read about an interesting alternative to the draft lottery, proposed by some math/stats guy at the MIT sports conference last week...
the description I read (not sure if it's exactly how the idea was presented at the conference) goes basically like this:
- after getting mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, teams are "competing" to earn draft ranking.
- using same pt system the league follows (proposal was for all leagues, not just NHL), team with most "post-elimination" pts, "wins" the top spot in the draft, with all other non-playoff teams drafting according to where they rank, pt-wise, once eliminated.
- late season schedule/opponents become an issue. While it would be random (since no one knows at start of season who will bow out of playoff race when), it would/could give some teams an unfair boost, leaving them with an 'easier' path to high pick.
- issue of playoff team with set playoff spot late in the year "resting" players in preparation for playoffs facing a non-playoff team competing for higher draft pick...
nonetheless, very interesting idea, and what it would certainly do is cause some much needed excitement and emphasis on competing all the way until the end of the season.
great for the fans, though I could see teams being opposed to it for a few reasons:
- instead of using end of season, once eliminated, to start focusing on next year (giving more ice-time to young guys, focusing on evaluating who they want to re-sign/let go), teams would need to stay in a "win-now" mode.
- completely alters dynamic of trade deadline, making it much more difficult for lower ranked teams to be ok with trading away players for picks/prospects (though this could potentially also allow for deadline to be pushed much later, or even being eliminated all together?)
personally, i love the idea. It's an interesting way to give non-playoff teams something to play for, and to give fans of non-playoff teams some exciting hockey late in the season, instead of the crappy feeling of "wanting" your team to lose for "tanking" purposes.
in a way, it would give the NHL a bit of the "league cup" effect you see in Euro football/team sports... almost a secondary tournament/league, albeit with all the same teams in it, but whereby the lower teams are still competing for something (and competing via "winning" as opposed to competing via "tanking").
I mean for all the teams that tank (Oilers) there are teams that just suck and can't get it together (Columbus).
Not right to punish those teams who actually attempted to compete but failed at it.
A better system is equal lottery across the board for the top 3 picks for all nonplayoff teams...after those top 3 picks have been assigned than go in sequintial order of worst team to better according to standings/points.
You wouldn't see teans like the Oilers field an incompetent team on purpose year after year just to claim high picks.
what about a team thats in it untill the last day? they dont have a chance at the top pick but played well enough not to be mathamatically eliminated on the last day...
Wait so if Im reading this right, if Team A gets mathematically eliminated from the playoffs in the beginning of March, they start accumulating points. Team B gets eliminated end of March and they start getting points. That gives Team A almost a month more of games to get points to "win" the top pick?
Why does it matter when a team loses? People seem to overuse the term "tank". Sometimes being bad just means being bad and those teams need the talent infusion.
Wait so if Im reading this right, if Team A gets mathematically eliminated from the playoffs in the beginning of March, they start accumulating points. Team B gets eliminated end of March and they start getting points. That gives Team A almost a month more of games to get points to "win" the top pick?
Prettymuch how I read it. It's fun in theory but still it's a bit much. Only thing I'd like to see is some changes in how the lottery works: top draft spot available to ANY team that missed the playoffs based on percentages, no top 2 picks in consecutive years.
Wait so if Im reading this right, if Team A gets mathematically eliminated from the playoffs in the beginning of March, they start accumulating points. Team B gets eliminated end of March and they start getting points. That gives Team A almost a month more of games to get points to "win" the top pick?
Only thing I would change about the lottery are the weighted percentages. Last place team has about a 25% chance of winning the lottery outright. Then you add in the chances of #6 to #14 winning the lottery, which is about 23%. That's about a 48% chance of keeping the top pick. That's way to high IMO.
Since the lockout even, it's been:
2006 - Blues win keep top pick
2007 - Blackhawks win from #5
2008 - TB win keep top pick
2009 - Isles win keep top pick
2010 - Oilers win keep top pick
2011 - NJ wins from #8, Oilers retain top pick
Very small sample size, but how does the worst team who statistically have a 25% chance of winning the lottery, win it 67% over a 6 year span? Keep the top pick 5/6 years.
No team worse than the #8 pick has won the lottery since its inception back in 1994.
I believe the #2 seed has about an 18% chance of getting the top pick.
Like to see the weights changed so that the worst team only has a 35% chance of keeping the top pick.
I don't like it because it punishes teams that are truly awful. A team having a terrible season could be mathematically eliminated with 12+ games left. Truly terrible teams don't suddenly go 10-2. So this team could finish 2-10 while a borderline playoff team is eliminated with 3 games left and wins the last three games to get a higher pick.
It encourages teams to be competitive but punishes teams that honestly can't be competitive.
Example, 20 pts. out of 8th spot in conference with 9 games left. Only 18 points left to gain.
Not trying to argue with you but just this idea. So it would literally come down to like the last 10 games of the season for the worst teams and less for the rest to determine the first overall pick...? Even Columbus this season isn't technically eliminated yet, if they won the rest of their games they would finish with 81, eight place is at 72 right now. To me this is makes the idea a bad one. Good in theory but not really practical.
In theory is a somewhat good idea but in reality, it isnt that great.
Factors like scheduling, how many points the 8th team in your conference has the 8th team in the west has 3 more points then the 8th in the east with 1 less game played, does that mean a team like the islanders who are going to be mathematically eliminated later then Minnesota even though they have less points, explain to me how its good for the team with less points to potentially get say 2 less games to gain points for better picks.
Then you have the fact that there are 0 teams eliminated with 17 games left. Even the team that will finish 5th last this year, they might only get say 4 games to decide. This also makes who you play in your last 4 games very important to, 2 teams with even points they each get eliminated with 4 games left 1 team plays colombus- edmonton minnesota, and carolina in those 4 points they get 6 points, the other team gets detroit- boston, rangers, and chicago and this team gets 3 points, so how would that be fair to the team whos last few games are vs playoffs teams they finish with less points is it fair to decide who gets a better reward by who is the best of the worst? or by luck, and factors they have no control over.
Only thing I would change about the lottery are the weighted percentages. Last place team has about a 25% chance of winning the lottery outright. Then you add in the chances of #6 to #14 winning the lottery, which is about 23%. That's about a 48% chance of keeping the top pick. That's way to high IMO.
Since the lockout even, it's been:
2006 - Blues win keep top pick
2007 - Blackhawks win from #5
2008 - TB win keep top pick
2009 - Isles win keep top pick
2010 - Oilers win keep top pick
2011 - NJ wins from #8, Oilers retain top pick
Very small sample size, but how does the worst team who statistically have a 25% chance of winning the lottery, win it 67% over a 6 year span? Keep the top pick 5/6 years.
No team worse than the #8 pick has won the lottery since its inception back in 1994.
I believe the #2 seed has about an 18% chance of getting the top pick.
Like to see the weights changed so that the worst team only has a 35% chance of keeping the top pick.
So if the Oilers finish 29-27 this year and win the lottery is everyone on HF gonna be butt hurt. People act like the Oilers continue to lose this year for the lottery. Maybe watch a few games and you'll see it's he league that wants them to lose. Not management or the players.
Don't like it. Draft order isn't meant to be fair (not that this is fair, either; rewarding mediocrity isn't any better than rewarding failure, in my eyes). It's meant as a method of helping bad teams to become better. The worst teams need something to sell to their markets or they'll start collapsing. The draft allows them to sell "the future." This guy's idea is very, very bad for franchise sustainability of any team that finishes last.
Right now, for every Columbus, there are 2 or 3 teams that will draft high for a few seasons, then turn it around and win cups or president's trophies. Those markets remain healthy because they can sell a future that could plausibly arrive.
With what's proposed, here, you'd have the same 5 teams finishing last every year forever, with no end in sight, and no way of reversing the cycle unless they catch a few draft sliders. How the heck can those teams maintain a viable business model under those circumstances?
Only thing I would change about the lottery are the weighted percentages. Last place team has about a 25% chance of winning the lottery outright. Then you add in the chances of #6 to #14 winning the lottery, which is about 23%. That's about a 48% chance of keeping the top pick. That's way to high IMO.
Since the lockout even, it's been:
2006 - Blues win keep top pick 2007 - Blackhawks win from #5
2008 - TB win keep top pick
2009 - Isles win keep top pick
2010 - Oilers win keep top pick
2011 - NJ wins from #8, Oilers retain top pick
Very small sample size, but how does the worst team who statistically have a 25% chance of winning the lottery, win it 67% over a 6 year span? Keep the top pick 5/6 years.
No team worse than the #8 pick has won the lottery since its inception back in 1994.
I believe the #2 seed has about an 18% chance of getting the top pick.
Like to see the weights changed so that the worst team only has a 35% chance of keeping the top pick.
If you're one of the idiots that still thinks teams actually tank, how would this change help? Teams would tank until they are eliminated from the playoffs and then stop tanking. Teams that legitimately suck would suck before and after being eliminated...so this change would actually benefit these fictitious teams that tank.
