Good article on "the tank"

[radoran]

For all the hulabaloo about "tanking to get high draft picks" - high draft picks are not a guarantee of success.

 

For one thing, career-ending injuries do happen.

 

Then see: Oliers, Edmonton. They have had six consecutive top ten picks including three first overalls in a row.

 

They sit 18-36-10, a few points ahead of Buffalo for worst in the league.

 

Draft picks can be part of building a winner, but they are far from a universal panacea. I'm not sure there's a need to change the whole way the league works to address this "problem."

[Podein25]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

Where to start? I don't have really strong feelings about this lottery stuff. I save my strong feelings for other things. However, I'm not certain that I agree with you on the model - I don't know if there is a perfect model. And besides, under your system, the Pens would not likely have gotten both Sid and Malkin, would never won a Cup and we'd be stuck listening them whine and moan about how they should be rewarded for losing.    

[flyercanuck]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

Where to start? I don't have really strong feelings about this lottery stuff. I save my strong feelings for other things. However, I'm not certain that I agree with you on the model - I don't know if there is a perfect model. And besides, under your system, the Pens would not likely have gotten both Sid and Malkin, would never won a Cup and we'd be stuck listening them whine and moan about how they should be rewarded for losing.    

 

Cept they'd be whining from Kansas. 

[Podein25]

Cept they'd be whining from Kansas. 

 

 

Yeah, there's that.

[WordsOfWisdom]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

Where to start? I don't have really strong feelings about this lottery stuff. I save my strong feelings for other things. However, I'm not certain that I agree with you on the model - I don't know if there is a perfect model. And besides, under your system, the Pens would not likely have gotten both Sid and Malkin, would never won a Cup and we'd be stuck listening them whine and moan about how they should be rewarded for losing.    

 

LOL.    I try to keep things lighthearted as well.

 

I don't know if a perfect model exists, but I do know that the current one (out of all the options anyone has ever suggested) is the last model that I would have chosen if it were my league. It's one small step away from simply being a reversed standings based draft order. 1-30, 2-29, 3-28, 4-27, etc.

 

Why does the NHL create these problems for itself? Or more specifically, why does the NHL create the environment that allows these problems to develop? It would be like a person that can't swim relocating to live on a house boat. Or a person afraid of heights getting a job as a crane operator in China. The league puts itself in this position by choice when the outcome is as predictable as standing in front of a train.

 

But enough analogies. (And yes, I suppose the train could be moving backwards...)

 

The only way to eliminate tanking is to make sure that it cannot happen. As long as the NHL continues to employ any system that gives mathematical advantage to the lowest team(s) in the standings, there will be tanking.

[Polaris922]

We can't all thrive on fights and Comcast money we didn't even earn... Just keep paying those cable bills boys

[Podein25]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

I guess I see it as a question of two competing objectives: 1) don't encourage tanking; 2) foster parity. How do you support the latter without creating the risk of the former?

[WordsOfWisdom]

@WordsOfWisdom

 

I guess I see it as a question of two competing objectives: 1) don't encourage tanking; 2) foster parity. How do you support the latter without creating the risk of the former?

 

Parity is a separate issue, and not necessarily a good thing IMHO. I like a level playing field (somewhat), but not level standings.

 

- A 30-team equal odds draft system would eliminate tanking.

- A 17-30 (9-16, 9-14) equal odds draft system would eliminate tanking.

 

Kipper on SportsNet had a good suggestion (with some tweaking)...

 

From trade deadline day onward, the team that gains the most points (without finishing in a playoff spot) would get the #1 draft pick.

 

So instead of Buffalo trying to lose every game now to stay in 30th, they would have incentive to win games. Who has been a hot non-playoff team recently? Philadelphia! Imagine if the Flyers got McDavid for finishing the season on a 14-4-4 run and finishing in 10th place in the East? Is that not better than handing it to Buffalo or Arizona for their intentional ineptitude?

 

Or why not this:

 

9th place team = Highest odds of #1 draft pick.

10th place team = Second highest odds of #1 draft pick.

.

.

.

14th/16th place team = Lowest odds of #1 draft pick.

[Polaris922]

Parity is a separate issue, and not necessarily a good thing IMHO. I like a level playing field (somewhat), but not level standings.

- A 30-team equal odds draft system would eliminate tanking.

- A 17-30 (9-16, 9-14) equal odds draft system would eliminate tanking.

Kipper on SportsNet had a good suggestion (with some tweaking)...

From trade deadline day onward, the team that gains the most points (without finishing in a playoff spot) would get the #1 draft pick.

So instead of Buffalo trying to lose every game now to stay in 30th, they would have incentive to win games. Who has been a hot non-playoff team recently? Philadelphia! Imagine if the Flyers got McDavid for finishing the season on a 14-4-4 run and finishing in 10th place in the East? Is that not better than handing it to Buffalo or Arizona for their intentional ineptitude?

Or why not this:

9th place team = Highest odds of #1 draft pick.

10th place team = Second highest odds of #1 draft pick.

.

.

.

14th/16th place team = Lowest odds of #1 draft pick.

Kipper's idea is stupidity at its best. Recently teams like my Pens, Chicago, and LA would've had the first round picks the majority of the past ten years. It would only assure the dominant teams become more dominant, and weaker teams stay that way. What the hell is he thinking?

[WordsOfWisdom]

Kipper's idea is stupidity at its best. Recently teams like my Pens, Chicago, and LA would've had the first round picks the majority of the past ten years. It would only assure the dominant teams become more dominant, and weaker teams stay that way. What the hell is he thinking?

 

I'm confused.   I think you missed the part about "without finishing in a playoff spot".

 

Pittsburgh, Chicago, and LA wouldn't have been in the draft the past ten years under this proposed system, because they're always in the playoffs.

 

The Toronto Maple Leafs likely would have got the #1 pick. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

I'm just going to re-post this one, because the ramifications are absolutely incredible... and I think this may be the most brilliant and exciting solution yet: 

 

Kipper's idea (or someone's idea that he mentioned on air) was to give the #1 draft pick to the team that gets the most points after they've been officially eliminated from the playoff race.

 

(I'm an engineer by trade, so when I heard Kipper's original idea my head exploded because I know it's not really any different than what exists now. Not only is the math ugly, but you have to tank to be eliminated early enough so that you can rack up enough points to make it matter. Bottom line: it doesn't work.)

 

However, like many things in life, the premise was good, but the implementation was faulty. That's where I come in! I fix implementation related problems.

 

In this case, a suitable starting point was required. And that's easy: trade deadline day. Why? That's the point in the season where the bottom teams officially mail it in. That's where the tank race really starts to heat up. It's a beacon in the NHL schedule that screams "PICK ME!"

 

One more simple tweak remains, to accommodate scheduling and games played. And there it is in red. Now we have the following:

 

 

From trade deadline day onward, the team that gains the most points has the highest winning percentage (without finishing in a playoff spot) gets the #1 draft pick.

 

 

And my job is done. Looking only at the past 10 games as an example of how this system would work, Connor McDavid would go to........ the Ottawa Senators.

[Polaris922]

I'm confused. I think you missed the part about "without finishing in a playoff spot".

Pittsburgh, Chicago, and LA wouldn't have been in the draft the past ten years under this proposed system, because they're always in the playoffs.

The Toronto Maple Leafs likely would have got the #1 pick.

That's what I get for reading it in traffic! Sorry!

[JR Ewing]

This year was shaping up to be a tank battle that General Rommel would be proud of, with 30th place guaranteeing you a generational talent. A guy like Mitch Marner could conceivably have been a number 1 pick in normal years, but falls to anywhere from 3rd to 6th or so, depending on how much a team values offense or MOAR SIZE!

[WordsOfWisdom]

That's what I get for reading it in traffic! Sorry!

 

No problemo. 

[WordsOfWisdom]

Once again, the idea of having the team with the highest point total (that doesn't make the playoffs) getting the #1 draft pick was floated on air (Primetime Sports). Provided they don't make it ironclad (ironclad = absolute), I'm all for it.

 

Take the existing system and turn the probabilities upside down. It's the right thing to do. Make it happen NHL. 

[Polaris922]

Is it the right thing to do? Lets say the Pens lose Letang, Malkin and Crosby for four months due to injury. They land just outside a playoff spot. They should have the highest odds to get the number one overall pick? No... I don't think so.

And say what you want about Buffalo or whomever else appears to be tanking. Their rosters are sizably weaker than division leading teams. They deserve the higher chance to get the first pick. That's building the competition. That's working toward parity.

If you change that, bottom dwelling teams will always be bottom dwelling teams. It's bad enough they can't get free agents to willingly go there, but now you want to eliminate their draft chances too?

[radoran]

If you change that, bottom dwelling teams will always be bottom dwelling teams. It's bad enough they can't get free agents to willingly go there, but now you want to eliminate their draft chances too?

 

Yeah, I just don't see how it is at all possible to make this happen without effectively creating 5-10 teams that are just going to be perennially godawful.

 

Not that some aren't in that boat now (*cough* Edmonton *cough*) but that's more inept management than by design of the draft system...

[WordsOfWisdom]

Is it the right thing to do? Lets say the Pens lose Letang, Malkin and Crosby for four months due to injury. They land just outside a playoff spot. They should have the highest odds to get the number one overall pick? No... I don't think so.

 

Let's say the stock market crashes tomorrow. Should people stop investing forever?   

 

It's one of those "false dilemma" type of things. You're presenting a scenario that will never happen and then judging in favour of the system that prevents that one scenario while allowing all of the common ones that actually do occur. The odds of everyone on Pittsburgh getting injured, them finishing 9th, winning the draft lottery, and also getting a game-changing player are......... well probably 100% since it's Pittsburgh! LOL. 

 

Seriously though, I think the alternative (the existing system) is much worse.

 

Let's say your scenario actually did happen. Truth be told, I would rather have McDavid land in Pittsburgh (a team that -- under your scenario -- is trying its ass off to win but can't buy a break because its best players can't stay healthy) then to have him go to a team like Buffalo, Edmonton, or Arizona that are corrupting/making a mockery out of the integrity of the game by trying to lose.

 

What Buffalo, Edmonton, and Arizona are doing is ILLEGAL. While there's no way to prove that they're tanking (other than common sense), "tanking" is a violation of league rules.

 

If what I'm proposing went into effect, then it would help the middle teams get over the hump. Currently, the middle teams are lost. They can't improve. The top draft picks would be going to teams like Florida, Philly, Ottawa (in the east), and I'm perfectly fine with that. It could be their launching pad into the playoffs in future years. That's what should have happened in Toronto for all those years the Leafs battled to 9th place and had nothing to show for it. The Leafs tried to win while others (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA) tanked. Look where it got them. The teams that bottomed out got superstar players and won Cups. The Leafs got nobody.

 

Imagine what the NHL landscape would look like today if Toronto got Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, and so on. The Leafs might be a Stanley Cup contender right now.   

 

If the system were changed, Buffalo would be 20 points better in the standings.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Yeah, I just don't see how it is at all possible to make this happen without effectively creating 5-10 teams that are just going to be perennially godawful.

 

Not that some aren't in that boat now (*cough* Edmonton *cough*) but that's more inept management than by design of the draft system...

 

The draft is only one way to build a team.

 

As Edmonton has shown, the draft isn't a guarantee of success.

 

AND

 

As Detroit has shown, you don't need high draft picks to be good and stay good. 

[Polaris922]

Let's say the stock market crashes tomorrow. Should people stop investing forever? 

 

It's one of those "false dilemma" type of things. You're presenting a scenario that will never happen and then judging in favour of the system that prevents that one scenario while allowing all of the common ones that actually do occur. The odds of everyone on Pittsburgh getting injured, them finishing 9th, winning the draft lottery, and also getting a game-changing player are......... well probably 100% since it's Pittsburgh! LOL. 

 

Seriously though, I think the alternative (the existing system) is much worse.

 

Let's say your scenario actually did happen. Truth be told, I would rather have McDavid land in Pittsburgh (a team that -- under your scenario -- is trying its ass off to win but can't buy a break because its best players can't stay healthy) then to have him go to a team like Buffalo, Edmonton, or Arizona that are corrupting/making a mockery out of the integrity of the game by trying to lose.

 

What Buffalo, Edmonton, and Arizona are doing is ILLEGAL. While there's no way to prove that they're tanking (other than common sense), "tanking" is a violation of league rules.

 

If what I'm proposing went into effect, then it would help the middle teams get over the hump. Currently, the middle teams are lost. They can't improve. The top draft picks would be going to teams like Florida, Philly, Ottawa (in the east), and I'm perfectly fine with that. It could be their launching pad into the playoffs in future years. That's what should have happened in Toronto for all those years the Leafs battled to 9th place and had nothing to show for it. The Leafs tried to win while others (Pittsburgh, Chicago, LA) tanked. Look where it got them. The teams that bottomed out got superstar players and won Cups. The Leafs got nobody.

 

Imagine what the NHL landscape would look like today if Toronto got Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, and so on. The Leafs might be a Stanley Cup contender right now. 

 

If the system were changed, Buffalo would be 20 points better in the standings.

 

 

And that is where I disagree with you.  I don't think a lot of those teams "tanked" by trading some good players for draft picks and young talent.  I don't see what the Pens, Hawks or Kings did as tanking.  I see it as a valid way to ensure you have a lot of young talent coming together as a core of players that, when maturing together, become a formidable team.  It has won them all Cups, while your Leafs made move after move, scattering talented players to the wind, and putting together some players that don't seem to have any chemistry despite individual talent.  To me that's not tanking, that's suffering in the present to live well in the future.  ESPECIALLY in the era of a salary cap.  

[WordsOfWisdom]

And that is where I disagree with you.  I don't think a lot of those teams "tanked" by trading some good players for draft picks and young talent.  I don't see what the Pens, Hawks or Kings did as tanking.  I see it as a valid way to ensure you have a lot of young talent coming together as a core of players that, when maturing together, become a formidable team.  It has won them all Cups, while your Leafs made move after move, scattering talented players to the wind, and putting together some players that don't seem to have any chemistry despite individual talent.  To me that's not tanking, that's suffering in the present to live well in the future.  ESPECIALLY in the era of a salary cap.  

 

Okay putting aside the issue of tanking for a moment, can we agree that the NHL provides incentive for a 29th place team to finish 30th? 

 

(That is to say, if you're sitting in 29th overall with no shot at the playoffs, it is better to be 30th than 28th.)

[Polaris922]

Okay putting aside the issue of tanking for a moment, can we agree that the NHL provides incentive for a 29th place team to finish 30th?

(That is to say, if you're sitting in 29th overall with no shot at the playoffs, it is better to be 30th than 28th.)

Yes... By 5.2%.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Yes... By 5.2%.

 

Exactly. And would you also say that if you wanted to make the concept of tanking impossible, all you would have to do is structure the draft so that the 30th place team doesn't have a 5.2% advantage? 

 

We can't get into the minds of other people to know what they're thinking or what their motivations are. But what we can do is put ourselves in that same position and ask what we would do.

 

If I owned the Buffalo Sabres, knowing what I know about where my team is in the standings and how good McDavid is projected to be, I would give the order to tank. It's just the best option. I'm playing President/GM. My options are: Try for the playoffs (with a team that is a bubble team at best that likely won't make it) or try to bottom out and get the next Sidney Crosby. I choose option B: Go for 30th.

[Polaris922]

Exactly. And would you also say that if you wanted to make the concept of tanking impossible, all you would have to do is structure the draft so that the 30th place team doesn't have a 5.2% advantage?

We can't get into the minds of other people to know what they're thinking or what their motivations are. But what we can do is put ourselves in that same position and ask what we would do.

If I owned the Buffalo Sabres, knowing what I know about where my team is in the standings and how good McDavid is projected to be, I would give the order to tank. It's just the best option. I'm playing President/GM. My options are: Try for the playoffs (with a team that is a bubble team at best that likely won't make it) or try to bottom out and get the next Sidney Crosby. I choose option B: Go for 30th.

You can't eliminate that though. They're going to a bottom three lottery system but you can't stop teams from trading away talent for draft picks trying to have a future. Eliminate the percentage disparity in the bottom three if you want, but ultimately if you take the high draft pick away from the bottom teams, you will slowly reduce the number of teams in the league, and in turn greatly reduce the league's popularity.

[radoran]

I choose option B: Go for 30th.

 

In general, it pays to try to make your team better. In some individual cases you see teams break down everything to build from the bottom. In others, they try to "retool" rather than hit rock bottom.

 

There are also no guarantees. Which means you also have to factor in that "generational talent" like McDavid (and Eichel, etc.) simply doesn't come around often enough to make throwing the entire system away worth it. Also, that the "worst" team has a one in five chance (20%) of getting the first overall. Is that better than 13.5%? Of course. But it still means that four out of five times tanking will not get you first overall.

 

The Flyers were worst in the league and didn't get Patrick Kane, they got JVR.

 

There is Pittsburgh that got the 1-2-1 picks to obtain Fleury-Malkin-Crosby, but then you have teams like Edmonton with three straight first overalls and still among the worst teams in the league - headed for their seventh straight Top 10 pick.

 

IMO, this is a "solution" in desperate search of a "problem".