Toggle sidebar

Interest in a full 9 round mock draft

Status
Not open for further replies.

VernonForrest

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
396
98
San Diego
Hello,
I am interested in starting a mock draft which would last the full 9 rounds using Humboldt's thread to determine the draft order. I would like to do this if I can get enough interest from people who would be knowledgable enough about the 2005 draft eligible players to participate. I would also be interested in a 6-7 mock draft if everyone feels 9 is too long. Please sign up and claim a team if you are interested, also if you could list your preference as to the length of the draft that would be great. I claim Pittsburgh.

One concept I would like to float out there is one used by a poster last year (i believe it was cayouche) where you would send to me a list of 100 or so players and how you would rank them. You could send me instructions such as " no goalies before round 3" etc and I would do up the draft on my own time according to everyones rankings.

I would leave time open for trades such as 1 week after everyone is signed up before I start the first 3 rounds, complete the 1st three rounds, then 3 days in between to make additional before I complete rounds 3-6, give another 3 days for trades and then finish the draft. This concept is one I would like to employ to cut down the time involved, as if we do it like every other mock we could be here for months.

If there is strong opposition I could do it the traditional way. Let me know what you think.

Anaheim- Blue Bullet
Atlanta- Googa
Boston- FREE DENTAL CARE
Buffalo- Chipchura
Calgary- Laurentides
Carolina- noodlemike
Chicago- The Great One
Colorado- TopGun12
Columbus- Philip J. Fry
Dallas- Morrison Rulz
Detroit- Cup4wings
Edmonton- Slats432
Florida- reffree
Los Angeles- 10 ft. pole
Minnesota- Bob Marley NYR
Montreal- fredez
Nashville- Hedberg16
New Jersey- Jason MacIsaac
New York Rangers- Bob Marley NYR
New York Islanders- noodlemike
Ottawa- Crosby=Gretzky
Philadelphia- Mercury
Phoenix- Hedberg16
Pittsburgh- Vernon Forrest
St. Louis- Senor Rational
San Jose- Morrison Rulz
Tampa Bay- Sabes
Toronto- Kirk Pederson
Vancouver- Peter
Washington- Katodelder
Click to read more...
 
Last edited:
fredez

fredez

Registered User
Apr 8, 2003
2,439
3
Visit site
VernonForrest said:
Hello,
I am interested in starting a mock draft which would last the full 9 rounds using humboldt's thread Humboldt's thread to determine the draft order. I would like to do this if I can get enough interest from people who would be knowledgable enough about the 2005 draft eligible players to participate. I would also be interested in a 6-7 mock draft if everyone feels 9 is too long. Please sign up and claim a team if you are interested, also if you could list your preference as to the length of the draft that would be great. I claim Pittsburgh.
Click to expand...

I'll take Montreal

9 rounds would be great
 

katodelder

Registered User
Apr 22, 2004
660
0
On the TEAM 990 (Montreal sports radio station) today I phoned in to ask Pierre McGuire to comment on this Sportsnet article that suggested the league was trying a way to figure out the 2005 draft order:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/arti...408_145945_6192

"The NHL Entry Draft was a hot topic of debate during Friday's meeting in Detroit, and while nothing has been officially decided, a draft lottery appears to be the option of choice for the 2005 crop."

"Under a weighted system based on the past 3 or 4 years of regular season standings, all 30 teams will have a shot at Sidney Crosby and the first overall draft choice."

"One general manager described this as a 'big debate' item. But it's important to note this system would be used once with an inverted order for the second round. So if a team (i.e., Anaheim) wins the first pick in the lottery, then that team (Anaheim) automatically claim the 60th pick (last pick, second round) overall."



McGuire countered that he was almost certain that the teams would probably agree on a formula based on regular season WINNING PERCENTAGES rather than regular season POINT TOTALS, taken from the last 3-5 years, obviously weighted towards more recent seasons. (He couldn't be more specific on the 3-5 years or what percentages would constitute "weighted").

Of course McGuire isn't the be-all, end-all answer to this hot topic, but I respect his opinion because he's very plugged into the hockey world, and when I think about it, winning % does make more sense than points (anyone else out there hate the OT Loss column?)

While Humbolt's formula is a great one, why not try something different and come up with a draft order for this potential 9-round mock based on weighted winning percentages?

To be specific, in my humble opinion, the last 4 years makes sense since that's how long we've had 30 teams.

As for the "weighting", I'm not so sure, but I came up with a simple formula that would, for example, make 2003-04 regular season wins worth 4 times as much as 2000-01 wins, etc., etc.

Here's a random example using the Devils' past four seasons:

New Jersey
2000-01 48 wins in 82 games x 1 = 48 in 82
2001-02 41 wins in 82 games x 2 = 82 in 164
2002-03 46 wins in 82 games x 3 = 138 in 246
2003-04 43 wins in 82 games x 4 = 172 in 328
TOTAL: 440 in 820 = .537 weighted 4-year winning percentage


VernonForest, if you have any interest at all in such a system for your mock draft (or anyone else for that matter), I wouldn't mind doing the simple math for all 30 teams. if not, Humbolt's system is cool too.


P.S. If I were to make one single exception to such a system, it would be to automatically place the last four Cup Champs at the bottom, regardless of winning percentage:

30. Tampa Bay
29. New Jersey
28. Detroit
27. Colorado

Also, I don't particularily like the idea of reversing the order for round 2, as suggested by the Sportsnet article.

Well, there you go guys. (9-rounds, WOW!)
 

VernonForrest

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
396
98
San Diego
katodelder said:
McGuire countered that he was almost certain that the teams would probably agree on a formula based on regular season WINNING PERCENTAGES rather than regular season POINT TOTALS, taken from the last 3-5 years, obviously weighted towards more recent seasons. (He couldn't be more specific on the 3-5 years or what percentages would constitute "weighted").

Of course McGuire isn't the be-all, end-all answer to this hot topic, but I respect his opinion because he's very plugged into the hockey world, and when I think about it, winning % does make more sense than points (anyone else out there hate the OT Loss column?)

While Humbolt's formula is a great one, why not try something different and come up with a draft order for this potential 9-round mock based on weighted winning percentages?

To be specific, in my humble opinion, the last 4 years makes sense since that's how long we've had 30 teams.

As for the "weighting", I'm not so sure, but I came up with a simple formula that would, for example, make 2003-04 regular season wins worth 4 times as much as 2000-01 wins, etc., etc.

Here's a random example using the Devils' past four seasons:

New Jersey
2000-01 48 wins in 82 games x 1 = 48 in 82
2001-02 41 wins in 82 games x 2 = 82 in 164
2002-03 46 wins in 82 games x 3 = 138 in 246
2003-04 43 wins in 82 games x 4 = 172 in 328
TOTAL: 440 in 820 = .537 weighted 4-year winning percentage


VernonForest, if you have any interest at all in such a system for your mock draft (or anyone else for that matter), I wouldn't mind doing the simple math for all 30 teams. if not, Humbolt's system is cool too.


P.S. If I were to make one single exception to such a system, it would be to automatically place the last four Cup Champs at the bottom, regardless of winning percentage:

30. Tampa Bay
29. New Jersey
28. Detroit
27. Colorado

Also, I don't particularily like the idea of reversing the order for round 2, as suggested by the Sportsnet article.

Well, there you go guys. (9-rounds, WOW!)
Click to expand...

Although I greatly apreciate the offer to do the work, I think for this we should just go with hamboldt's system as it is the one which was advertised from the start. I certainly support your idea though should the NHL try and find a weighted system, and would support percentages over points, but for this one I think we should just go as advertised.

Is anyone opposed to the system where we all send in our lists and do it 3 rounds at a time, with time in between for trades, list adjustments etc?
 
TomahawkSniper

TomahawkSniper

Registered User
Aug 19, 2004
621
0
Vancouver
VernonForrest said:
Although I greatly apreciate the offer to do the work, I think for this we should just go with hamboldt's system as it is the one which was advertised from the start. I certainly support your idea though should the NHL try and find a weighted system, and would support percentages over points, but for this one I think we should just go as advertised.

Is anyone opposed to the system where we all send in our lists and do it 3 rounds at a time, with time in between for trades, list adjustments etc?
Click to expand...
To tell you the truth, I would find it more fun if we did the drafting ourselves.
 

VernonForrest

Registered User
Feb 20, 2003
396
98
San Diego
Morrison_Rulz said:
To tell you the truth, I would find it more fun if we did the drafting ourselves.
Click to expand...
I agree it would be much more fun, but also extremely time consuming. But if everyone wants to do it that way that will be good as well. Another idea would be to do the first 3 rounds or so on here then do the lists for the remaining rounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom