30th one way or another. It is in your best interests to be dead last, and that affects the integrity of the playoff races late in the season. If teams 17-30 all had the same chance of drafting #1, the problem of tanking (or even the suspicion of tanking) goes away forever. It becomes a dead issue because it is mathematically impossible to tank. There would never again be a story about tanking and the integrity of the sport is guaranteed. The percentages are actually closer. From the 2014 draft.... 1st - 25.0% - Buffalo Sabres2nd - 18.8% - Florida Panthers3rd - 14.2% - Edmonton Oilers4th - 10.7% - Calgary Flames5th - 8.1% - NY Islanders6th - 6.2% - Vancouver Canucks7th - 4.7% - Carolina Hurricanes8th - 3.6% - Toronto Maple Leafs9th - 2.7% - Winnipeg Jets10th - 2.1% - Anaheim Ducks (via Ottawa)11th - 1.5% - New Jersey Devils12th - 1.1% - Nashville Predators13th - 0.8% - Phoenix Coyotes14th - 0.5% - Washington Capitals As for the integrity issue - I just don't see one. Yes - there is an "incentive" to finish dead last...if you consider increasing your chances for #1 overall by 6% an incentive. I don't see a team tanking for that 6%. And again - we are talking about something that hasn't happened in 30 years. I know fans love to think that the Pens tanked for Crosby or that the Sabres are tanking for McDavid this year but that simply isn't the case. It's rare you see anything from the media on that topic. There will always be that "suspicion" of tanking (usually from idiot fans - yourself NOT included) but....someone has to finish last, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 The percentages are actually closer. From the 2014 draft.... 1st - 25.0% - Buffalo Sabres2nd - 18.8% - Florida Panthers3rd - 14.2% - Edmonton Oilers4th - 10.7% - Calgary Flames5th - 8.1% - NY Islanders6th - 6.2% - Vancouver Canucks7th - 4.7% - Carolina Hurricanes8th - 3.6% - Toronto Maple Leafs9th - 2.7% - Winnipeg Jets10th - 2.1% - Anaheim Ducks (via Ottawa)11th - 1.5% - New Jersey Devils12th - 1.1% - Nashville Predators13th - 0.8% - Phoenix Coyotes14th - 0.5% - Washington Capitals As for the integrity issue - I just don't see one. Yes - there is an "incentive" to finish dead last...if you consider increasing your chances for #1 overall by 6% an incentive. I don't see a team tanking for that 6%. And again - we are talking about something that hasn't happened in 30 years. I know fans love to think that the Pens tanked for Crosby or that the Sabres are tanking for McDavid this year but that simply isn't the case. It's rare you see anything from the media on that topic. There will always be that "suspicion" of tanking (usually from idiot fans - yourself NOT included) but....someone has to finish last, no? 6% is huge. The Leafs are a perfect example of how the current system is flawed (in my opinion). Every year they finish 9th or 10th in the conference standings and they have almost no chance of getting the 1st overall pick. (They're also too busy trading them away.) All I can say is, if I were managing a team like Calgary that is sitting 4th last with a month to go in the season, the order to tank would be given. I would make sure that the team has the worst possible players on the ice for the remaining games (calling up as many prospects as possible), playing 4th liners heavily, any and every trick in the book (without violating league rules) to ensure the team doesn't win another game in the final month of the season. Surely I wouldn't be the only person to think of this. Moving from a 10% chance to a 25% chance is an enormous difference. All I'm saying is, why allow for the possibility? Why leave the bank vault unlocked, the doors wide open, and the entire premises unguarded? Banks don't operate on the "honor" system. Maybe a hundred days go by and nobody steals the money. But why take the chance? Why allow for the possibility? By changing the system you effectively lock the vault, lock the doors, and have a security guard on duty. If something bad still happens at that point, you can say that you took every precaution possible to prevent it and you can sleep well at night knowing that you're not responsible. The NHL is currently daring someone to tank. The message is currently "go for it". The vault is open. Take the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The odds are even worse for the worst team this year to get the #1 overall, at 20%: Non-Playoff Team New Draft Lottery Odds Odds Under Former Allocation(Fewest Pts. to Most) 1 20.00% 25.00% 2 13.50% 18.80% 3 11.50% 14.20% 4 9.50% 10.70% 5 8.50% 8.10% 6 7.50% 6.20% 7 6.50% 4.70% 8 6.00% 3.60% 9 5.00% 2.70% 10 3.50% 2.10% 11 3.00% 1.50% 12 2.50% 1.10% 13 2.00% 0.80% 14 1.00% 0.50% Next year, the lottery allows non playoff teams to compete for 1-3. I don't think the system is all that bad right now. EDIT: Sorry about the formatting originally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 The odds are even worse for the worst team this year to get the #1 overall, at 20%: Non-Playoff Team New Draft Lottery Odds Odds Under Former Allocation(Fewest Pts. to Most) 1 20.00% 25.00% 2 13.50% 18.80% 3 11.50% 14.20% 4 9.50% 10.70% 5 8.50% 8.10% 6 7.50% 6.20% 7 6.50% 4.70% 8 6.00% 3.60% 9 5.00% 2.70% 10 3.50% 2.10% 11 3.00% 1.50% 12 2.50% 1.10% 13 2.00% 0.80% 14 1.00% 0.50% Next year, the lottery allows non playoff teams to compete for 1-3. I don't think the system is all that bad right now. EDIT: Sorry about the formatting originally... As long as the odds for #1 are greater than the odds for #2, teams have a reason to tank. Currently, it's almost double the odds. That makes it a complete no-brainer. Tank all the way. It's like a reward for finishing last overall. The way the NHL is set up, they often create easily avoidable problems for themselves. If a team were to tank (for real), the NHL would now draw heat from sports betting organizations, fans, and the media over the integrity of the game. There would be a costly investigation launched, and the league would waste an entire offseason dealing with litigation. The NHL would be crucified by negative PR costing them millions of dollars in lost revenue. This is a problem just waiting to happen (in my opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 It's actually less than 50% better the odds rather than almost double the odds. Doesn't change your point though. I just personally prefer the way it is. By the way, the Leafs don't stink because of middle round draft picks. They stink because of a decade of horrible mismanagement and a fairly delusional fan base. I'm a Flyers fan, so I know both from seeing them up close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 This would be a horrible idea. You have to at least give the worst teams a fighting chance to get better. Under this system, it's to easy for a powerhouse team to get richer much to quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 6% is huge. The Leafs are a perfect example of how the current system is flawed (in my opinion). Every year they finish 9th or 10th in the conference standings and they have almost no chance of getting the 1st overall pick. (They're also too busy trading them away.) All I can say is, if I were managing a team like Calgary that is sitting 4th last with a month to go in the season, the order to tank would be given. I would make sure that the team has the worst possible players on the ice for the remaining games (calling up as many prospects as possible), playing 4th liners heavily, any and every trick in the book (without violating league rules) to ensure the team doesn't win another game in the final month of the season. Surely I wouldn't be the only person to think of this. Moving from a 10% chance to a 25% chance is an enormous difference. All I'm saying is, why allow for the possibility? Why leave the bank vault unlocked, the doors wide open, and the entire premises unguarded? Banks don't operate on the "honor" system. Maybe a hundred days go by and nobody steals the money. But why take the chance? Why allow for the possibility? By changing the system you effectively lock the vault, lock the doors, and have a security guard on duty. If something bad still happens at that point, you can say that you took every precaution possible to prevent it and you can sleep well at night knowing that you're not responsible. The NHL is currently daring someone to tank. The message is currently "go for it". The vault is open. Take the money. 6% is huge? Not really. Certainly not daring a team to tank. Guaranteeing the worst team the #1 pick is daring a team to tank. Improving your chances from 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 really isn't. As another poster has pointed out - the small chance the Leafs have each year of picking #1 overall is not at all the reason for their being mire in mediocrity this past decade. And having one of the top picks in the draft year after year after year is no guarantee of immediate success either. Just ask the Oilers. And Panthers. And Isles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 6% is huge? Not really. Certainly not daring a team to tank. Guaranteeing the worst team the #1 pick is daring a team to tank. Improving your chances from 1 in 5 to 1 in 4 really isn't. As another poster has pointed out - the small chance the Leafs have each year of picking #1 overall is not at all the reason for their being mire in mediocrity this past decade. And having one of the top picks in the draft year after year after year is no guarantee of immediate success either. Just ask the Oilers. And Panthers. And Isles. That's why I don't worry about one of the top teams getting a #1 pick. Teams like Detroit have made a habit out of getting premium value out of players much farther down in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 That's why I don't worry about one of the top teams getting a #1 pick. Teams like Detroit have made a habit out of getting premium value out of players much farther down in the draft. There is one big problem with that line of thinking. When you have those "special" once in a decade players, usually refered to as "generational" players....guys like Crosby, Stamkos, McDavid etc...if the wrong team gets a hold of one of those great youngsters, it can *greatly* upset the balance of power in the league. For instance, if the Penguins, Ducks etc get their hands on McDavid (which is much more likely under this two tiered system being discussed), they would be very, very hard to beat. It would create an unfair advantage over other top contenders. That's not the only big negative, a struggling franchise like the Panthers, Canes etc could be saved by the increased attendance associated with a young superstar. Plus, teams that are mid range draws on the road, would draw more crowds when a previously mediocre team comes to town with the new superstar. A lot of negatives, not many positives in this proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 There is one big problem with that line of thinking. When you have those "special" once in a decade players, usually refered to as "generational" players....guys like Crosby, Stamkos, McDavid etc...if the wrong team gets a hold of one of those great youngsters, it can *greatly* upset the balance of power in the league. For instance, if the Penguins, Ducks etc get their hands on McDavid (which is much more likely under this two tiered system being discussed), they would be very, very hard to beat. It would create an unfair advantage over other top contenders. Easy fix: Teams 17-30 will draft #1-14, then the playoff based teams will begin drafting from #15 to 30.Every non-playoff team would have equal odds of drafting any spot between 1-14.Every playoff team would have equal odds of drafting any spot between 15-30.That would address your concern. The "Spoon Feeding" Solution: Any player identified as a "once in a generation" player (based on fan voting) will be hand-delivered to the franchise in the most economic peril based on net income/loss, attendance, position in the standings, etc., regardless of the team's draft position and outcome of the lottery. The player will be forced to sign a 20 year contract with the franchise and rescue it from the dead. (I'm joking about this solution.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 The odds are even worse for the worst team this year to get the #1 overall, at 20%: Non-Playoff Team New Draft Lottery Odds Odds Under Former Allocation(Fewest Pts. to Most) 1 20.00% 25.00% 2 13.50% 18.80% 3 11.50% 14.20% 4 9.50% 10.70% 5 8.50% 8.10% 6 7.50% 6.20% 7 6.50% 4.70% 8 6.00% 3.60% 9 5.00% 2.70% 10 3.50% 2.10% 11 3.00% 1.50% 12 2.50% 1.10% 13 2.00% 0.80% 14 1.00% 0.50% Next year, the lottery allows non playoff teams to compete for 1-3. I don't think the system is all that bad right now. EDIT: Sorry about the formatting originally... OT: How did you fix your table with the desired spacing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJgoal Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 I used enter and the spacebar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 @AJgoal You IT geeks and your computer wizardry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.