draft musings

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by McJadeddog, May 20, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McJadeddog

    McJadeddog Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    14,965
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    so i was reading the other thread about the idea of a weighted lottery pick for the upcoming draft (whenever that might be)... i think bettman has the right idea, in that he should base it on past years standings... but there should be certain "limits" on the picks as well (ie. the top teams should have no chance at the number 1 pick and the bottom teams should pick no later than 15th or so)

    here is my reasoning for it.... everybody is saying that we dont know what this past seasons final standings would have looked like, due to injuries, bad play, trades etc etc....

    this much is true, we dont know exactly how they would have looked, but by using the past history of the league, we could get a very good idea... for instance, since 1970 a team finishing 1st then placed no lower than 19th the following year.... so all those people claiming that detroit should be given a chance at the #1 pick dont really have anything to base this claim on.... there are also people claiming that "elite" teams can fall from grace quickly and dramatically over the course of 1 season.... this is somewhat true, but not entirely.... in 1987/88 the NYI finished 6th overall, and then proceeded to finish dead last in 1988/89, this marks the highest a last place team placed the year before (again since 1970).... other than NYI the only other team to have a "dramatic" fall was the boston bruins, who finished 8th in 95/96 and then last in 96/97.... after these two teams, the next largest fall was 16th to last by carolina in 01/02

    so, as you can plainly see, large swings in the standings can indeed happen, but not nearly to the extent that many people are stating.... in fact, as i was going over the standings for the past 30 years, i noticed the "extreme" teams (those at the top or bottom of the standings) tended to place very similarily in any two year period... in other words, the extreme teams did not have large deviations in their standing placements

    this brings me to me point, and solution, to the draft problem....

    keeping in mind that swings in the standings *do* occur, but tempering that with some facts (based on what history has told us) we can come up with a manageble solution, that is fair to all teams..... use the past history (the date range used can be whatever the NHL deems appropriate) to determine how large a position swing a given team can expect.... to use 1970-now, i would say that the 1-5 teams (tampa, TO, san jose, detroit, boston) would have no chance at picking #1 (as history has shown they would not have finished last had the season been played)

    by using history as its guide, the NHL could come up with some guidelines as to a range that each team would be able to pick in

    the problem with the method being talked about right now is that each team would have 1 ball in the draw, and history has shown that the top 5 teams would have had no chance at picking #1, so therefore they should not be given any balls for the #1 pick
     
  2. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,061
    Likes Received:
    808
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I guess then those bottom teams the past 4 years based on their performances, that don't get a high draft pick can always picked through the Elite NHL All-Star UFA on the market to try to improve their teams ..
     
  3. WC Handy*

    WC Handy* Guest

    There's no reason to even consider what might have happened if there were a season. There wasn't one so the only option is to base the draft order of the results we actually have.
     
  4. Gee Wally

    Gee Wally Grumpy

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    50,686
    Likes Received:
    4,656
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Grumpville USA
    Awards:

    I don't necessarily agree....first they do have a chance..whatever the mathematical probability works out to be.
    Second, that ball, could have a value. What's to stop them from trading it to a team (that wants to increase it's odds) for somebody.
    Also, we don't know what all teams look like for next year...some that we are used to be highly competative could turn out cellar dwellers based on how they played out their hunches on what a CBA may look like...

    It's not worthless or without a chance...
     
  5. McJadeddog

    McJadeddog Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    14,965
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    well this is just wrong.... every system that has been talked about in the media and on these boards has tried ot take into account what the season would have looked like if there had been one... and im not sure what you mean by "base the draft order of the results we actually have", because thats exactly what im suggesting.... base them on the last seasons standings, but allow for "normal standings movement"
     
  6. McJadeddog

    McJadeddog Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    14,965
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    well couple things here.... your right, they would have a mathematical probability of finishing last.... but it would be something along the lines of 0.2-0.5%.... basically, it hasnt happened yet, but theoretically it *could* happen

    as far as the elite teams becoming cellar dwellers based on their CBA hunches..... thats not really at issue here, what we're trying to figure out is what the standings would have looked like had there been a normal season

    essentially, what im saying is that there is no example that proves a 1-5 team could finish last the next season.... but there are about 30 (that i looked at anyhow) examples of the 1-5 teams *not* finishing last, and in fact never finishing worst than 19th.... with these facts, it seems rather foolish to suggest that this year would be the year that a 1st place team finished 11 spots worst than a 1st place team has ever done before.... is it possible? yeah i suppose so.... is it very, very, very unlikely? yes of course, thusly the 0.2-0.5% ball .... and to be honest, i think that even giving them that chance is being quite generous
     
  7. Gee Wally

    Gee Wally Grumpy

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    50,686
    Likes Received:
    4,656
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Grumpville USA
    Awards:
    I guess I'm hung up on what would have been "normal"..take the Bruins for example they only had a few guys under contract. Essentially would have played this year with the Baby Bs as a roster.. I'd be shocked if they made the playoffs..That's where my CBA hunch stuff comes from.... They would have realisticaly been bad...so past normal , whatever that is ....I have a hard time processing.

    Personally, I don't care who gets Crosby as long as it ain't the Habs..
    and yes , I'm a bitter old man.

    :D
     
  8. McJadeddog

    McJadeddog Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    14,965
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    but they would have had more guys under contract if there wasnt the CBA looming large in the future.... we only have the past to go by and cant take into account things that havent happened yet (obviously)
     
  9. Gee Wally

    Gee Wally Grumpy

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    50,686
    Likes Received:
    4,656
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Grumpville USA
    Awards:

    but there was no CBA ...they don't have guys...I'm dealing in reality...

    :dunno:

    so the past said the world was flat..today we know it's round.
     
  10. McJadeddog

    McJadeddog Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    14,965
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    so you think that the bruins should receive a better draft position than a team that had pretty much all its players under contract? (say like the oilers) even though the bruins have had a much better record over the past 2 years.... because by your reasoning, the bruins would have played with their farm team (unlikely) and the oilers would have had pretty much their same roster as the last season

    to deal with this is a fair manner, you *have* to deal with the "what-if" questions... otherwise you might as well put every team in a hat and pick that way, and i think we can all agree that that is a terrible idea.... so because you have to deal with "waht-ifs", you then have to try and figure out the most logical, fair way of determining the draft order

    now the proposed solution is a pretty decent one, but limitations need to be put on it.... because a 1st place team is never going to finish last the next season.... and history shows that 2, 3 and 4 wont finish last either
     
  11. King_Brown

    King_Brown Guest

    I like this idea by Bettman, but I would still prefer a every team gets a chance at #1 equally. Since we never had a season, there is no telling what team would of made the playoffs or not.

    Look at the NFL, San Diego was #1 overall in 2004, and what like 3 players from that draft year played for them as starters, and they finished 12-4 one of the best records.
     
  12. Johnnybegood13

    Johnnybegood13 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,729
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Totally agree,there is no system that would make everyone happy and with the "coming" of new restraints from a new CBA you may as well give everyone an equal shot at Crosby. Since that will never happen then Bettmans idea is as good as i've seen to being fair.
     
  13. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Absolutely -- If there are no grandfathered contracts, a UFA is going to be *much* more valuable than a draft pick in the next 3 years with a stiff cap in place. Take your pick... High-scoring winger, gritty centerman, clutch goaltender, stay-at home defensemen... if you can characterize a hockey player by any title.. chances are there will be about 7 of their likeness on the UFA this summer.

    Otherwise, the rant that the Leafs should undoubtedly be graced with the luck of drafting Crosby can shove it.
     
  14. Phillip The Third

    Phillip The Third ... line center ?

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    26,323
    Likes Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Nope we can't.

    I think it's the only way that's fair for everyone because

    1. Bottom dwellers have already been compensated for lean years
    2. There's no way to determine what the rankings would have been thus there's no way to come up with a system that accurately comes up with the best odds for the "supposedly" worst teams.

    The only way to do this is 30 balls, one for each team.

    I'll adress the "You're biased, you only want what's best for your team, you big market team fan!!!111" comments that are sure to come up right now. I'm a habs fan, and the truth is my team stands as much to lose as they stand to gain since we're probably a middle of the pack team right now. I wouldn't accept teams like the preds or islanders having better odds than we do, and I think it would also be unfair to give the habs a better chance than the preds/isles. Which is why the conclusion is to give equal chances for everyone.
     
  15. Colorado Avalanche

    Colorado Avalanche Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,202
    Likes Received:
    319
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Lieto
    You can't watch old standings, because those teams got their first rounders all ready.. They are getting Ovechkin and Crosby? loll..

    That's far from fair.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2005
  16. Colorado Avalanche

    Colorado Avalanche Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,202
    Likes Received:
    319
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Lieto
    agree agree!

    All drafts have done using standings now there is no standings..

    And it should go like this...

    if you get first pick first round you will next round draft #60

    1-60
    2-59
    3-58

    something like that..
     
  17. Phillip The Third

    Phillip The Third ... line center ?

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    26,323
    Likes Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    169
    I agree, in any event they should really do a snake draft.
     
  18. Colorado Avalanche

    Colorado Avalanche Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,202
    Likes Received:
    319
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Lieto


    Washington got their first round first pick allready they don't "deserve" another being bad 1 YEAR! :shakehead

    This is only one year.. Just put 30 balls..
     
  19. HockeyCritter

    HockeyCritter Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    And why three years, why not two or four - - - what is significant about three?

    And the best indicator for that would be historical data. It is accurate to state that results from one season ago are a more reliable indicator of future performance than results from three seasons ago. With that in mind, any system based on historical data should be weighted in such a fashion that the further out the years, the less influence they carry. For example, let’s go back four years (the first year when there were thirty teams in the league)

    03/04 = 40% of seasonal points
    02/03 = 30% of seasonal points
    01/02 = 20% of seasonal points
    00/01 = 10% of seasonal points

    This takes in account upward and downward trends while putting a greater emphasis on the last season (a truer predictor of results).
     
  20. HockeyCritter

    HockeyCritter Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So one overall number one pick or top five pick per team? After that you're done????

    And while every one is getting his knickers in a twist of The Golden Child, what about picks 2-30 . . . . . sure Crosby would be a nice little prize, but I wouldn't mind losing the number one pick, I'd be spitting nails if I lost my top five pick.
     
  21. Gee Wally

    Gee Wally Grumpy

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    50,686
    Likes Received:
    4,656
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    Grumpville USA
    Awards:
    no...my point was and still is that nothing should be discounted and all aspects should be reviewed and weighed for an impact...

    I am in favor of a weighted lottery based upon the last 3 to 4 years...

    I just don't believe in overlooking all facets .
     
  22. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,061
    Likes Received:
    808
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    Isn't the whole deep rooted purpose of the Hard Cap to promote parity and allow the weaker small market teams access to join the UFA frenzy to add the big stars to their teams..??

    A Hard Cap not only allows the small market teams to join it but in fact takes some of the biggest competition out at the same time.

    Isn't meaningful Revenue Sharing designed to put more money into small market teams hands for them to be able to afford these big UFA Stars ??

    I think people have lost sight of what the goal of an NHL team is ...

    You're suppose to be attempting to win the Stanley Cup ...not battle over who is the worst team and who gets the best unproven 18 year olds that may or may not ever score an NHL goal or make an NHL save.

    The draft pick is suppose to be the consolation prize for a team that TRIED but failed not a team TRYING to fail ..
     
  23. Wisent

    Wisent Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Mannheim
    Home Page:
    IMO the fairest system would be, as many times discussed, take an average of the last years and give the team with the lowest standing the first pick without a lottery, the second lowest give the second pick and so on. That's the nearest you can get. I don't think that the teams that are leading every year should get a shot at the high picks. And before someone asks, I cheer for no team at all. OK, I tend to cheer for underdogs, but for no team specifically.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2005
  24. futurcorerock

    futurcorerock Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Exactly why the draft is lottery based, so that something like Pittsburgh grabbing Lemieux never happens again.
     
  25. McJadeddog

    McJadeddog Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    14,965
    Likes Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan
    E = CH - well, it *is* a stupid idea to put all 30 teams in one draft and pick one at a time... and i can say this with utmost confidence because every hockey analyst and hockey insider (including GMs and coachs) who've ive seen talk about the draft, always talk about a weighted draft ... so ill take there opinion over somebody from the internet (not trying to be an a$$, just being honest)

    hockey critter - the reason everybody is talking about 3 years is because that is the time period since the last expansion, thats why you wouldnt use 4 or 5 years
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"