Regarding the draft debate

[Riggins]

I did some number crunching and came up with what the draft order would look like if they averaged the point totals over the last 3 or 4 seasons. For the lottery to move up to #1, my formula is that the top team gets 30 chances and the bottom team gets 1 (30+29+28…+3+2+1 = 465). So I also included the % chance of the team moving up to 1st overall.


Four year average

1. Columbus (259) – 6.45%
2. Atlanta (266) – 6.24%
3. Florida (271) – 6.02%
4. Pittsburgh (288) – 5.81%
5. New York Rangers (299) – 5.59%
6. Chicago (305) – 5.38%
7. Anaheim (306) – 5.16%
8. Nashville (314) – 4.95%
9. Carolina (316) – 4.73%
10. Minnesota (319) – 4.52%
11. Calgary (321) – 4.30%
12. New York Islanders (322) – 4.09%
13. Montreal (327) – 3.87%
14. Tampa Bay (329) – 3.66%
15. Phoenix (331) – 3.44%
16. Washington (332) – 3.23%
17. Buffalo (337) – 3.01%
18. Los Angeles (346) – 2.80%
19. Edmonton (366) – 2.58%
20. San Jose (371) – 2.37%
21. Boston (380) – 2.15%
22. Vancouver (389) – 1.94%
23. St. Louis (391 – 166 wins) – 1.72%
24. Toronto (391 – 169) – 1.51%
25. Dallas (404) – 1.29%
26. Philadelphia (405) – 1.08%
27. New Jersey (414) – 0.86%
28. Ottawa (420) – 0.65%
29. Colorado (422) – 0.43%
30. Detroit (446) – 0.22%

Three year average

1. Columbus (188)
2. Pittsburgh (192)
3. Florida (205)
4. Atlanta (206)
5. New York Rangers (227)
6. Carolina (228)
7. Chicago (234 – 91 wins)
8. Nashville (234 – 93)
9. Washington (236)
10. Buffalo (239)
11. Anaheim (240)
12. Phoenix (241)
13. Calgary (248)
14. Minnesota (251)
15. Los Angeles (254)
16. Montreal (257)
17. Tampa Bay (270 – 110 wins)
18. New York Islanders (270 – 115)
19. Edmonton (273)
20. San Jose (276)
21. St. Louis (288)
22. Boston (292)
23. Dallas (298)
24. Vancouver (299)
25. Toronto (301)
26. New Jersey (303)
27. Colorado (304)
28. Philadelphia (305)
29. Ottawa (311)
30. Detroit (335)


What do you think of this way of going about it?

Click to read more...

 

[EricBowser]

I'm hearing Bettman wants the 3-year average and unlike other lotteries, any team can win the lottery and the order will shift based on the winner.

I want the Pittsburgh Penguins to win the lottery for obvious reasons, who wouldn't want to see Lemieux and Crosby playing on the same line for a season or two.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Taking the average of the 3 seasons better accounts for how teams have changed since than. If teams are worse than they were 3 years ago they have a higher position in the lottery...if they are better they are lower. It's definetly better than taking aggregate points for the last 4 seasons.

 

[Kritter471]

:-( You stole my numbers

(joke - I just posted this on the Howard Berger thread)

 

[X0ssbar]

I'm hearing Bettman wants the 3-year average and unlike other lotteries, any team can win the lottery and the order will shift based on the winner.

I want the Pittsburgh Penguins to win the lottery for obvious reasons, who wouldn't want to see Lemieux and Crosby playing on the same line for a season or two.

So my question is this (and I must admit I'm asking this from a selfish Blue Jackets perspective):

Since it seems the CBJ will have the highest chance to win the lottery and lets say we don't - do we just slip back to #2 in the draft order or will the entire draft order be drawn?

 

[Riggins]

:-( You stole my numbers

(joke - I just posted this on the Howard Berger thread)

Looks like I wasted my time then.


Anyway, I'd say splitting up the percentages this way is a pretty fair way of going about it. It isn't a 1/30 shot for everyone, and I don't think it should be.

 

[EricBowser]

I believe the winner of the lottery gets the #1 pick, if jackets don't win it, they get the 2nd pick but that's what I've heard and obviously needs to be done under the CBA

 

[ArtG]

man.. the canucks totally get reamed..

 

[Steve L*]

Its weighted way, way too much. Its not right that Clb has 26 times the chance of #1 than Detroit.

It should be weighted but every team should have a reasonable chance, not a chance equivilent of winning the real lottery.

 

[txpd]

I did some number crunching and came up with what the draft order would look like if they averaged the point totals over the last 3 or 4 seasons. For the lottery to move up to #1, my formula is that the top team gets 30 chances and the bottom team gets 1 (30+29+28…+3+2+1 = 465). So I also included the % chance of the team moving up to 1st overall.


Four year average

1. Columbus (259) – 6.45%
2. Atlanta (266) – 6.24%
3. Florida (271) – 6.02%
4. Pittsburgh (288) – 5.81%
5. New York Rangers (299) – 5.59%
6. Chicago (305) – 5.38%
7. Anaheim (306) – 5.16%
8. Nashville (314) – 4.95%
9. Carolina (316) – 4.73%
10. Minnesota (319) – 4.52%
11. Calgary (321) – 4.30%
12. New York Islanders (322) – 4.09%
13. Montreal (327) – 3.87%
14. Tampa Bay (329) – 3.66%
15. Phoenix (331) – 3.44%
16. Washington (332) – 3.23%
17. Buffalo (337) – 3.01%
18. Los Angeles (346) – 2.80%
19. Edmonton (366) – 2.58%
20. San Jose (371) – 2.37%
21. Boston (380) – 2.15%
22. Vancouver (389) – 1.94%
23. St. Louis (391 – 166 wins) – 1.72%
24. Toronto (391 – 169) – 1.51%
25. Dallas (404) – 1.29%
26. Philadelphia (405) – 1.08%
27. New Jersey (414) – 0.86%
28. Ottawa (420) – 0.65%
29. Colorado (422) – 0.43%
30. Detroit (446) – 0.22%

Three year average

1. Columbus (188)
2. Pittsburgh (192)
3. Florida (205)
4. Atlanta (206)
5. New York Rangers (227)
6. Carolina (228)
7. Chicago (234 – 91 wins)
8. Nashville (234 – 93)
9. Washington (236)
10. Buffalo (239)
11. Anaheim (240)
12. Phoenix (241)
13. Calgary (248)
14. Minnesota (251)
15. Los Angeles (254)
16. Montreal (257)
17. Tampa Bay (270 – 110 wins)
18. New York Islanders (270 – 115)
19. Edmonton (273)
20. San Jose (276)
21. St. Louis (288)
22. Boston (292)
23. Dallas (298)
24. Vancouver (299)
25. Toronto (301)
26. New Jersey (303)
27. Colorado (304)
28. Philadelphia (305)
29. Ottawa (311)
30. Detroit (335)


What do you think of this way of going about it?

Personally, I think its a terrible mistake. what you completely lose by doing that is which direction a team is going. a bad team that used to be good gets hurt and a good team that used to be bad gets another break in their favor. Do you really want to see Calgary picks 11th or 14th and they are obviously a good team now.
Washington picks 16th or 9th and the are obviously a terrible team now.

Using and average is fine with teams like Colorado that have been good for 3 years or Pittsburgh that has been bad, but it completely messes up with teams that have gone from bad to very good and the teams that have gone from good to very bad.

 

[codswallop]

Its weighted way, way too much. Its not right that Clb has 26 times the chance of #1 than Detroit.

It should be weighted but every team should have a reasonable chance, not a chance equivilent of winning the real lottery.

Like it or not, this is probably close to the way it will play out should the draft happen.

I understand the arguments that no one knows what would have happened this year and that a new CBA would have made the landscape different for many teams. The performance of teams last season (had it taken place) could have been fairly different than what did happen the few years before.

But the point is that last season didn't happen. And everything about how the teams may have fared last year is purely speculation. Conjecture, theory; call it what you like. There is not one single shread of real data or evidence to go upon. And the NHL and everyone involved in this decision would be crucified (by media, fans, sponsors; you name it) if this draft was to be constructed on speculative data. I get the distinct feeling they already know that and haven't even considered a truly random draft.

There are really not a lot of options here, and even less good ones. No draft scenario will be totally fair, not at this point. Right or wrong, good or bad, we as fans are just gonna have to live with that.

 

[kdb209]

So my question is this (and I must admit I'm asking this from a selfish Blue Jackets perspective):

Since it seems the CBJ will have the highest chance to win the lottery and lets say we don't - do we just slip back to #2 in the draft order or will the entire draft order be drawn?

Well if you beleive the Sportsnet report, they will use the lottery to select the entire draft order, not just the #1 pick like they've done in the past.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp?content=20050408_145945_6192

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.

So, it looks like the answer is no. The BJs would not be guaranteed the #2 pick if they lose (dont win) the lottery.

 

[Riggins]

How do you conclude that from that quote?

When it says this system would be used once I take it to mean they only use a lottery for the 1st overall pick.

 

[Street Hawk]

Bob Mckenzie from TSN

How do you conclude that from that quote?

When it says this system would be used once I take it to mean they only use a lottery for the 1st overall pick.

This is what Bob McKenzie said on the tsn.ca website out the draft lottery.

Whichever team gets the first pick overall won't pick again until No. 60, and the team that gets the 30th pick will pick again at 31. Also, all traded or transferred draft choices will be in effect for the next draft, so if your favourite team traded away its first-round pick in 2005, kiss Sidney goodbye right now -- even if your team wins the lottery.

From that quote, it does appear that the entire 30 slot draft order will be via the draft lottery. Otherwise, the Wings would draft 30 and 31.

Seems fair to me. Probabilities being what they are the bottom teams in the league aren't likely to fall into the 20th draft position.

 

[Flukeshot]

Its weighted way, way too much. Its not right that Clb has 26 times the chance of #1 than Detroit.

It should be weighted but every team should have a reasonable chance, not a chance equivilent of winning the real lottery.

There real lottery is even worse, so Steadfast's numbers actually look good to a team like Detroit. I'm sure the NHL's math nerds will figure out a reasonable weight. They'll likely use their 1,000 number lottery like they use for the regular entry draft. I hope they do this for the entire draft order however. Just remove all the other numbers that the winning team possessed. If it really is just adding up all the points from the last three seasons all for first overall it seems unfair. Why should only first overall be given this special lottery when the true placings are so unsure?

I think there is only one fair way to come up with realistic standings. Create the best available rosters from all players signed to a contract for the 2003-04 season. Meaning all UFAs from when the CBA expired are not included. If farm players need to be called up so be it. And then, with those rosters, simulate a season of EA NHL 2005. It just makes sense.

 

[Chayos]

I did some number crunching and came up with what the draft order would look like if they averaged the point totals over the last 3 or 4 seasons. For the lottery to move up to #1, my formula is that the top team gets 30 chances and the bottom team gets 1 (30+29+28…+3+2+1 = 465). So I also included the % chance of the team moving up to 1st overall.


Four year average

1. Columbus (259) – 6.45%
2. Atlanta (266) – 6.24%
3. Florida (271) – 6.02%
4. Pittsburgh (288) – 5.81%
5. New York Rangers (299) – 5.59%
6. Chicago (305) – 5.38%
7. Anaheim (306) – 5.16%
8. Nashville (314) – 4.95%
9. Carolina (316) – 4.73%
10. Minnesota (319) – 4.52%
11. Calgary (321) – 4.30%
12. New York Islanders (322) – 4.09%
13. Montreal (327) – 3.87%
14. Tampa Bay (329) – 3.66%
15. Phoenix (331) – 3.44%
16. Washington (332) – 3.23%
17. Buffalo (337) – 3.01%
18. Los Angeles (346) – 2.80%
19. Edmonton (366) – 2.58%
20. San Jose (371) – 2.37%
21. Boston (380) – 2.15%
22. Vancouver (389) – 1.94%
23. St. Louis (391 – 166 wins) – 1.72%
24. Toronto (391 – 169) – 1.51%
25. Dallas (404) – 1.29%
26. Philadelphia (405) – 1.08%
27. New Jersey (414) – 0.86%
28. Ottawa (420) – 0.65%
29. Colorado (422) – 0.43%
30. Detroit (446) – 0.22%

Three year average

1. Columbus (188)
2. Pittsburgh (192)
3. Florida (205)
4. Atlanta (206)
5. New York Rangers (227)
6. Carolina (228)
7. Chicago (234 – 91 wins)
8. Nashville (234 – 93)
9. Washington (236)
10. Buffalo (239)
11. Anaheim (240)
12. Phoenix (241)
13. Calgary (248)
14. Minnesota (251)
15. Los Angeles (254)
16. Montreal (257)
17. Tampa Bay (270 – 110 wins)
18. New York Islanders (270 – 115)
19. Edmonton (273)
20. San Jose (276)
21. St. Louis (288)
22. Boston (292)
23. Dallas (298)
24. Vancouver (299)
25. Toronto (301)
26. New Jersey (303)
27. Colorado (304)
28. Philadelphia (305)
29. Ottawa (311)
30. Detroit (335)


What do you think of this way of going about it?

The only way this works if they lottery each pick from one to 30. It really seems unfair that teams get any more advantage than the early picks they had in those previous 3 years than the extra chance to win. The order should be chosen one pick at a time.

 

[futurcorerock]

man.. the canucks totally get reamed..

Maybe the Canucks shouldve won more cups with their status atop the western elite

 

[Guest]

One thing I really don't like with the 3 or 4 year averages is how it doesn't take into account the growth of a team. There are some teams, many of which would pick in the top 10, that have been getting all of these high picks and are developing into better teams as it is. I'm not saying the next 20 teams deserve equal opportunity, but I think they should count each of the past three seasons at a ratio.

For example, count the standings from the 2001-2002 season as 20%, 2002-2003 season counts 30%, and 2003-2004 season counts 50%. There would be some movement that I think is important to consider. For example, Nashville would move from 8th to 12th, Tampa Bay would move from 18th to 21st, Phoenix would move from 12th to 9th, Chicago from 7th to 5th, and Washington from 9th to 7th.

[pre]
[B]			2002	2003	2004	Adjusted Points[/B]
1	Pittsburgh	69	65	58	62.3
2	Columbus		57	69	62	63.1
3	Florida		60	70	75	70.5
4	Atlanta		54	74	78	72
5	Chicago		96	79	59	72.4
6	NY Rangers	80	78	69	73.9
7	Washington	85	92	59	74.1
8	Carolina		91	61	76	74.5
9	Phoenix		95	78	68	76.4
10	Anaheim		69	95	76	80.3
11	Buffalo		82	72	85	80.5
12	Nashville		69	74	91	81.5
13	Los Angeles	95	78	81	82.9
14	Minnesota	73	95	83	84.6
15	Calgary		79	75	94	85.3
16	Montreal		87	77	93	87
17	NY Islanders	96	83	91	89.6
18	Edmonton	92	92	89	90.5
19	San Jose		99	73	104	93.7
20	St. Louis		98	99	91	94.8
21	Tampa Bay	69	95	106	95.3
22	Boston		101	87	104	98.3
23	Dallas		90	111	97	99.8
24	Vancouver	94	104	101	100.5
25	Toronto		100	98	103	100.9
26	Colorado		99	105	100	101.3
27	New Jersey	95	108	100	101.4
28	Philadelphia	97	107	101	102
29	Ottawa		94	115	102	104.3
30	Detroit		116	110	109	110.7
[/pre]

 

[Jag68Sid87]

I like the modifications, Converse. It probably is even more fair, and if you went with this system for a weighted lottery in Round 1, you probably wouldn't have to do it for all other rounds...just keep that order from Rounds 3 onward...with a snake in Round 2.

Good compilation job.

 

[kerrly]

I like it alot better too. I know I'm an Oiler fan, but having Tampa with a better chance of winning the lottery (before your changes) than the Oilers, that just doesn't make sense. This will never be perfect I guess, but your way is obviously better somewhat taking into teams progression or regression.

 

[Jester]

Like it or not, this is probably close to the way it will play out should the draft happen.

don't know if that is necessarily true.

think of it this way: this is obviously a negotiable thing at this point. are you really telling me the small clubs can stare the big clubs in the eye and say they don't owe them anything out of this whole mess? if they can, they can lie better than me.

the big teams took a MAJOR hit to fight the good fight for the benefit of the smaller teams. Philly, Toronto, Detroit, NYR, etc... were all fine and dandy with the way things used to work. they came together out of league solidarity and have stood shoulder to shoulder to allow the smaller teams a fairer shake in this whole thing against the NHLPA.

that constitutes a pretty big chip to bring to the table when it comes to negotiating out how this is going to work. whether the small teams like it or not (i've argued that the only reasonable way to do it is just give everyone a fair shot, but "fair" has little to do with negotiations) they owe something to the big clubs. they can't say that they will not have gotten a LOT out of the new CBA in their favor.

if the big clubs come to the table and say, "look, you've gotten a cost certainty model that will allow you to compete and make money at the same time, all we ask for in return is equal chance at crosby." are they really going to call that a deal breaker? can they really fight that all that hard?

neverminding, as much as it pains me to say, the best place for crosby to be (assuming he lives up to potential) for the league is in NYC under the lights. much to be decided between then and now it seems though.

 

[Charge_Seven]

don't know if that is necessarily true.

think of it this way: this is obviously a negotiable thing at this point. are you really telling me the small clubs can stare the big clubs in the eye and say they don't owe them anything out of this whole mess? if they can, they can lie better than me.

the big teams took a MAJOR hit to fight the good fight for the benefit of the smaller teams. Philly, Toronto, Detroit, NYR, etc... were all fine and dandy with the way things used to work. they came together out of league solidarity and have stood shoulder to shoulder to allow the smaller teams a fairer shake in this whole thing against the NHLPA.

that constitutes a pretty big chip to bring to the table when it comes to negotiating out how this is going to work. whether the small teams like it or not (i've argued that the only reasonable way to do it is just give everyone a fair shot, but "fair" has little to do with negotiations) they owe something to the big clubs. they can't say that they will not have gotten a LOT out of the new CBA in their favor.

if the big clubs come to the table and say, "look, you've gotten a cost certainty model that will allow you to compete and make money at the same time, all we ask for in return is equal chance at crosby." are they really going to call that a deal breaker? can they really fight that all that hard?

neverminding, as much as it pains me to say, the best place for crosby to be (assuming he lives up to potential) for the league is in NYC under the lights. much to be decided between then and now it seems though.

What I'd love to see would be Toronto, Colorado, Detroit, NYR, and Philly owners all threaten to ruin solidarity if the draft is not equal. Threaten to publicly voice their dismay with the leagues practices, shatter the idea that everyone is on the same page.

 

[EroCaps]

What I'd love to see would be Toronto, Colorado, Detroit, NYR, and Philly owners all threaten to ruin solidarity if the draft is not equal. Threaten to publicly voice their dismay with the leagues practices, shatter the idea that everyone is on the same page.

The Draft is for the losing teams.Technically there are none. But while the "big markets" DO have a valid point, the 03-04 losers have their own in the form of using most recent data for draft guidelines and not throwing it to the air. I have to believe the league will lean towards the principles the lockout and draft are based upon-parity included.

I wouldn't expect a tidy solution any time soon. If I'm George McPhee (or Craig Patrick, etc.) and I've seen the likes of Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Florida, Columbus, Carolina, and the NYI recieve multiple top 5 picks during rebuilding seasons, after having recently followed Bettman's pre-lockout guidelines and I end up with the 7-10 pick having finished one game out of dead last, I voice my concern.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

don't know if that is necessarily true.

think of it this way: this is obviously a negotiable thing at this point. are you really telling me the small clubs can stare the big clubs in the eye and say they don't owe them anything out of this whole mess? if they can, they can lie better than me.

....... blah blah blah........

You are joking, right? The ownership of clubs like Detroit and Toronto will be some of the big winners under a new CBA, whatever their franchise values were before you can add multiples as they have increased earnings with fixed salaries and they become the strongest biggest earning cogs in a sport that should go up in popularity and value as it has its labor situation in hand. They were the biggest fish in a pond the size of women's basketball, if that big.

The big markets did nothing for the small markets, they did it all for themselves. The fact that small markets benefitted . . .just as the fact that fans and competition benefits . . .was very secondary to their concerns.

 

[codswallop]

don't know if that is necessarily true.

think of it this way: this is obviously a negotiable thing at this point. are you really telling me the small clubs can stare the big clubs in the eye and say they don't owe them anything out of this whole mess? if they can, they can lie better than me.

the big teams took a MAJOR hit to fight the good fight for the benefit of the smaller teams. Philly, Toronto, Detroit, NYR, etc... were all fine and dandy with the way things used to work. they came together out of league solidarity and have stood shoulder to shoulder to allow the smaller teams a fairer shake in this whole thing against the NHLPA.

that constitutes a pretty big chip to bring to the table when it comes to negotiating out how this is going to work. whether the small teams like it or not (i've argued that the only reasonable way to do it is just give everyone a fair shot, but "fair" has little to do with negotiations) they owe something to the big clubs. they can't say that they will not have gotten a LOT out of the new CBA in their favor.

if the big clubs come to the table and say, "look, you've gotten a cost certainty model that will allow you to compete and make money at the same time, all we ask for in return is equal chance at crosby." are they really going to call that a deal breaker? can they really fight that all that hard?

neverminding, as much as it pains me to say, the best place for crosby to be (assuming he lives up to potential) for the league is in NYC under the lights. much to be decided between then and now it seems though.

The bigger clubs were just fine with the way it was going, largely because they stood a better chance year in and year out of having on and off-ice success (Rangers as always the exception). I'm not saying their money guaranteed them anything, but it sure as hell didn't hurt them (again the Rangers and their inept management being the exception).

They had an advantage and they smartly used it. I don't blame them one bit for doing so; good businesses/good leaders exploit those openings if they can. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that GMs and owners from some of the bigger teams are lobbying for a random, equal draft. It's highly unlikely that this scenario/opportunity will ever arise again, they would be fools not to at least try.

But I just can't buy the argument that certain teams will owe certain other teams because of this possible new CBA. I can't buy that some teams are taking a major hit. They will actually be even better off financially but now they just won't have the opportunity to largely outspend many teams. I have a feeling that worries some of the larger teams, especially the ones who feel that their management team overall is a bit weak. That is certainly not a reason or justification for trying to get an equal draft.

The majority of teams stand to benefit from this deal, for years to come. Heck, every team should be better off when it comes to the finances. Then quite possibily the better teams will be the ones with good GMs, staffs, coaches, scouting, player development, etc. That's the hope at least.

I can't see it being anywhere near fair to give a handful of teams something like this when the only thing they will have lost is their ability to outspend their competitors. Especially when everyone should come out better in terms of $. The smaller teams don't owe them anything in this case.