Fixing the Draft, Stopping the Tank

[FleeceGang]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Better solution is something like this:
- Bottom 10 teams qualify for the draft top 10 picks of the lottery
- As soon as a team is eliminated their point % at that point is used to set reverse standings
- The team with the highest winning %, after their elimination point, gets the #1 pick. And so on.

There are things to work out, such as it doesn't account for different strengths of schedules post elimination.

However I like the concept because you reward winning down the stretch.

Better way to set this up is that the second a team is mathematically eliminated any further points gained (2 for a win, 1 for an OT/SO L) also count towards draft position. Highest draft points at the end of the year gets highest lottery spot. Bad teams who are eliminated first and have more games to try and gain points. I like it because this system rewards winning even when you are out of the playoffs. That being said, there’s nothing stopping a team from losing the first 30 games then turning it on in the last half of the season. But doing so is incredibly obvious and could be prevented by implement some safe guard or penalty for doing so.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's the only league that does. You get rewarded for failing, as long as it's in overtime.

The league does need to go to a 3-2-1 points system.

Getting 2 points and the other team getting 0 for shootout or 3v3 loss would be stupid and an unjust result.

3 points for a regulation win
1 point each for regulation tie
Then 1 point awarded for winning in OT or SO.

It's so obviously the best points system for the NHL but Bettman and the BoG always tend to be blind to the obvious outcomes.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

Better way to set this up is that the second a team is mathematically eliminated any further points gained (2 for a win, 1 for an OT/SO L) also count towards draft position. Highest draft points at the end of the year gets highest lottery spot. Bad teams who are eliminated first and have more games to try and gain points. I like it because this system rewards winning even when you are out of the playoffs. That being said, there’s nothing stopping a team from losing the first 30 games then turning it on in the last half of the season. But doing so is incredibly obvious and could be prevented by implement some safe guard or penalty for doing so.

Yes, teams would simply tank earlier in the year. 'Gotta be the first to tank, so we can get that coveted pick!'

Whatever system you design, people will exploit it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The league does need to go to a 3-2-1 points system.

Getting 2 points and the other team getting 0 for shootout or 3v3 loss would be stupid and an unjust result.

3 points for a regulation win
1 point each for regulation tie
Then 1 point awarded for winning in OT or SO.

It's so obviously the best points system for the NHL but Bettman and the BoG always tend to be blind to the obvious outcomes.

I am 100% in favour of the 3-2-1 system. And I agree that the current system is stupid.

But the simple fact of the matter is that a 3-2-1 system results in pretty much exactly the same standings.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am 100% in favour of the 3-2-1 system. And I agree that the current system is stupid.

But the simple fact of the matter is that a 3-2-1 system results in pretty much exactly the same standings.

Just changing the points after the games were already played doesn't actually prove that to us though, because teams didn't have incentive to win the game in regulation.

In 97-98 25% of games went to overtime, in 23-24 that number was close to 70%, because there is no incentive to winning the game in regulation.

Coaches are happy to get their point, and then play for the extra point in overtime.

I think if you go to a 3-2-1 point system you'll get a lot more exciting hockey in the third period of close games, as it gives teams a lot more incentive to push for a regulation win.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The league does need to go to a 3-2-1 points system.

Getting 2 points and the other team getting 0 for shootout or 3v3 loss would be stupid and an unjust result.

3 points for a regulation win
1 point each for regulation tie
Then 1 point awarded for winning in OT or SO.

It's so obviously the best points system for the NHL but Bettman and the BoG always tend to be blind to the obvious outcomes.

The sole reason they don't go to this system is that it makes teams appear better than they really are.

The vast majority of teams get to .500, or 82 points in 82 games, when in reality, it takes about 92+ points to get to the real .500.

It makes the worse teams look better than they really are for their fans.

Bettman is not blind to this, but there are business reasons in play here. It's indeed obvious that the 3-2-1 system makes the most sense hockey wise.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, teams would simply tank earlier in the year. 'Gotta be the first to tank, so we can get that coveted pick!'

Whatever system you design, people will exploit it.

Equal odds lottery and no repeat winners=no tankers

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Equal odds lottery and no repeat winners=no tankers

I think no repeat winners at all is maybe too harsh but it does have to be weighted to at least reduce the odds.

If I was going to change it now I think I'd go to :

1) Only bottom 5 teams have a chance at winning the lottery - as this would keep more teams involved in the playoff race longer and less incentive to throw the parachute on your season.

2) Your lottery odds are impacted if you have won prior 1st overall draft picks, and it's a maximum of 3 1st overall picks in a 5 year stretch.

So the lottery odds would look something like:

32: 10 lottery balls (25%)
31: 9 lottery balls (22.5%)
30: 8 lottery balls (20%)
29: 7 lottery balls (17.5%)
28: 6 lottery balls (15%)

Then you remove 2 lottery balls for every time you have drafted 1st overall in the prior 5 year stretch (up to a maximum of 3 times).

So lets assume the 32nd place team won the lottery the year before, and the 30th and 28th place teams also have recent lottery wins.

32: 8 lottery balls (23.5%)
31: 9 lottery balls (26.5%)
30: 6 lottery balls (17.5%)
29: 7 lottery balls (20.5%)
28: 4 lottery balls (12.0%)

If were to use this most recent draft as an example it would have been:

San Jose: 10 lottery balls
Chicago: 7 lottery balls
Anaheim: 8 lottery balls
Columbus: 7 lottery balls
Montreal: 4 lottery balls

And really outside of the No Goods up North that had 4 1st overall picks in a 6 year stretch it's never really been a real issue in recent NHL history. Going back to the year 2000 no other team had more than 2 1st overall picks in a 5 year stretch (New Jersey: Hischier/Hughes; Buffalo: Dahlin/Power; Pittsburgh: Crosby/Fleury). It's ridiculous to me that the fan base somehow acts like the NHL is against me when they've had the opportunities they have handed to them.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

The sole reason they don't go to this system is that it makes teams appear better than they really are.

The vast majority of teams get to .500, or 82 points in 82 games, when in reality, it takes about 92+ points to get to the real .500.

It makes the worse teams look better than they really are for their fans.

Bettman is not blind to this, but there are business reasons in play here. It's indeed obvious that the 3-2-1 system makes the most sense hockey wise.

Is it? A pure win-loss system based on winning % seems to me like it would peel away any oddities in a cut the $#@& method of doing away with loser points or bonus points and any points in general.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Equal odds lottery and no repeat winners=no tankers

and little ability for weaker teams to recover

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

and little ability for weaker teams to recover

Weaker teams near the bottom could get bumped one spot by a higher seeded team winning. It's not going to crater their ability to acquire talent.

Also if you keep it capped at moving up 10 spots, they might not even lose their draft position going in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Weaker teams near the bottom could get bumped one spot by a higher seeded team winning. It's not going to crater their ability to acquire talent.

Also if you keep it capped at moving up 10 spots, they might not even lose their draft position going in.

I was responding to Dino's completely random draft proposal

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

and little ability for weaker teams to recover

He just wants it that way because it would by far be the best thing for the Flames and their preferred management style. Edwards would be drooling if the Flames could finish 17th and still have a shot at the 1st overall.

[gvitaly]

I always thought tanking was a good way to keep fans engaged. Fans need some sort of hope that their team is going to get good again in 3-4 years.

I would've probably waved the white flag on being a Flames fan if I knew that we were going to suck for the next 4-7 years while only getting picks in the teens.

PS: I don't know how some of you managed to stick around through the young guns era.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

In 97-98 25% of games went to overtime, in 23-24 that number was close to 70%, because there is no incentive to winning the game in regulation.

I don't believe that at all. 70%? Then half of those would be OTLs, which would be almost 30 per team on average.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The league does need to go to a 3-2-1 points system.

Getting 2 points and the other team getting 0 for shootout or 3v3 loss would be stupid and an unjust result.

3 points for a regulation win
1 point each for regulation tie
Then 1 point awarded for winning in OT or SO.

It's so obviously the best points system for the NHL but Bettman and the BoG always tend to be blind to the obvious outcomes.

That solves the absurdity of one game being worth more than another, but not the absurdity of losing being rewarded.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by butterfly

I don't believe that at all. 70%? Then half of those would be OTLs, which would be almost 30 per team on average.

I think I misread the stat.

I looked for % of games that went to OT and think what I was provided was % of games that were solved in OT

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by butterfly

That solves the absurdity of one game being worth more than another, but not the absurdity of losing being rewarded.

Losing isn't being rewarded.

A regulation tie has been rewarded with 1 point throughout most of NHL history, this would be the same

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Losing isn't being rewarded.

A regulation tie has been rewarded with 1 point throughout most of NHL history, this would be the same

No, a regulation tie that leads to an overtime loss is a newly rewarded outcome, which did not result in 1 point before in NHL history. That was 0. Both teams each got 1 for a drawn final game after the overtime session; a fair result.

They took ties away, so either you win or lose. There's no more need for points unless they bring ties back.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by butterfly

No, a regulation tie that leads to an overtime loss is a newly rewarded outcome, which did not result in 1 point before in NHL history. That was 0. Both teams each got 1 for a drawn final game after the overtime session; a fair result.

They took ties away, so either you win or lose. There's no more need for points unless they bring ties back.

I hate the idea of losing in a shootout and not getting anything