2005 Draft Idea...

[Freaky Habs Fan]

I made a 2004/2005 "standing" with the 3 last NHL seasons.

Example:

Montreal Canadiens:

2002 - 87 points
2003 - 77 points
2004 - 93 points

TOTAL - 257 points-----average=85,66

I did that with every team and the result are not bad at all...it's fair for almost everyone!




STANGING

-see the chart at the end of the page-

1)Columbus*** (62,66)
2)Pittsburgh*** (64)
3)Florida (68,33)
4)Atlanta (68,66)
5) New-York Rangers (75,66)
6)Carolina (76)
7)Nashville* (78)
8)Chicago* (78)
9)Washington*** (78,66)
10)Buffalo (79,66)

11)Anaheim (80)
12)Phoenix (80,33)
13)Calgary (82,66)
14)Los Angeles (84,66)
15)Montreal (85,66)
16)Minnessota (86,66)
17)Tampa Bay (89,33)
18)New York Islanders (90)
19)Edmondton (91)
20)San Jose (92)

21)St-Louis (96)
22)Boston (97,33)
23)Dallas (99,33)
24)Vancouver (99,66)
25)Toronto (100,33)
26)New-Jersey (101)
27)Colorado (101,33)
28) Philadelphia (101,66)
29)Ottawa (103)
30)Detroit (111.66)

* = tie in point average
*** = teams who had draft first overall in one of the last 3 draft
(**.**) = point average of the last 3 seasons

teams with * can swap draft position...their point average is the same.

Now, if the NHL want to give everyone a chance to land Sidney Crosby, they should do a lottery with that standing. I don't know how to calculate that. Maybe someone can help me with this part...

If they do a lottery, I don't think the teams with *** should draft first overall in 2005...

Anyways, sound fair for everyone???

Click to read more...

 

[Anthony Mauro]

I made a 2004/2005 "standing" with the 3 last NHL seasons.

Example:

Montreal Canadiens:

2002 - 87 points
2003 - 77 points
2004 - 93 points

TOTAL - 257 points-----average=85,66

I did that with every team and the result are not bad at all...it's fair for almost everyone!



Now, if the NHL want to give everyone a chance to land Sidney Crosby, they should do a lottery with that standing. I don't know how to calculate that. Maybe someone can help me with this part...

If they do a lottery, I don't think the teams with *** should draft first overall in 2005...

Anyways, sound fair for everyone???

Good work. I would use that system of getting point averages per team and then have a three tiered lottery. A lottery for picks 1-10, 11-20, 21-30. For the teams who have gotten the 1st overall in the past, they are not in the running for the first overall but they are game for any pick 2-10. That gives Florida, Atlanta, and the Rangers the best shot at the number one. Another reason this is good is a perennial playoff team like DET has a chance to move up from 30 to 21.

 

[Freaky Habs Fan]

Good work. I would use that system of getting point averages per team and then have a three tiered lottery. A lottery for picks 1-10, 11-20, 21-30. For the teams who have gotten the 1st overall in the past, they are not in the running for the first overall but they are game for any pick 2-10. That gives Florida, Atlanta, and the Rangers the best shot at the number one. Another reason this is good is a perennial playoff team like DET has a chance to move up from 30 to 21.

Good idea for the lottery. My team wouldn't have any chance to land Crosby but we can't have everything...

If we came out with something really good, maybe we could send that to Gary Bettman...we never know!

***for the other user, if you want to quote my first post, take only a part because it's very long...

 

[HFNHL Canadiens]

Good work. I would use that system of getting point averages per team and then have a three tiered lottery. A lottery for picks 1-10, 11-20, 21-30. For the teams who have gotten the 1st overall in the past, they are not in the running for the first overall but they are game for any pick 2-10. That gives Florida, Atlanta, and the Rangers the best shot at the number one. Another reason this is good is a perennial playoff team like DET has a chance to move up from 30 to 21.

Atlanta has had 2 previous first overall picks with the selections of Stefan and Kovy, and Florida had the first overall pick but traded it away to Columbus. So how would Florida and Atlanta have the best shot?

 

[King'sPawn]

2)Pittsburgh*** (64)
3)Florida (68,33)
*** = teams who had draft first overall in one of the last 3 draft

Anyways, sound fair for everyone???

Florida had the first overall in 2003. Pittsburgh had to trade for it.

Also, while it is kinda fair, I think more weight should be put into the more recent seasons. This stops a team like Tampa Bay shooting way up on the list despite being the last team to win the cup... and teams like Washington from dropping down too far because they were halfway decent for two seasons, but most recently sucked.

I can mess around with the weighing and tell you what I got. It's not a bad system though.

 

[Anthony Mauro]

Atlanta has had 2 previous first overall picks with the selections of Stefan and Kovy, and Florida had the first overall pick but traded it away to Columbus. So how would Florida and Atlanta have the best shot?

Very well, that slipped my mind. Swap them.

Also another good suggestion by KP. Weighing the recent seasons more heavily sounds like it could work.

 

[Ejh18]

COlumbus never drew the #1 pick, they traded for it. I dont think they should be penalized for trading for the top selection. They already paid the price to move up, that shouldnt hurt them now.

 

[Freaky Habs Fan]

Also another good suggestion by KP. Weighing the recent seasons more heavily sounds like it could work.

True...I don't know how we can do that...maybe count the last season twice . I really think we can end up with something good. Keep posting your suggestions guys!

As for Florida and their first overall pick, they trade it to Pittsburgh and Columbus so they should'nt be in position to draft Crosby...A first pick is still a first pick...even if you trade up to get it.

 

[King'sPawn]

Here's what I got when I used the past three seasons. I had the most recent season have the most weight. The season before had half the weight (I divided the standings points by 2). The season before that had a quarter of the weight (I divided the standings points by 4). I then averaged the three weighted seasons:

Pittsburgh: 35.92
Columbus: 36.92
Chicago: 40.83
Florida: 41.67
Washington: 42.08
New York Rangers: 42.67
Atlanta: 42.83
Carolina: 43.08
Phoenix: 43.58
Anaheim: 46.92
Buffalo: 47.17
Los Angeles: 47.92
Nashville: 48.42
Minnesota: 49.58
Calgary: 50.42
Montreal: 51.08
New York Islanders: 52.17
Edmonton: 52.67
St. Louis: 55
San Jose: 55.08
Tampa Bay: 56.58
Boston: 57.58
Dallas: 58.33
Vanouver: 58.83
Toronto: 59
Colorado: 59.08
New Jersey: 59.25
Philadelphia: 59.58
Ottawa: 60.67
Detroit: 64.33

It can either be a lottery based on these draft positions, or you can assign a # of balls for every five or ten teams based on where they're ranked.

 

[bigjfnd]

I like the idea of weighting the seasons similar to the iihf world rankings (100% for last year, 75% for 2 yrs ago, 50 for 3, 25 for 4), but rank the playoff teams in order of how well they did in the playoffs, since that is usually how you determine how successful your team's season was. Make it like for last year, TB-1 Point, CAL-2 pts, PHI-3 pts (made it to game 7 of semis), SJ- 4pts (game 6 of semis), etc. If 2 teams make it the same distance, use reg season pts as tiebreaker.

 

[rt]

Pittsburgh: 35.92
Columbus: 36.92
Chicago: 40.83
Florida: 41.67
Washington: 42.08
New York Rangers: 42.67
Atlanta: 42.83
Carolina: 43.08
Phoenix: 43.58
Anaheim: 46.92

It can either be a lottery based on these draft positions, or you can assign a # of balls for every five or ten teams based on where they're ranked.

I think the only fair way to do it is to use last season's order with a new lotto, but as a Phoenix fan, I wouldn't be too disappointed with this. In your the lotto (whether it's every 5 or every 10) the most we could move down is one spot. It's especially good because there is no way we would've finished the season that low.

 

[Freaky Habs Fan]

Here's what I got when I used the past three seasons. I had the most recent season have the most weight. The season before had half the weight (I divided the standings points by 2). The season before that had a quarter of the weight (I divided the standings points by 4). I then averaged the three weighted seasons:

Man, that's a nice way to do it!!! Great Job King'sPawn. Damn, if we could do the same thing for a new CBA . I really think we have something good in this thread. If only Bettman was on this board.

 

[salty justice]

Here's what I got when I used the past three seasons. I had the most recent season have the most weight. The season before had half the weight (I divided the standings points by 2). The season before that had a quarter of the weight (I divided the standings points by 4). I then averaged the three weighted seasons:

Pittsburgh: 35.92
Columbus: 36.92
Chicago: 40.83
Florida: 41.67
Washington: 42.08
New York Rangers: 42.67
Atlanta: 42.83
Carolina: 43.08
Phoenix: 43.58
Anaheim: 46.92
Buffalo: 47.17
Los Angeles: 47.92
Nashville: 48.42
Minnesota: 49.58
Calgary: 50.42
Montreal: 51.08
New York Islanders: 52.17
Edmonton: 52.67
St. Louis: 55
San Jose: 55.08
Tampa Bay: 56.58
Boston: 57.58
Dallas: 58.33
Vanouver: 58.83
Toronto: 59
Colorado: 59.08
New Jersey: 59.25
Philadelphia: 59.58
Ottawa: 60.67
Detroit: 64.33

It can either be a lottery based on these draft positions, or you can assign a # of balls for every five or ten teams based on where they're ranked.

This is a great idea, but it might even be better to use the same formula going back 5 seasons and to not allow teams with #1 picks in the last 5 years into the top 5.

 

[Barnaby]

I'm a fan of this system. I think it is quite fair. I also like the 3 tier lottery system that is mentioned earlier in the thread. I would also not allow teams with #1 picks in the last five years to choose in the top 5 or at least #1.

Another idea: Stanley Cup appearances should also hurt odds. I'd say that's just as fair as taking teams away that have had #1 picks.

 

[King'sPawn]

This is a great idea, but it might even be better to use the same formula going back 5 seasons and to not allow teams with #1 picks in the last 5 years into the top 5.

The problem with going back five season is there was no Minnesota Wild five seasons ago. Add in a couple other expansion teams if you go back four years, and that really skews it as well.

Just for giggles though, here are the numbers if you go back by four seasons. I weighed it a little differently, though... most recent had the normal weight. The season before that had the standings points divided by 2 as before. The season before had the points divided by 3 (instead of 4). The fourth season back had points divided by 4. Again, I took the average of the four seasons:

Columbus: 33.31
Pittsburgh: 34.38
Florida: 36.63
Atlanta: 37
Chicago: 37.06
New York Rangers: 38.17
Washington: 39.33
Carolina: 39.71
Phoenix: 40.29
Anaheim: 40.75
Nashville: 42.75
Minnesota: 42.96
Buffalo: 43.21
Los Angeles: 43.67
Calgary: 44.02
New York Islanders: 44.38
Montreal: 44.5
Edmonton: 47.23
Tampa Bay: 47.56
San Jose: 49.31
St. Louis: 49.73
Boston: 50.79
Vancouver: 51.71
Toronto: 51.96
Dallas: 52.25
Philadelphia: 52.96
New Jersey: 53.35
Colorado: 53.75
Ottawa: 54.27
Detroit: 57.6

 

[thestonedkoala]

You know what? Minnesota is getting royally screwed. They had one great season because, yes, their players overachieved, but so did Anaheim and Carolina. 83 last season, 95 two seasons ago, 73 in their first season. I would also say they are moving toward youth and they will struggle next year (might surprise some people and hit around the 85-90 mark)...but..that 95 is screwing them over.

 

[Barnaby]

You know what? Minnesota is getting royally screwed. They had one great season because, yes, their players overachieved, but so did Anaheim and Carolina. 83 last season, 95 two seasons ago, 73 in their first season. I would also say they are moving toward youth and they will struggle next year (might surprise some people and hit around the 85-90 mark)...but..that 95 is screwing them over.

It's hard to feel bad for teams that are getting screwed due to past success. Caps for instance would have sucked but if an extra year added to the draft system knocks them back a few spots I wont feel to bad. Try sucking like NYR, Chi, Pitt etc... I would have gladly taken a playoff year or two for one less ping-pong ball which gives another .15 or whatever chance of gettin Crosby...

 

[thestonedkoala]

Chicago didn't exactly suck a few years ago, since they made it to the playoffs. LA has bit hit with a rash of injuries...Anaheim and Calgary both made the playoffs too...