New Draft Lottery odds announced

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

For someone that can do stats.......

How often would we expect a team that finishes 10th to win a top 3 pick under this new system?

Like once every ten years type of thing?

Yes, pretty much exactly. I haven't run the full and exact range of odds, but the 10th place team (i.e. 21st overall) would have a roughly 10% chance of getting lucky, give or take. So 1 in 10 years kind of thing.

The bubble team (14 slot) has about a 3% chance, meaning once in 33 years, so in all likelihood, this will happen the first year they do this.

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by saillias

Not a fan of the added element of randomness. Or the lottery period. What was wrong with the worst team gets best pick thing again? Why is there movement to get away from that? 10 points if you can make an answer that doesn't include whining about the Oilers

The system breaks when teams recognize that it's good to be terrible for stretches of time so that they can draft elite talent. The current system strongly incentivizes tanking.

The new system makes a 30th place finish much less valuable, so it encourages teams to actually try to finish higher than 30th place.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

The first and second last teams will have a better chance to win the lotteries, so not sure what your point is?

I replied to the Oiler fan. I thought the satire to be obvious.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Deegee

Isn't he an Oilers homer?

Surprised the article isn't whining about the chances being reduced for Edmonton's shot at 1st OA.

Because he's deluded enough to think the Oilers are actually going to do something aside from suck the bag again.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by TheDebaser

The system breaks when teams recognize that it's good to be terrible for stretches of time so that they can draft elite talent. The current system strongly incentivizes tanking.

The new system makes a 30th place finish much less valuable, so it encourages teams to actually try to finish higher than 30th place.

What team, outside of Pittsburgh that one time, is not trying to be better than dead last? Hockey revenue is gate driven and there's too much instability. Look at Phoenix: if they could afford it, they shouldve tanked years ago. Is this really the issue at the moment?

I personally think this is about talent distribution and managing salaries. I would assume that its in the leagues interest to have a faster cycle.for teams and shorter rebuilds, but RFAs getting ice exposure, and therefore more points, are yeilding equal salaries than UFAs. Having a player incubate on the depth chart reduces 24 year old salaries.

[Itse]

...so we're going to see some team 1 or 2 spots below the playoff line pick in the top 3 pretty regularly with that system, right? Something like once in every 4 years?

I like it.

[icarus]

I still wish the entire first round would be selected by weighted lottery. The Crosby draft lottery was exciting viewing for fans of every NHL team.

[bubbsy]

the more i think of this, the more i don't like it.

the point of hte draft is to provide teams that sucked an advantage in getting better. i believe with the new approach the worst team in the league, could fall all the way down to 4th pick in the draft.

Bad teams need a "get out of jail" card, and the draft was somethign that helped the organization, but also helped retain fan excitement as all that suffering can be offset with hope for the future.

The problem is teams not even attempting to ice an NHL roster over a period of years while they go thru this "rebuild" phase. it hurts the competition in the league which is bad for the overall league. Of course it's also very bad for the specific markets. Owners/Management have to have buy in that the 'rebuild' will likely cost them money most of the time (ie. fans aren't ponying up $$$ for tickets, jerseys, etc), as well as potential mid-long term brand damage.

My solution to the problem would be to somehow penalize a team who finished in the bottom X (let's say 3) last year, where they can at best draft at the position of x or x+1 in the following year. One would think that there is enough incentive on management to win more than they lose (ie. staying competitive should lead to more fan involvement in the brand) but the issue i suppose is what good is being mediocre and fighting for that 9-12 position team in each conference.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by icarus

I still wish the entire first round would be selected by weighted lottery. The Crosby draft lottery was exciting viewing for fans of every NHL team.

The playoffs are exciting too, but only 16 teams make it.

Imagine where the Flames would be if we picked at around 10 these last two seasons.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Itse

...so we're going to see some team 1 or 2 spots below the playoff line pick in the top 3 pretty regularly with that system, right? Something like once in every 4 years?

I like it.

Yeah if you look at the 4 bubble teams (11th through 14th), the chances that (any) one of them getting one of the top 3 picks would be approximately 25%, so one year in 4 on average.

Of course it might not happen for 15 years or it might happen 3 of the first 4 years, but on average it should be one year in 4.

That certainly adds an element of excitement and drama to the draft lottery.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

What team, outside of Pittsburgh that one time, is not trying to be better than dead last? Hockey revenue is gate driven and there's too much instability. Look at Phoenix: if they could afford it, they shouldve tanked years ago. Is this really the issue at the moment?

I personally think this is about talent distribution and managing salaries. I would assume that its in the leagues interest to have a faster cycle.for teams and shorter rebuilds, but RFAs getting ice exposure, and therefore more points, are yeilding equal salaries than UFAs. Having a player incubate on the depth chart reduces 24 year old salaries.

I think "tanking" is the wrong word, but look at Buffalo last year. They traded every NHL quality player they had for picks/prospects. You can't tell me that you think Murray was trying to ice a competitive team.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think "tanking" is the wrong word, but look at Buffalo last year. They traded every NHL quality player they had for picks/prospects. You can't tell me that you think Murray was trying to ice a competitive team.

I think Buffalo was trying to be the best organization in the East a few seasons from now by stockpiling assets. This off season was further evidence of that. Only half the teams make the playoffs and Buffalo was clearly out of contention so they improved their chances long term. Sometimes less is more.

They brought in a new coach with hopes of improving and that didn't pan out. They needed new on-ice leadership because Vanek and Miller wanted out. What else could they have done to improve their club long term?

A lot of business recapitalize in order to obtain long term growth. I don't see why the business of sports get scrutinized for it.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by codynw

I think "tanking" is the wrong word, but look at Buffalo last year. They traded every NHL quality player they had for picks/prospects. You can't tell me that you think Murray was trying to ice a competitive team.

They traded UFAs at the deadline when they were long out of it. What would you have preferred? It's not like they traded them at the start of the year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I think Buffalo was trying to be the best organization in the East a few seasons from now by stockpiling assets. This off season was further evidence of that. Only half the teams make the playoffs and Buffalo was clearly out of contention so they improved their chances long term. Sometimes less is more.

They brought in a new coach with hopes of improving and that didn't pan out. They needed new on-ice leadership because Vanek and Miller wanted out. What else could they have done to improve their club long term?

A lot of business recapitalize in order to obtain long term growth. I don't see why the business of sports get scrutinized for it.

The flip side is that every team has a responsibility to the other teams to provide a competitive product. Each team has STHs that shell out a crapload of money to watch the best hockey in the world.

I get that Buffalo wants to rebuild for the future, but the NHL also wants competitive hockey on the ice. And de-incentizing the draft as a reward for failure is one way to help accomplish that.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The playoffs are exciting too, but only 16 teams make it.

Imagine where the Flames would be if we picked at around 10 these last two seasons.

Or imagine if we picked at around 1 these last two drafts. Either scenario could occur if the entire round was selected by weighted lottery.

Of course the weighting would mean that statistically it would be most likely for the draft order to reflect the reverse order of the standings, as we have now.

But there would be that chance, however slight, that any team might select anywhere in the standings.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Hackey

They traded UFAs at the deadline when they were long out of it. What would you have preferred? It's not like they traded them at the start of the year.

Pretty much every team trades their UFAs when they're that bad, and it's fair, but the team still made themselves significantly worse short term so that they could improve long term, and that included getting a top 2 draft pick. Tanking probably isn't the right word, but they're definitely not planning on making the playoffs.

Originally Posted by icarus

Or imagine if we picked at around 1 these last two drafts. Either scenario could occur if the entire round was selected by weighted lottery.

Of course the weighting would mean that statistically it would be most likely for the draft order to reflect the reverse order of the standings, as we have now.

But there would be that chance, however slight, that any team might select anywhere in the standings.

There is no way playoff teams should be able to win the lottery. Can you imagine if the Kings or Blackhawks won the lottery this year and ended up with McDavid? I don't even think the teams that barely missed the playoffs should be in the lottery, never mind all of the elite teams.

[codynw]

double post

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The flip side is that every team has a responsibility to the other teams to provide a competitive product. Each team has STHs that shell out a crapload of money to watch the best hockey in the world.

I get that Buffalo wants to rebuild for the future, but the NHL also wants competitive hockey on the ice. And de-incentizing the draft as a reward for failure is one way to help accomplish that.

So you're saying that Buffalo has the responsibility to other NHL teams' season tickets owners to not maximize the value of their assets and to not prioritize long-term goals?

Just so much wrong with that "argument."

Buffalo is a business that is about maximizing the value of its own franchise, not the utility of people who pay Buffalo ZERO dollars. Further, Buffalo already has to cross subsidize the utility of these consumers because of the salary cap floor. You can only go so low.

The point of rewarding the worst teams is actually a much better economically rational argument to the interests of the health of all franchises. It provides hope to the worst, hope can be capitalized in ways that your misplaced sense of fairness or pride cannot.

[Tinordi]

nm

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The flip side is that every team has a responsibility to the other teams to provide a competitive product. Each team has STHs that shell out a crapload of money to watch the best hockey in the world.

I get that Buffalo wants to rebuild for the future, but the NHL also wants competitive hockey on the ice. And de-incentizing the draft as a reward for failure is one way to help accomplish that.

I disagree. I don't think Walmart owes Target the courtesy of being competitive, nor do I think Walmart owes its customers the courtesy of fair prices. Its a free market, competitive business. Likewise with hockey, there's only 16 playoff teams, so there has to be losers. Even if there's 8 points separating the 1st and 30th place teams, someone has to lose and get the better selection for incoming talent.

Moreover, if STHs are dumb enough to pay for a poor product, that's their problem. No business should be handcuffed by the cries of any given customer. I'm sure some STH support the tank, while others don't. You can't please everyone, so the managers need to focus on what's good for business.