It's funny to think individual pro athletes actually "tank", as if it made sense for borderline NHLers to throw a season, so their organization can go and draft a talented 18 year old to steal their job. Just retarded.
I absolutely agree. However, I do think some managers purposely ice the worst lineup they can by avoiding many different avenues to actually improve their hockey club.
I think that every top 5 pick you've had for the past 5 years should reduce your chances of winning the draft lottery.
If you had a top 5 pick last season: -30% chance
If you had a top 5 pick two seasons ago: -25% chance
If you had a top 5 pick three seasons ago: -20% chance
If you had a top 5 pick four seasons ago: -15% chance
If you had a top 5 pick five seasons ago: -10% chance
And these all stack of course. Five consecutive top 5 picks and you're forced outside the top 5 the next draft.
This in terms of actual draft selections and not placement, so if you win the Cup and acquire a top 5 pick from another team this rules still counts against you (sorry Boston).
The percentage lost is re-distributed randomly amongst teams that have not had any top 5 picks in the past 5 years.
Or the team that feels like maybe we aren't there yet and why get swept as the 8th seed throws a game to get in the playoffs on purpose. Now which is worse? the 29th worst team making itself the 30th worse or a team deliberately missing the playoffs?
I think any organization that valued a 1/14 chance at the top pick over at least two home playoff games is probably doing it wrong.
when is the last time a team really tanked? I mean it was obvious to everyone that they were trying to lose on purpose???
I think I only remember one very small rumors from the 90s but thats about it.
Just off the top of my head:
We tanked season to get LeBron http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34863850/ns/sports-nba/
"They trade all our guys away and we go real young, and the goal was to get LeBron and also to sell the team,'' Lucas said in an interview with FanHouse. "I didn't have a chance. ... - Coach Lucas
Cavs owner disputes Lucas' claims http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4825853
Guard Ricky Davis, who was a member of that Cavs team and is now a member of the Clippers, said that Lucas was in a no-win situation.
"It was tough on [Lucas],'' Davis told AOL Fanhouse. "They were forcing him to lose and I know it's nothing he wanted to do. It's just the position he was forced in. But it's tough. ... It worked, whatever they did [to get James] so it's hard to knock them. They got what they wanted. But it was hard on Luke.''
The best picks should go to the worst teams, end of story.
Only thing I would change is no 1st overall picks two years in a row.
I'd change it for a less weighted shot at the top picks.
Team misses the playoffs, they miss the playoffs. I think the bottom ten should all have a shot at the top picks. Yes, picks. Why should the lottery only be for 1 pick? I say top 3 picks are by lottery, rest by standings. Higher percentage chance of winning for worse teams but not like it is now.
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfroThunder396
I think that every top 5 pick you've had for the past 5 years should reduce your chances of winning the draft lottery.
If you had a top 5 pick last season: -30% chance
If you had a top 5 pick two seasons ago: -25% chance
If you had a top 5 pick three seasons ago: -20% chance
If you had a top 5 pick four seasons ago: -15% chance
If you had a top 5 pick five seasons ago: -10% chance
And these all stack of course. Five consecutive top 5 picks and you're forced outside the top 5 the next draft.
This in terms of actual draft selections and not placement, so if you win the Cup and acquire a top 5 pick from another team this rules still counts against you (sorry Boston).
The percentage lost is re-distributed randomly amongst teams that have not had any top 5 picks in the past 5 years.
All 30 GMs should have a game of dodgeball before the draft to determine order. Then everyone can shut the **** up about it and we don't have to clutter up the board with the same whining tank thread every week.
If the league implements one of these stupid whine suggestions for the draft lottery, I'll actually be happy. As an Oilers fan, it will likely serve me better in the future to have a shot at 1st overall. Suppose we barely miss the playoffs and add MacKinnon!
I absolutely agree. However, I do think some managers purposely ice the worst lineup they can by avoiding many different avenues to actually improve their hockey club.
If the league implements one of these stupid whine suggestions for the draft lottery, I'll actually be happy. As an Oilers fan, it will likely serve me better in the future to have a shot at 1st overall. Suppose we barely miss the playoffs and add MacKinnon!
The league never would anyways. The NHL is a business and needs its worst franchises to improve to increase the overall health of the league. Whiney fans can complain all they want. I just hope that the Oilers win the lotter this year, just to read all the whining on this board.
People are forgetting that the NHL is a business. While some teams (like the Oilers or Habs) can suck and still make money, others can't. By reducing the odds of these bad teams getting high draft picks, you are making it harder for them to become succesful both in the standings and financially.
Where would the Penguins and Blackhawks be today if it weren't for the current draft system? Probably in Seattle and Quebec City.
Every terrible team deserves a chance to build a contender through high draft picks and develop a fan base.
In the 2005 draft, Pittsburgh won the first pick in the lottery and drafted Sidney Crosby. But, since the 2004-2005 season was canceled by the lockout, all 30 teams were entered in the 2005 draft lottery.
Lady Luck smiled on the Penguins.
Had the 2004-2005 season been played, Sidney Crosby likely would have been drafted by a different team.
If you advocate keeping the existing NHL Draft Lottery as currently composed, then here are some facts that may surprise you:
Since 1995, excluding the 2005 lottery, the team with the worst record in the NHL and the best odds of winning the first pick won the first pick just 6 times - 6 out of 16 lotteries = 37.5%. This shows that the team with the worst record does not automatically win the first pick.
NHL lockout cancelled 2004-05 season, all 30 teams were entered.
IMO the most exciting draft was the '05 draft. Not just because of Crosby, but because of the lottery. The "who's up next" aspect of it made it so, for me at least. I wouldn't mind seeing something similar for those teams strictly out of the playoff race. Something along the lines of teams ranked 26 - 30 start with 3 balls in the hopper, 21 - 25 start with 2, and 17 - 20 get 1. It starts off with 30 balls among 14 teams in the hopper. Instead of the criteria the league used in '05, I'd pare it down to say a team drafting first overall the previous year loses 1 ball, except in the case of said team starting out with only 1 ball. This would still give some weight for those cellar-dwellers who need the best prospects, while not excluding anyone not in the playoffs. The rest of the draft would be based on points and elimination from playoffs like it currently is.
all this "tank" talk seems to be missing the point...
obviously no team "purposefully" loses games, at least not in any verifiable way. No professional sports league could survive if such allegations had any tangible merit.
but that doesn't change the very obvious and simple reality that at a certain point every year, teams (at the managerial level) stop focusing on winning in the short term, and begin focusing on future seasons...
what the hell do people think the trade deadline is all about???
trading away quality NHLers for draft picks & prospects obviously weakens a team, and makes it less competitive for its remaining games. Call it "tanking" or whatever you want, but obviously the organization is no longer doing it's best to win games in the present.
What this proposed change would do, is give a greater incentive to struggling teams to continue to ice a competitive team... forgoing decisions to bring up younger players from the AHL for development purposes, and removing all doubt, perceived or justified, that winning is the main focus of every game.
i wish I could find the online cversion of the article, but in it, the guy proposing this change had done some of the numbers on recent seasons...
it still gave the worst teams higher picks in general, it just didn't make it as much of a "sure" thing... giving some eliminated teams a higher pick, which, imo, is not a bad thing... why not "reward" a team for continuing to play winning hockey.
other thing it does, is it eliminates the negative impact eliminated teams tend to have on the teams still fighting for a playoff spot. with every team still "playing for something", it makes it more exciting for everyone & maintains a higher degree of competitive fairness.
also, I'd argue that for the players/coaches, it would give them a bit more meaning/incentive...
while these are highly competitive people, who generally hate losing as it is, even elite athlete coaches perform better when there is something tangible to play for & when the outcomes of their games have a real impact. While some guys are playing for a contract, or a coach might be fighting to keep his job, as a team, having a clear and unified "purpose" for playing hard is certain to improve the competitive output.
more i think about it, more i see it as a brilliant idea...
obviously some tweaks would be needed (perhaps eliminating SO pts from the equation???), but otherwise, it's pretty straightforward and would yield much better hockey for those 5-10 teams (and fan bases) who have nothing to play for in the last few weeks of the season.
What this proposed change would do, is give a greater incentive to struggling teams to continue to ice a competitive team... forgoing decisions to bring up younger players from the AHL for development purposes, and removing all doubt, perceived or justified, that winning is the main focus of every game.
it still gave the worst teams higher picks in general, it just didn't make it as much of a "sure" thing... giving some eliminated teams a higher pick, which, imo, is not a bad thing... why not "reward" a team for continuing to play winning hockey.
other thing it does, is it eliminates the negative impact eliminated teams tend to have on the teams still fighting for a playoff spot. with every team still "playing for something", it makes it more exciting for everyone & maintains a higher degree of competitive fairness.
also, I'd argue that for the players/coaches, it would give them a bit more meaning/incentive...
while these are highly competitive people, who generally hate losing as it is, even elite athlete coaches perform better when there is something tangible to play for & when the outcomes of their games have a real impact. While some guys are playing for a contract, or a coach might be fighting to keep his job, as a team, having a clear and unified "purpose" for playing hard is certain to improve the competitive output.
more i think about it, more i see it as a brilliant idea...
obviously some tweaks would be needed (perhaps eliminating SO pts from the equation???), but otherwise, it's pretty straightforward and would yield much better hockey for those 5-10 teams (and fan bases) who have nothing to play for in the last few weeks of the season.
Thank you! You get it!
This rewards the paying customer with a highly competitive game(s)!
What do you think about this:
If mathematical elimination draft order is implemented by the NHL, you will see a game, the last game of the season, in which one team must win the game to earn a playoff spot, and the other team must win the game to earn the first overall draft pick. This will be a highly competitive game with a similar style of play by both teams that one would expect to see during the Stanley Cup playoffs. The object by both teams is to win this one game. Think of the paying customers attending this game! Think about the hype leading up to this game!
I'm not going to provide the answer to this question - you will have to come up with the answer yourself: Beside the win or loss, what is the benefit for each organization for participating in such a game with such high stakes that each organization would not benefit from in a game (such as the status of the game described below) that is meaningless for one of the teams?
Otoh, if mathematical elimination is not implemented, this game would be meaningless for the one team to win.
Last edited by FaceWasher: 03-06-2012 at 12:02 AM.
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...
Does not make sense to me....
Its similar to the current system in that way that the poorer teams have a better opportunity to obtain the 1st overall pick. I'm not sure why a team who misses the playoffs by one point who could only be 2 or 3 points back of 6th or 5th place or even the division lead would need the first overall pick. They are already a competitive team why should they get 1st overall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveAndGame
So 9th place teams add players like RNH, Hall, Seguin etc. on ELC's? Sounds like a quick way for nonplayoff teams to instantly become contenders.
Not really. The 9th place team usually gets knocked out of the playoffs in their last 2 or 3 games which gives them little opportunity to pick higher than 13/14.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper
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?
Yes, this gives teams who need the top pick more of an opportunity to win it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG
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.
I like the percentages idea. The way I would do it is by how many points you missed the playoffs by. Say the 30th place team misses the playoffs by 50 points (nice round number), they would get 100 balls in a lottery. If a team misses the playoffs by 48 points they would get 96 balls in the lottery (96% of 50 points). If a team misses the playoffs by 10 points they would get 20 balls, by 1 point gets 2 balls. How many balls each team gets is determined by the percentage that they missed the playoffs in correlation to the 30th place team.
A draw would take place to determine the draft order. 1st ball pulled gets first 2nd gets 2nd.... so on.
This way if 2 teams are equally as bad but finish a couple points a part they both have a good chance of getting #1 overall. It also gives any team the chance at #1 based by how many points they get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetCluttered22
This doesn't work with the current point system (aka 3 point games). When do you figure a team is mathematically eliminated?
A team is mathematically eliminated when if they win the rest of their games they can not finish ahead of the 8th place team. So if they have 60 points and the 8th place team has 80 they would be eliminated when they only had 10 or 9 games left depending on tie breakers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5RingsAndABeer
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.
teams who tank don't tank on a game by game basis. Its usually an off season decision to build around youth or something like that.
Tanking has a very broad definition around here. Many say that they Oilers have tanked their way to 2 1st overall picks. When in reality they haven't. When they got Hall they were trying to make the playoffs and were decimated with injuries. That season the only decision that you could call tanking might have been to send Eberle to Jr for another year. But when you want a 22nd overall pick to develop more in JR i would hardly call it tanking. The Oilers had just gone through rushing Gagner and cogliano and were probably 2nd guessing that decision around that time.
When they got hall it was obvious that they would build around the young star. They had a very cancerous dressing room and felt it best that they cleansed the room before they brought such a promising prospect into the dressing room. Most of the veteran core was shipped out leaving only a few older players. Was it tanking or a shift in philosophy/direction? Who would have actually inserted Hall into the mediocre 9-10th place finishing Oilers at that time? If they do it maybe they make the playoffs a year or 2 earlier than they do with a rebuild, but what kind of longevity does that bring? You end up with Rick Nash on a mediocre team that can't move one step forward without going 3 or 4 steps back.
Even the next year where they got RNH i'm sure they were probably expecting to be drafting high but if not for another huge rash of injuries that season which included their new star Taylor Hall for a long portion of the season I doubt they are sitting in 30th again.
This season they looked to be on the up swing. They added key players to the forward group that would help their young stars develop. This year was a "lets see what we have here" kind of year. And yet again injuries were a hug factor with Whitney Hall Eberle RNH... and on and on missing considerable time. When they are healthy they have looked good. When they aren't they have looked bad. 29th was not really in the picture this season if not for their terrible luck again.
Did the Oilers tank? depends on what you define tanking as, one could argue that they tanked the year they got RNH. One could also say they were developing youth. Obviously rebuilding comes with high draft picks, did the Oilers plan for 2 1st? I don't think it even entered their mind, and 3 wasn't even a dream.
i don't think teams ever tank purposely. Do you really think you could convince an entire hockey team to stop playing? teams lose because they are bad.
1) Current draft is too powerful.
2) Doesn't immediately make team better, but does down the road
Because of this, teams are often motivated to lose multiple years in a row in order to build a powerhouse.
Here's one way to fix that:
1) Make the top pick in the draft less desirable. The way to do that is to reduce the RFA years for the top picks to a point where the difference between #1 and #10 isn't a big deal, but is still a lot better than the #30 pick.
2) Give the team advantages in the UFA market for immediate turn arounds. For example, let the bottom 7 teams have a 1-week head start on free agency and non-playoff teams 3 days.
i don't think teams ever tank purposely. Do you really think you could convince an entire hockey team to stop playing? teams lose because they are bad.
I don't think anyone is implying that players go out and lose games on purpose. The blame is pointed at management for not addressing needs that the teams obviously have.
All the teams that miss should have their own version of the playoffs for the 1st pick except with one game series.
eg. (1. being the best team to miss the playoffs, 14. the worst team)
Round 1
A 1. vs 14.
B 2. vs 13.
C 3. vs 12.
D 4. vs 11.
E 5. vs 10.
F 6. vs 9.
G 7. vs. 8.
Round 2
Top seed gets a bye
the other 6 teams are re-seeded and play
Round 3
Top seed faces the lowest seed winner from round 2
Round 4
Final
Then arrange the Draft from how far the teams made it from the winner getting the 1st pick and so forth.
Plus they can do it in that week break between the season and playoffs.
All the teams that miss should have their own version of the playoffs for the 1st pick except with one game series.
eg. (1. being the best team to miss the playoffs, 14. the worst team)
Round 1
A 1. vs 14.
B 2. vs 13.
C 3. vs 12.
D 4. vs 11.
E 5. vs 10.
F 6. vs 9.
G 7. vs. 8.
Round 2
Top seed gets a bye
the other 6 teams are re-seeded and play
Round 3
Top seed faces the lowest seed winner from round 2
Round 4
Final
Then arrange the Draft from how far the teams made it from the winner getting the 1st pick and so forth.
Plus they can do it in that week break between the season and playoffs.
No to this.
Just for the sheer fact it doesn't solve anything and causes more problems. Out of everything in this thread this makes the least sense.
I don't think anyone is implying that players go out and lose games on purpose. The blame is pointed at management for not addressing needs that the teams obviously have.
Unlikely since the players are playing for performance statistics the player and his agent want for the next contract negotiation.
But... a team can tank by, for example:
playing a back-up goalie
scratching a key player for an injury that may not be bad enough to prevent the player from playing
the coach does not shorten the bench at key times
bad line match-ups
bad line changes
wearing out the players with long shifts
wearing out the players with long practices/morning skates
All 30 GMs should have a game of dodgeball before the draft to determine order. Then everyone can shut the **** up about it and we don't have to clutter up the board with the same whining tank thread every week.
This would be awesome. Would love to see Brian Burke play and get ejected for yelling at the refs.
Unlikely since the players are playing for performance statistics the player and his agent want for the next contract negotiation.
But... a team can tank by, for example:
playing a back-up goalie
scratching a key player for an injury that may not be bad enough to prevent the player from playing
the coach does not shorten the bench at key times
bad line match-ups
bad line changes
wearing out the players with long shifts
wearing out the players with long practices/morning skates
bad PP and PK lines
calling up and playing young players
Lots of these examples have other benefits to a struggling team as well, and some are just bogus.
playing a back-up goalie - Lots of times this can be look at as developmental, like the Oilers playing Dubnyk more than they would if they were competing for a playoff spot. They do it so thay can develop their young goalie to see what they have.
scratching a key player for an injury that may not be bad enough to prevent the player from playing - This is simply protecting an asset. When the games ultimately mean nothing why would you risk the health of the players that are key to your future success? I'll reference the Oilers again. RNH coming back from his second shoulder injury in less than a month or so probably took a few extra games off to make sure he wasn't in danger of re-injuring the shoulder. If the Oilers were in a playoff push i would bet he would have been back sooner. This isn't tanking, this is protecting your assets.
the coach does not shorten the bench at key times - With a young team you want to give all your players opportunities to grow in every situation. Again I go back to the Oilers, Renney has said that last season he didn't shorten the bench very often so that he could utilize his whole team, and also so that he wouldn't overwhelm his young stars.
bad line match-ups - You could attribute this to the above but I don't think any coach would purposely put out a bad line match up on purpose. Coaches have performance expectations as well and the rest of the league does watch them.
bad line changes - this is bogus, no one makes bad line changes on purpose.
wearing out the players with long shifts - Again Bogus. Players come off when they are tired.
wearing out the players with long practices/morning skates - bogus again, coaches care about their teams performances if they come out flat every night it looks bad on them and makes it harder for them to find a job after their fan base exiles them for their poor decisions.
bad PP and PK lines - This can be attributed to not shortening the bench as well as development of young players who don't thrive in these situations but if they learn how to play well in them it will be an asset to the team for years to come. So many good players kill penalties aka Datsyk/Zetterburg.
calling up and playing young players - Development/internal scouting.
I do realize that some of these things do happen in a 1 off situation where winning a game could make a difference between finishing in 30/29. I'm not saying that it never happens, its just not something that happens often enough for a team to finish last compared to say 5 spots higher.
