Is a draft not based on actual finish legally defensible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
MojoJojo said:
What about teams that traded draft picks from the cancelled draft?

you just push everything back a year, so a traded 2005 pick becomes a traded 2006 pick. the draft year changes but you'd still get the pick in the same draft with the same players
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
HockeyCritter said:
[/i]

If you cannot base a draft on seasonal results . . . cancel it.

Permanently raise the draft age to 19 (something that has been proposed by the league in the past).

Sure, every one has got their knickers in a twist over Crosby. But it isn’t about the number one pick, it’s about picks 2-30 and I still haven’t heard a reasonable, equable solution put fort to address that issue.

EDIT: Because sometimes Critter’s fingers move faster than her brain :)

if sidney crosby wasn't the top pick then they would probably just do that without even thinking about it. but they look at drafting crosby as way too important and they will make him the poster boy for the future of the nhl as soon as the lockout ends.
 

xander

Registered User
Nov 4, 2003
4,085
0
Section A Lynah Rink
Visit site
NYR469 said:
if sidney crosby wasn't the top pick then they would probably just do that without even thinking about it. but they look at drafting crosby as way too important and they will make him the poster boy for the future of the nhl as soon as the lockout ends.

I agree, though I think that line of thinking is pretty rediculous. You can't rush a draft just because of one prospect. The danger here is not that a good team will end up with crosby but that bad teams will end up with bad picks. I won't be furious if the rangers don't get the #1 pick but I will be if they get the #20.
On the flip side I don't beleive it's really fair to just run off last years results, or any projection based on them (though I do prefer this option to a totally random order.) The only fair way to do it is to just postpone the thing.
 
Last edited:

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
PecaFan said:
It's both. The biggest fall I'm aware of is 20 spots. So you can pretty much guarantee that none of the top ten teams would have got the #1 spot overall.

Ultimately, it's this simple: We have a choice. We can implement a system that's accurate, but not 100% perfect, or go completely random, that is a system that will nearly 0% accurate.

Which should we choose?

To know where I fall, when I asked my employees when their programming projects would be finished, I asked them to be as accurate as possible in their estimations, rather than spin a wheel that said "one day", "two weeks", "three months", "four years"...

Not even trying to be as accurate as possible simply because you can't be perfect is insane.

i was gonna respond to the question the other guy posted, but this sums it up nicely.... its both.... since 1970 no 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th place team has every finished last the next season..... has there been a 5th place team who then finished 2nd last the next season? im not sure, i didnt do that research.... before you go and say this though, you should do some leg work and actually see if it *has* happened or not.... and if it has happened, how often was it (percentage wise)? what is the probability of it happening again?

these are very easy to answer questions.... there are some anomalies for every stat, but they are called anolalies for a *reason*, they dont happen very often.... i really, really hate having to explain this basic concept of statistics to people all the time

like this poster explained, is a system basing the draft oder on past results perfect? of course not, nobody is saying it is.... but as was shown in another thread, its about 60-70% accurate or so.... which is quite a bit better than a random chance ordering..... lets put it this way, if you asked two different people a question, and one said that they were 10-15% sure of their answer and another said they were 60-70% sure of their answer.... which answer would you chose?

this is fairly obvious to anybody who has actually looked at the numbers, and how they repeat themselves in a very fashioned manner over the long haul... i really suggest, that before you type in some quick response.... actually go and look at the patterns of the standings for the past 30 years, you'll see the pattern as plain as the nose on your face
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
no . . . everyone was not really 0-0-0 . . . some were and remain galaxies talent wise from one another. You all know it ......... f'ck it. .. .you all know the rest from me. I have said it often enough (as has everyone in this thread with their opinion). Just fill in the rest for me as you know what I would say by now almost as well as I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->