draft musings

[The Old Master]

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 with out 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.

BINGO ! but if for some reason you might not be happy with this, break it down to groups of three, four, or five and even then use a weighted lottery. this way no team can fall too far or another team rise too far. yes the teams would have finshed defrent this yr. but everyone knows that more of the five bottomfeeders would end up in the last five slots than any of the top five! and we don't have to dream up ways to guess who would finish where. base it on the last known facts and go from their.

 

[Lyons71]

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..

I'm glad other people feel the same way I do. This is exactly what it should be

 

[Cole Caulifield]

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)

Awesome comeback, great argument. So in other words you're saying that you can't make up your own mind, you let more intelligent people do it for you. That is wise.

BTW many GMs are pushing for the 30 balls lotto, not that it means anything.

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

You might want to check your facts out. (not trying to be an ass)

 

[McJadeddog]

maybe you misundterstood what i meant by last expansion.... using the year when columbus and minnesota came in (2000-01) would not be fair because the standings are always "messed up" in the 1st year of expansion.... since some teams have drastically easier schedules due to playing in the same division as the expansion team, and the expansion teams themselves are always so very bad

and as far as allowing more "intelligent people than me" to make decisions for me.... yeah, its called delegating and its what every person in the world (almost) does numerous times every day, for numerous different situations and problems.... but i gave *my* solution in my original post, it just so happens that its somewhat close to what the majority of "hockey people" are saying

im not trying to get into a thing here, but really, you cant honestly believe that detroit deserves the same chance at the #1 pick as pittsburgh does?? because whatever landscape emerges from the CBA, detroit will still have a better team than pittsburgh and will still have a decided money advantage to sign any players they need

 

[Cole Caulifield]

im not trying to get into a thing here, but really, you cant honestly believe that detroit deserves the same chance at the #1 pick as pittsburgh does?? because whatever landscape emerges from the CBA, detroit will still have a better team than pittsburgh and will still have a decided money advantage to sign any players they need

The day you can come up with a system that will have no one saying "Eh team A doesn't deserve to have less of a chance to get the #1 than team B", then I'll be ok with your formula. Good luck with that.

Until then, the only way is 1 in 30.

 

[norrisnick]

To address the issue that a #1 team has never dropped further than #19 from one season to the next, you really ought to look at a two year span since that is what we are operating in. Two seasons prior to '04 Calgary and Tampa didn't get a whiff of the playoffs.

 

[Weary]

OK. I've developed a 'fairness' test for these draft systems:

• All teams lose rights to their 2003 and 2004 draftees.
• The 2003 and 2004 drafts are seeded using your system.
• If your system uses previous years results, you must go back on more year in needing the 2003 and 2004 draft. (e.g. If you use results from 2003-04 for the 2005 draft, you must use results from 2002-03 for the 2004 draft.)

How many of you would consent to using your system in this manner?

 

[McJadeddog]

To address the issue that a #1 team has never dropped further than #19 from one season to the next, you really ought to look at a two year span since that is what we are operating in. Two seasons prior to '04 Calgary and Tampa didn't get a whiff of the playoffs.

what im trying to do here is to make a best guess, based on historical fact, of what last years standings would have been if there was a season..... im not sure what benefit i would gain from trying to guess what this upcoming seasons standings would look like.... remember that this years draft would have been based on last years standings, not next years

unless im missing something here??

 

[McJadeddog]

OK. I've developed a 'fairness' test for these draft systems:

• All teams lose rights to their 2003 and 2004 draftees.
• The 2003 and 2004 drafts are seeded using your system.
• If your system uses previous years results, you must go back on more year in needing the 2003 and 2004 draft. (e.g. If you use results from 2003-04 for the 2005 draft, you must use results from 2002-03 for the 2004 draft.)

How many of you would consent to using your system in this manner?

why would you use this system (whose only real purpose is to estimate the next seasons standings) to re-draft players?? it doesnt make any sense.... the teams that finished last in 02 or 03, actually *did* finish last, so they more than deserve to reap the benefits of picking 1st overall at the next draft

 

[DARKSIDE]

why would you use this system (whose only real purpose is to estimate the next seasons standings) to re-draft players?? it doesnt make any sense.... the teams that finished last in 02 or 03, actually *did* finish last, so they more than deserve to reap the benefits of picking 1st overall at the next draft

This is like de je vu all over again. See, now I respond by saying "Weren't those teams already rewarded for being bad. Now, it's your turn.

 

[WC Handy*]

Weren't those teams already rewarded for being bad.

That isn't a good enough reason to hand the Red Wings the same shot as the #1 pick as the Predators.

 

[norrisnick]

what im trying to do here is to make a best guess, based on historical fact, of what last years standings would have been if there was a season..... im not sure what benefit i would gain from trying to guess what this upcoming seasons standings would look like.... remember that this years draft would have been based on last years standings, not next years

unless im missing something here??

My bad, I guess I got caught up with all the arguments of "good" and "bad" teams and what draft positions they "deserve" from other posters. Predictions are iffy and IMO not stable enough to actually affect the outcome of team's future. If things are going to be "unfair", let it be because of random chance and not Gary or a committee's actions.

 

[norrisnick]

That isn't a good enough reason to hand the Red Wings the same shot as the #1 pick as the Predators.

You keep bringing up the Predators when they are actually one of your weakest potential examples. I see them as a top 10 team next year. They aren't losing anything. They were a young fast playoff team with a stud goalie. They now have playoff experience and have the ability to add a key component here or there via free agency.

A changing of the guard was poised to happen about now anyway, a new CBA and one year lockout just strengthens that.

 

[DARKSIDE]

That isn't a good enough reason to hand the Red Wings the same shot as the #1 pick as the Predators.

I was just trying to make a point. However, with your response, you now allow me to make another point, being that I wouldn't be surprised if Nashville is actually better then Detroit in the next played season. And I'm saying this with a straight face. See, we can do this until the end of time or the next CBA and implementation of the next draft.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I don't see why people are so ticked off about the ball theory. I could care less if a team like Philly or Ottawa gets Crosby. I would be more pissed off if the draft age gets moved up.

 

[WC Handy*]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nashville is actually better then Detroit in the next played season.

I see them as a top 10 team next year. They aren't losing anything.

What does next year... you know the season that will set the 2006 draft... have to do with this draft?

 

[norrisnick]

What does next year... you know the season that will set the 2006 draft... have to do with this draft?

It means they are a good team NOW in order to finish well at the end of the upcoming season. Why give a good team a better shot at a high draft pick than teams that were good the past few seasons but aren't realistically expected to continue as such?

I guess it stems from different motivations by different posters for weighting the lottery(I get them confused at times). Some want to use the previous standings to predict the lost season. Some want to use the previous standings to predict the current strength of the team (something which will be known for sure during and after next season).

 

[norrisnick]

What does next year... you know the season that will set the 2006 draft... have to do with this draft?

And of course the obvious.

What do the past few seasons... you know the seasons that set the past few drafts... have to do with this draft?

 

[WC Handy*]

It's not about predicting anything. It's about determining the most fair way of setting the draft order and the only meaningful data we have to use are previous standings.... and any system that gives your Wings or my Blues even a chance at Crosby is ridiculous.

 

[norrisnick]

It's not about predicting anything. It's about determining the most fair way of setting the draft order and the only meaningful data we have to use are previous standings.... and any system that gives your Wings or my Blues even a chance at Crosby is ridiculous.

Bull ****. Previous standings are in no way meaningful and they get exponentially less meaningful the further back you go. The '04 standings with the lost year are already mostly meaningless in and of themselves.

Your Blues are actually, IMO, one of the weakest teams heading out of this lockout. A couple huge gaping holes coupled with a couple albatrosses handicapping their ability to deal with the holes.

 

[Seachd]

It's not about predicting anything. It's about determining the most fair way of setting the draft order and the only meaningful data we have to use are previous standings.... and any system that gives your Wings or my Blues even a chance at Crosby is ridiculous.

And any system that gives the Capitals or Penguins the first pick when a team like Columbus or Carolina might have deserved it is ridiculous. Obviously, that's impossible to say.

We have no idea what would have happened this season, or even what may have happened. I don't remember my grade 12 math too well, so I couldn't tell you how many variations of the standings there are for 30 teams. It's a helluva lot, though. The only fair variation to base the draft on is the one that would have happened if there was a season. And we'll never know that. That's a one in x chance of getting it right. I don't like those odds.

That's why I'm opposed to producing a draft order purely on a guess. Bettman's way could be better (I'd give even lower odds to the teams that have consistently finished high, and probably even the teams that have consistently drafted high the last few years).

No matter what happens, it's certainly not going to please everyone.