draft lottery proposal by Gary B

[HSHS]

ok if its all about crosby take him out of the mix, have the draft with last yr.s standings with out crosby. but first have a draft lottery just for corsby. but you have to cut 8 players [put them back in the draft] from your nhl roster from last yr. for a chance [not too hard to do if your a chi. hawk cap, or bluejacket] and there won't be a sure thing you'll get him.

I was actually thinking about this last night... make it even odds for the first pick, then weighted by 03-04 points. Maybe, just maybe include some fraction of 02-03.

 

[HSHS]

Me2: the only problem I have with making a 1 yr UFA then draft in this class is that NO ONE will be signed other than Sid. Who else is expected to make a SIGNIFICANT contribution for 1 yr??? and comes with hype???

 

[norrisnick]

I bet nobody here is surprised that you're most approving of the weighted proposal that increases the Wings' chances of getting Crosby.

Well considering that even odds is the only thing remotely fair (besides finding an unprecedented formula for 100% accurately predicting outcomes), yes any system that stays as close to even random odds is something I'll support.

Random chance (provided there is no tampering) is pure. The weighting process using past standings, especially multiple ones, not so much.

 

[WC Handy*]

Well considering that even odds is the only thing remotely fair (besides finding an unprecedented formula for 100% accurately predicting outcomes), yes any system that stays as close to even random odds is something I'll support.

Random chance (provided there is no tampering) is pure. The weighting process using past standings, especially multiple ones, not so much.

No system that gives the Wings the same shot at Crosby as the Penguins is anywhere close to remotely fair.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Well considering that even odds is the only thing remotely fair (besides finding an unprecedented formula for 100% accurately predicting outcomes), yes any system that stays as close to even random odds is something I'll support.

Random chance (provided there is no tampering) is pure. The weighting process using past standings, especially multiple ones, not so much.

If you actually believe this, then I give up . . . we will talk past one another all day. There is no way that I can see that anyone can think that there are not vast differences in talent levels of teams even with a new CBA. Not potential players who are years away if they develope at all, but loaded stacked teams for when the season begins next year. If you are arguing otherwise we may as well stop talking, we will never convince the other.

 

[norrisnick]

No system that gives the Wings the same shot at Crosby as the Penguins is anywhere close to remotely fair.

Until you know with 100% certainty that the Wings are or would have been the stronger team, yes it's the only fair system.

It would be like starting the season and officially making the bottom 10 teams from the previous 3 seasons unable to enter the playoffs and win the Cup even if it ends up that they finish the season in playoff position. Or the top 10 teams from being able to miss the playoffs even if they were to decline dramatically in the standings.

I don't care about best guesses because best guess will inevitably not be accurate. Having random chance "screw" a team would be much better than Gary and a committee doing the screwing.

If random odds gave the Wings #30 I'd take it and be grateful (considering the Wings have only had 2 1st rounders in the last 8 drafts) but I'd be pissed if the Wings got #20 but that was the highest mathematically possible for the Wings to achieve.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Until you know with 100% certainty that the Wings are or would have been the stronger team, yes it's the only fair system.

It would be like starting the season and officially making the bottom 10 teams from the previous 3 seasons unable to enter the playoffs and win the Cup even if it ends up that they finish the season in playoff position. Or the top 10 teams from being able to miss the playoffs even if they were to decline dramatically in the standings.

I don't care about best guesses because best guess will inevitably not be accurate. Having random chance "screw" a team would be much better than Gary and a committee doing the screwing.

Let me ask you a question . . . I have a gun in my hand, I am a pretty average shot, not world class, but pretty average. Can I take aim at your head and shoot? Afterall, being pretty average I bet that the chances that I hit may only be 9 out of 10.

Well, there you go, I have a better chance of hitting your head with a gun at 9 out of 10 I would bet than of any of the top 5 teams of 2003-4 hitting bottom five, or vice versa. So you willing to put your head on the line Mr. 100% man? It would be the fairest thing afterall as we never know if I really will hit you.

 

[WC Handy*]

Until you know with 100% certainty that the Wings are or would have been the stronger team, yes it's the only fair system.

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that the Wings will get their low pick in 2006 if they suck in 2005-06?

 

[norrisnick]

Let me ask you a question . . . I have a gun in my hand, I am a pretty average shot, not world class, but pretty average. Can I take aim at your head and shoot? Afterall, being pretty average I bet that the chances that I hit may only be 9 out of 10.

Well, there you go, I have a better chance of hitting your head with a gun at 9 out of 10 I would bet than of any of the top 5 teams of 2003-4 hitting bottom five, or vice versa. So you willing to put your head on the line Mr. 100% man? It would be the fairest thing afterall as we never know if I really will hit you.

No, I'd rather blindfold you, spin you around, and have you shoot in my general direction. Randomness you see.

I'm willing to bet that many of the top 5 and bottom 5 won't stay in the top and bottom 5 but that's how you want to weight the draft. Is that fair? Nope.

 

[norrisnick]

Why are you having such a hard time understanding that the Wings will get their low pick in 2006 if they suck in 2005-06?

Why are you having such a hard time that if teams that sucked in the past happen to suck in '05-'06 that they'll get their low pick? Why give them the '05 freebie based on an assumption?

 

[WC Handy*]

Why are you having such a hard time that if teams that sucked in the past happen to suck in '05-'06 that they'll get their low pick? Why give them the '05 freebie based on an assumption?

You are the one wanting to base the draft order on an assumption.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

No, I'd rather blindfold you, spin you around, and have you shoot in my general direction. Randomness you see.

I'm willing to bet that many of the top 5 and bottom 5 won't stay in the top and bottom 5 but that's how you want to weight the draft. Is that fair? Nope.

Nice qualifier there. However very very few, likely none, will drop or rise so percipitously to make totally random the fairest of possible options that they could choose. That is why I personally like my three tier system, a lottery among the top, middle, and bottom thirds, weighted but not hugely so. That is about as close as you are going to get to approximating what would have happened, and as well will avoid letting a loaded team end up getting icing on their well formed cake, and will also avoid the spectical of a truly sad sack team getting the shaft with a 29th or 30th pick. 100% fair? Your system is not either, far from it, we sometimes do not get the choice between good and bad, sometimes it is between bad and worst. Your system is worst by far, it is intuitive as shown by other threads ranking the top ten with a chance for the cup next year. Everyone knows who is good and bad, who with likely a 99% certainty will be good and bad, even you, but you will not admit it.

 

[norrisnick]

You are the one wanting to base the draft order on an assumption.

What assumption is there in 30 balls and 30 teams? It is actively acknowledging that no assumptions ought to be made.

 

[HockeyCritter]

Why are you having such a hard time that if teams that sucked in the past happen to suck in '05-'06 that they'll get their low pick? Why give them the '05 freebie based on an assumption?

How is that any different than what you're proposing? Isn't your main objectiong/assertion that the Wings, Avs, Leafs et al are going to be worse (merely because of the CBA) therefor deserve a high pick?

 

[norrisnick]

Nice qualifier there. However very very few, likely none, will drop or rise so percipitously to make totally random the fairest of possible options that they could choose. That is why I personally like my three tier system, a lottery among the top, middle, and bottom thirds, weighted but not hugely so. That is about as close as you are going to get to approximating what would have happened, and as well will avoid letting a loaded team end up getting icing on their well formed cake, and will also avoid the spectical of a truly sad sack team getting the shaft with a 29th or 30th pick. 100% fair? Your system is not either, far from it, we sometimes do not get the choice between good and bad, sometimes it is between bad and worst. Your system is worst by far, it is intuitive as shown by other threads ranking the top ten with a chance for the cup next year. Everyone knows who is good and bad, who with likely a 99% certainty will be good and bad, even you, but you will not admit it.

Are you willing to sacrifice any chance at the playoffs (even if your team were to be in the top 16) in exchange for a 5-10 team lottery for #1?

 

[CGG]

Nice qualifier there. However very very few, likely none, will drop or rise so percipitously to make totally random the fairest of possible options that they could choose. That is why I personally like my three tier system, a lottery among the top, middle, and bottom thirds, weighted but not hugely so. That is about as close as you are going to get to approximating what would have happened, and as well will avoid letting a loaded team end up getting icing on their well formed cake, and will also avoid the spectical of a truly sad sack team getting the shaft with a 29th or 30th pick. 100% fair? Your system is not either, far from it, we sometimes do not get the choice between good and bad, sometimes it is between bad and worst. Your system is worst by far, it is intuitive as shown by other threads ranking the top ten with a chance for the cup next year. Everyone knows who is good and bad, who with likely a 99% certainty will be good and bad, even you, but you will not admit it.

No matter how you determine the rankings for your system, the #11 team can easily make an argument that they are / will be much worse than the #10 team. The #10 team has a 10% chance at Crosby and the #11 team has a 10% chance at picking 20th and zero chance at getting Crosby. How is that "fair"?

Doesn't matter where you draw the line, if someone declares that only a certain group of teams has a shot at Crosby, it doesn't work. Everyone needs at least some chance at the #1 pick, just like every team had a chance to finish in the bottom 5, had there been a season. Sure, it might have been unlikely for Detroit to finish last, but it definitely could have happened. There are examples out there of a Boston falling from the top tier to last overall, and a Quebec going from last overall to the Top 5. It can and does happen.

The other thread picking their favourites for the next Cup has absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever. You don't know what's going to happen. So what if everyone picks Philly, they might be crap next year. Who would have picked a Tampa-Calgary final at this time two years ago?

 

[norrisnick]

How is that any different than what you're proposing? Isn't your main objectiong/assertion that the Wings, Avs, Leafs et al are going to be worse (merely because of the CBA) therefor deserve a high pick?

More so that it is a bad assumption to make that they will be at the head of the league.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Are you willing to sacrifice any chance at the playoffs (even if your team were to be in the top 16) in exchange for a 5-10 team lottery for #1?

This Pens' team?

Sure . . .it is an unpopular position even among Pens' fans, but I know my team is going nowhere next year, it will be 2-3 years before we can talk about being good. If we did happen to nudge into the playoffs it would be to get our butts handed to us without winning a single game, and play for the Cup? Our best goalie was benched in the AHL playoffs. Most of our best prospects are not even shaving yet. Sure, guarentee me a top five pick and I will gladly give up the playoffs next year for the Pens. They were heading there anyways.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

No matter how you determine the rankings for your system, the #11 team can easily make an argument that they are / will be much worse than the #10 team. The #10 team has a 10% chance at Crosby and the #11 team has a 10% chance at picking 20th and zero chance at getting Crosby. How is that "fair"?

Doesn't matter where you draw the line, if someone declares that only a certain group of teams has a shot at Crosby, it doesn't work. Everyone needs at least some chance at the #1 pick, just like every team had a chance to finish in the bottom 5, had there been a season. Sure, it might have been unlikely for Detroit to finish last, but it definitely could have happened. There are examples out there of a Boston falling from the top tier to last overall, and a Quebec going from last overall to the Top 5. It can and does happen.

The other thread picking their favourites for the next Cup has absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever. You don't know what's going to happen. So what if everyone picks Philly, they might be crap next year. Who would have picked a Tampa-Calgary final at this time two years ago?

As long as you wieght the system in such a way to avoid the spectical of a top five type team ending up with a top five pick, or a bottom five team ending up picking 26-30 I do not care what is used. Another notion was to give every team a shot at Crosby, but for the rest normal system, average the last 3 years. There are many ways to do it, but that first sentence should be the goal of whatever system is chosen.

 

[WC Handy*]

What assumption is there in 30 balls and 30 teams? It is actively acknowledging that no assumptions ought to be made.

Scroll up and read what Hockeycritter wrote for a response to this...

 

[norrisnick]

This Pens' team?

Sure . . .it is an unpopular position even among Pens' fans, but I know my team is going nowhere next year, it will be 2-3 years before we can talk about being good. If we did happen to nudge into the playoffs it would be to get our butts handed to us without winning a single game, and play for the Cup? Our best goalie was benched in the AHL playoffs. Most of our best prospects are not even shaving yet. Sure, guarentee me a top five pick and I will gladly give up the playoffs next year for the Pens. They were heading there anyways.

Guarantee the Wings home-ice for a couple rounds and I'll take a #25-30 pick. Too bad those conditions aren't about to happen, eh?

/side note reports coming out of Russia indicate that Datsyuk signed a deal with no "out" clause.

 

[WC Handy*]

Guarantee the Wings home-ice for a couple rounds and I'll take a #25-30 pick. Too bad those conditions aren't about to happen, eh?

/side note reports coming out of Russia indicate that Datsyuk signed a deal with no "out" clause.

The season after a draft has nothing to do with the draft. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

 

[norrisnick]

Scroll up and read what Hockeycritter wrote for a response to this...

I did and disagreed.

 

[norrisnick]

The season after a draft has nothing to do with the draft. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

The seasons in the past that have already been accounted for with past drafts have nothing to do with future drafts either. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Besides that was a line of reasoning between Jaded and I.

 

[norrisnick]

As long as you wieght the system in such a way to avoid the spectical of a top five type team ending up with a top five pick, or a bottom five team ending up picking 26-30 I do not care what is used. Another notion was to give every team a shot at Crosby, but for the rest normal system, average the last 3 years. There are many ways to do it, but that first sentence should be the goal of whatever system is chosen.

You have a point for the '04 draft. Not so much for the '05 draft. Sorry.