Detroit and the Lottery

[Kaners Bald Spot]

If that's the case there would be no reason to complain if the league restricted how often a team can be awarded the 1st overall pick.

People would not complain at all if a team had a horrible season and won the lottery for what was perceived as the first time.

Did anyone really complain about who won the right to Patrick kane or Auston Matthews? No of course not. Neither team had won the pick in a very long time and it was perceived as fair. People did however complain about McDavid. So much so that they changed the rules. Why? Because the same team had been awarded 1st four out of six years. Not fair to most fans.

People are pissed without question this year because yet another bubble team will win the lottery and it may possibly be a team that was awarded 1st and won a Cup. No effing way that is fair.

I'm going to go back to 2000 and look through 2015 and we can see how often the best player was taken in the top 3:

2000:
1. DiPietro
2. Heatley
3. Gaborik

Best player: Henrik Lundqvist(205)
Verdict: No, but close...Heatley and Gaborik are the next best players.

2001:
1. Kovalchuk
2. Spezza
3. Svitov

Best Player: Kovalchuk
Verdict: Yes

2002:
1. Rick Nash
2. Kari Lehtonen
3. Jay Bouwmeester

Best player: Duncan Keith(54)

Verdict: No

2003:
1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Eric Staal
3. Nathan Horton

Best Player: Either Getzlaf(19) or Bergeron(45) depending on personal taste

Verdict: No, but this draft was loaded and the top 3 did very well for themselves.


2004:
1. Ovechkin
2. Malkin
3. Barker

Best Player: Ovechkin
This is one year where outside the top 2 there was slim pickings.
Verdict: Yes

2005:
1. Crosby
2. Bobby Ryan
3. Jack Johnson

Best player: Crosby
Verdict: Yes....but the second best player is Kopitar who was taken 11th.

2006:
1. Erik Johnson
2. Jordan Staal
3. Jonathan Toews

Best player.....arguable between Toews/Backstrom/Giroux. This is a matter of personal taste, as all three have arguments to be the best player.
Verdict: Maybe

2007:
1. Patrick Kane
2. J. Van Riemsdyk
3. Kyle Turris

Best Player: Kane
Verdict: Yes


2008:
1. Stamkos
2. Doughty
3. Bogosian

Best Player.......Probably Erik Karlsson but it's close between Karlsson/Stamkos/Doughty
Verdict: Maybe


2009:
1. Tavares
2. Hedman
3. Duchene

Best Player: Either Tavares or Hedman
Verdict: Yes

2010:
1. Hall
2. Seguin
3. Gudbranson

Best player: Either Hall or Seguin
Verdict: Yes

2011:
1. Nugent-Hopkins
2. Landeskog
3. Huberdeau

Best player: Kucherov(58)
Verdict: No

2012:
1.Yakupov
2. Ryan Murray
3. Galchenyuk

Best player: Vasilevskiy(19)

Verdict: No


2013:
1. MacKinnon
2. Barkov
3. Drouin

Best player: MacKinnon
Verdict: Yes

2014:
1. Ekblad
2. Sam Reinhart
3. Draisaitl

Best Player: Arguable between Draisaitl and Pastrnak(25)...slight edge to Drai because he's a center.
Verdict.......Maybe. This one could go either way.

2015:
1. McDavid
2. Eichel
3. Dylan Strome

Best Player: McDavid
Verdict: Yes.

(end of analysis)

How many times does the best player go in the top 3? In 16 drafts, the verdict was:
Yes: 8
No: 5
Maybe: 3

Let's say for the sake of argument that it's about 60/40.
at best, if you argue for Toews/Draisaitl/Doughty or Stamkos, it becomes 11/16 which becomes just under 69%. If you argue for the other options, it drops to 50/50.

So, the current system is fine, as it's possible to find the best player in the draft outside the top 3 in 40% of the drafts on average.

 

[LeafsNation75]

There was a little noise from Philly fans perhaps but not much otherwise as Chicago had not won 1st if ever and was in a multi-generational Cup drought.

It was fair that they won. It would not be fair for them to win now after creating a 3 Cup dynasty off that pick.

I'm sure it hurt the Flyers fans 3 years later after the 2007 draft since it was Patrick Kane who scored the Stanley Cup game winning goal in overtime against them, when both teams meet in the 2010 Finals.

 

[Retire91]

I think a lot of these analysis are coming from a GM perspective. A 4th pick can still turn out to be a huge win. I think the draft is a lot about the fans though. The draft makes being a fan fun through the down years. Speaking purely as a fan this has hit hard because its taken all the enjoyment out of the down years. This is not just moving back 3 spots this is moving back for the 4th year in a row.

To go through a historically bad season is hard enough but then to move back in the draft out of the top 3 to make room for a playoff team. I am not going to lie this has impacted my desire to remain a fan of the NHL. Will I stop following the NHL? Of course not. But have I moved closer to meh, you bet.

I've been waiting patently for the organization to rebuild. Its been several lackluster seasons with hopes of finally seeing some game breaking talent start to come to town. Moving back in the draft 4 consecutive years is bad enough but to hit bottom as hard as a team can hit and then be moved back completely out of the top 3? We might have just lost our only opportunity to bring aboard who would have been our franchise player for the next 10-20 years. I just have to hope and trust that these anyi-tanking rules are worth it.

 

[tucker3434]

I'm going to go back to 2000 and look through 2015 and we can see how often the best player was taken in the top 3:

2000:
1. DiPietro
2. Heatley
3. Gaborik

Best player: Henrik Lundqvist(205)
Verdict: No, but close...Heatley and Gaborik are the next best players.

2001:
1. Kovalchuk
2. Spezza
3. Svitov

Best Player: Kovalchuk
Verdict: Yes

2002:
1. Rick Nash
2. Kari Lehtonen
3. Jay Bouwmeester

Best player: Duncan Keith(54)

Verdict: No

2003:
1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Eric Staal
3. Nathan Horton

Best Player: Either Getzlaf(19) or Bergeron(45) depending on personal taste

Verdict: No, but this draft was loaded and the top 3 did very well for themselves.


2004:
1. Ovechkin
2. Malkin
3. Barker

Best Player: Ovechkin
This is one year where outside the top 2 there was slim pickings.
Verdict: Yes

2005:
1. Crosby
2. Bobby Ryan
3. Jack Johnson

Best player: Crosby
Verdict: Yes....but the second best player is Kopitar who was taken 11th.

2006:
1. Erik Johnson
2. Jordan Staal
3. Jonathan Toews

Best player.....arguable between Toews/Backstrom/Giroux. This is a matter of personal taste, as all three have arguments to be the best player.
Verdict: Maybe

2007:
1. Patrick Kane
2. J. Van Riemsdyk
3. Kyle Turris

Best Player: Kane
Verdict: Yes


2008:
1. Stamkos
2. Doughty
3. Bogosian

Best Player.......Probably Erik Karlsson but it's close between Karlsson/Stamkos/Doughty
Verdict: Maybe


2009:
1. Tavares
2. Hedman
3. Duchene

Best Player: Either Tavares or Hedman
Verdict: Yes

2010:
1. Hall
2. Seguin
3. Gudbranson

Best player: Either Hall or Seguin
Verdict: Yes

2011:
1. Nugent-Hopkins
2. Landeskog
3. Huberdeau

Best player: Kucherov(58)
Verdict: No

2012:
1.Yakupov
2. Ryan Murray
3. Galchenyuk

Best player: Vasilevskiy(19)

Verdict: No


2013:
1. MacKinnon
2. Barkov
3. Drouin

Best player: MacKinnon
Verdict: Yes

2014:
1. Ekblad
2. Sam Reinhart
3. Draisaitl

Best Player: Arguable between Draisaitl and Pastrnak(25)...slight edge to Drai because he's a center.
Verdict.......Maybe. This one could go either way.

2015:
1. McDavid
2. Eichel
3. Dylan Strome

Best Player: McDavid
Verdict: Yes.

(end of analysis)

How many times does the best player go in the top 3? In 16 drafts, the verdict was:
Yes: 8
No: 5
Maybe: 3

Let's say for the sake of argument that it's about 60/40.
at best, if you argue for Toews/Draisaitl/Doughty or Stamkos, it becomes 11/16 which becomes just under 69%. If you argue for the other options, it drops to 50/50.

So, the current system is fine, as it's possible to find the best player in the draft outside the top 3 in 40% of the drafts on average.

Your odds drop off a cliff the further down you get. What are the odds 4th OA even becomes a regular NHLer?

The choice isn’t actually top 3 or the other 214 picks in the field. It’s only one of those 214 picks.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Your odds drop off a cliff the further down you get. What are the odds 4th OA even becomes a regular NHLer?

The choice isn’t actually top 3 or the other 214 picks in the field. It’s only one of those 214 picks.

That's on your scouts to maximize your pick.
It's actually your first two picks as a lot of really good players are chosen in the second round.

 

[tucker3434]

That's on your scouts to maximize your pick.
It's actually your first two picks as a lot pf really good players are chosen in the second round.

Even the best scouts miss most of the time, especially the further you drop them down the board.

Put me, with zero scouting experience, picking top 3 against the best scout that’s ever lived picking at 5, and I’ll crush him. Even the best scout isn’t going to find every Pasternak. But finding a McDavid, Eichel, MacKinnon, Matthews, etc. is about the easiest thing ever.

Give the abysmal teams the almost sure-thing. That they might draft a Pasternak Or Kucherov at 4 is totally unrealistic.

 

[JoemAvs]

I think a lot of these analysis are coming from a GM perspective. A 4th pick can still turn out to be a huge win. I think the draft is a lot about the fans though. The draft makes being a fan fun through the down years. Speaking purely as a fan this has hit hard because its taken all the enjoyment out of the down years. This is not just moving back 3 spots this is moving back for the 4th year in a row.

To go through a historically bad season is hard enough but then to move back in the draft out of the top 3 to make room for a playoff team. I am not going to lie this has impacted my desire to remain a fan of the NHL. Will I stop following the NHL? Of course not. But have I moved closer to meh, you bet.

I've been waiting patently for the organization to rebuild. Its been several lackluster seasons with hopes of finally seeing some game breaking talent start to come to town. Moving back in the draft 4 consecutive years is bad enough but to hit bottom as hard as a team can hit and then be moved back completely out of the top 3? We might have just lost our only opportunity to bring aboard who would have been our franchise player for the next 10-20 years. I just have to hope and trust that these anyi-tanking rules are worth it.

I mean that happened to the Avs twice and nobody else cared. Maybe the Redwings being a bigger market will change things but I doubt it.
Ultimately the Avs lucked out with Makar instead of Hischier/Patrick and I think Stevie Y is good enough of a GM to make the #4 pick count in a relatively strong draft at the top as well..

The Avs had 48 points over 82 games, were rumored to lose their 2-3 best players because of them demanding a trade/ needing to change things up and were absolutely going nowhere forever..

Not even 3 years later we are probably overall in the best spot of any franchise in the whole damn NHL with our young core, capsituation and prospect pool and are on a 3 year playoff streak..


So yeah. The draft lottery system sucks and losing it again and again hurts badly. But ultimately you shouldn't give up hope. Sure picking high makes things easier but ultimately it does not matter one bit if your management sucks. Just look at the Avs 5-7 years ago, the Oilers, Sabres, Panthers, etc.
If you have the right people in charge, things will turn around for the better eventually. And Yzerman atleast has the reputation of being a very good GM. So I wouldn't let this drag me down and honestly I think Lafreniere is overhyped anyways.
He is only a winger afterall (and I believe in not wanting to build your team around a wing) and I don't think he is the next Ovechkin and even Ovie needed a ton of help....

 

[DingDongCharlie]

There was no tanking, we are every bit as terrible as our record indicates.

I’d disagree only as you guys kept dressing Howard. You at the numbers with a journeyman Bernier and then look at with Howard.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I mean that happened to the Avs twice and nobody else cared. Maybe the Redwings being a bigger market will change things but I doubt it.

That makes me wonder what would have happened if in 2016 Toronto dropped from the 1st pick to the 4th pick, considering how big their market is.

Plus despite Toronto having the best odds of 20% going into the lottery that year, these were the odds based on the first three ball drawings and the numbers needed to win the 1st pick. You will see the Maple Leafs could only have won if the #13 ball had been selected.

Canadiens draft lottery near-miss on Matthews really stings now - Sportsnet.ca

A list of the potential winning combinations in the NHL’s 2016 draft lottery prior to the last ball being picked

6-8-5-1 (Wpg)
6-8-5-2 (CBJ)
6-8-5-3 (Ari)
6-8-5-4 (Wpg)
6-8-5-7 (Mtl)
6-8-5-9 (Buf)
6-8-5-10 (Edm)
6-8-5-11 (Col)
6-8-5-12 (CBJ)
6-8-5-13 (Tor)
6-8-5-14 (Edm)

 

[haulinbass]

I think a lot of these analysis are coming from a GM perspective. A 4th pick can still turn out to be a huge win. I think the draft is a lot about the fans though. The draft makes being a fan fun through the down years. Speaking purely as a fan this has hit hard because its taken all the enjoyment out of the down years. This is not just moving back 3 spots this is moving back for the 4th year in a row.

To go through a historically bad season is hard enough but then to move back in the draft out of the top 3 to make room for a playoff team. I am not going to lie this has impacted my desire to remain a fan of the NHL. Will I stop following the NHL? Of course not. But have I moved closer to meh, you bet.

I've been waiting patently for the organization to rebuild. Its been several lackluster seasons with hopes of finally seeing some game breaking talent start to come to town. Moving back in the draft 4 consecutive years is bad enough but to hit bottom as hard as a team can hit and then be moved back completely out of the top 3? We might have just lost our only opportunity to bring aboard who would have been our franchise player for the next 10-20 years. I just have to hope and trust that these anyi-tanking rules are worth it.

I won't stop being a fan but this lotto has taken a lot of fun out of it for me and I certainly won't be subscribing to either nhl.tv or gamecenter for the first time. I enjoy following rebuilding teams and this just takes the wind out of the sails. Finally it is my main team rebuilding and its just that much more miserable. A playoff team getting 1OA is a complete joke.

Burn the fans of the teams who have the least reason to watch their respective team, good one.

 

[CraigsList]

I think a lot of these analysis are coming from a GM perspective. A 4th pick can still turn out to be a huge win. I think the draft is a lot about the fans though. The draft makes being a fan fun through the down years. Speaking purely as a fan this has hit hard because its taken all the enjoyment out of the down years. This is not just moving back 3 spots this is moving back for the 4th year in a row.

To go through a historically bad season is hard enough but then to move back in the draft out of the top 3 to make room for a playoff team. I am not going to lie this has impacted my desire to remain a fan of the NHL. Will I stop following the NHL? Of course not. But have I moved closer to meh, you bet.

I've been waiting patently for the organization to rebuild. Its been several lackluster seasons with hopes of finally seeing some game breaking talent start to come to town. Moving back in the draft 4 consecutive years is bad enough but to hit bottom as hard as a team can hit and then be moved back completely out of the top 3? We might have just lost our only opportunity to bring aboard who would have been our franchise player for the next 10-20 years. I just have to hope and trust that these anyi-tanking rules are worth it.

I think the current flaw with the NHL draft lottery is the fixed percentages.

With this historically bad season that Detroit just had, you guys should have had much better odds to landing the top 3 picks in the lottery. There was a 23 point gap between you and Ottawa, who was the 2nd worst team in the league.

The NHL needs to find a way to make a system that you get a certain amount of % for the lottery depending on how many points you've accumulated over the season. In this case, Detroit should have had almost double the odds of Ottawa when they only accumulated 62% of the points Ottawa had.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I hope Detroit gets Shane Wright/Connor Bedard.

 

[Zaddy]

Missing out on Lafreniere sucks I'm sure but it's not something you can rely on as a bottom-feeder to get the 1st overall pick, which is precisely how it should be. No team should be (virtually) guaranteed the number #1 pick. And there's nothing that says that picking at #4 this year will be any worse than picking at #2 or #3. Lafreniere is in a class of his own at the moment but after him there's a big group of guys that could become the 2nd best player (or even best player down the road) in this draft. Sometimes it's a blessing to drop a few spots and not be forced into taking a consensus pick. Either way, assuming Lafreniere-Byfield-Stützle are the top3 Detroit will still get one of Raymond and Drysdale, or whoever else they like in that range. They're going to have a very good prospect available. Nothing to be upset about.

 

[KevFu]

I think the current flaw with the NHL draft lottery is the fixed percentages.

With this historically bad season that Detroit just had, you guys should have had much better odds to landing the top 3 picks in the lottery. There was a 23 point gap between you and Ottawa, who was the 2nd worst team in the league.

The NHL needs to find a way to make a system that you get a certain amount of % for the lottery depending on how many points you've accumulated over the season. In this case, Detroit should have had almost double the odds of Ottawa when they only accumulated 62% of the points Ottawa had.

I had a ridiculously similar thought process in the BOH discussion.

The fixed percentages are bad for the reason you said, and also because there’s no equity in the distribution of percentages. They were made up to end in .0 or .5 to look nice; They don’t increase by magnitude (like, they don’t double each slot lower you finish), sometimes it’s a 1.17 magnitude difference, and sometimes it’s 1.72 difference). That makes no sense.

So I thought, what about “percentage of points out of the playoffs each team is?”

2018-19 lottery teams were a combined 221 points out of the playoffs. So you divide 100 by 221 and get 0.45; so for every point out of the playoffs you were, you get 0.45 lottery pct. 1 point out = 0.45%, 30 points out = 13.5%


But the real problem is that the odds of anything happening = the inverse of the odds something DOESN’T happen. Like Yzerman said, 18.5% chance of #1 = 71.5% chance of not getting number one. And to me, the worst team should be favored to get the #1.


That led me to: Why do we even have the Draft Lottery in the first place? It’s stupid and unnecessary. Just abolish the lottery!

 

[Kranix]

Missing out on Lafreniere sucks I'm sure but it's not something you can rely on as a bottom-feeder to get the 1st overall pick, which is precisely how it should be. No team should be (virtually) guaranteed the number #1 pick. And there's nothing that says that picking at #4 this year will be any worse than picking at #2 or #3. Lafreniere is in a class of his own at the moment but after him there's a big group of guys that could become the 2nd best player (or even best player down the road) in this draft. Sometimes it's a blessing to drop a few spots and not be forced into taking a consensus pick. Either way, assuming Lafreniere-Byfield-Stützle are the top3 Detroit will still get one of Raymond and Drysdale, or whoever else they like in that range. They're going to have a very good prospect available. Nothing to be upset about.

The bottom team should should.

 

[KevFu]

Here’s my case…

The only other league with a lottery is the NBA. One guy is 20% of a team’s starting lineup. NBA picks are ready to go from day one and can turn franchises around. Like LeBron doubled CLE’s win total as a rookie and had them in the Finals in Year 4.

MLB has no Draft Lottery. Picks take years to develop, and each guy is 1/25th of your roster. NFL has no lottery, because each guy is 1/25th of starters (different formations included), and 1/53rd of your roster.

NHL top picks can arrive day one and be ready, like NBA guys. But with shifts, they’re one of 19 guys who play every game. One top pick doesn’t turn around a franchise. Three of them can, but not one.


The real reason the NHL has the lottery: 1992 Tampa, 1993 Ottawa, 1994 Florida. Three straight expansion team #1 overall picks.

The NHL added NINE expansion teams from 1991 to 2001. The other owners knew that they weren’t getting a franchise guy for decades without the lottery. The next generation of elite talent was going to go to the expansion teams. So they put the lottery in to give them a chance at franchise guys

(Ironic that expansion teams got 9 of 11 number one overall picks from 1992-2002 anyway!)

And now with new expansion rules, VGK/SEA were/are going to be instantly a really deep team because they can draft all 2nd line forwards/2nd D pair guys.


Now, everyone’s response to abolishing the draft is “But what about tanking!??! We can’t have tanking!”

 

[LeafsNation75]

Here’s my case…

The only other league with a lottery is the NBA. One guy is 20% of a team’s starting lineup. NBA picks are ready to go from day one and can turn franchises around. Like LeBron doubled CLE’s win total as a rookie and had them in the Finals in Year 4.

MLB has no Draft Lottery. Picks take years to develop, and each guy is 1/25th of your roster. NFL has no lottery, because each guy is 1/25th of starters (different formations included), and 1/53rd of your roster.

NHL top picks can arrive day one and be ready, like NBA guys. But with shifts, they’re one of 19 guys who play every game. One top pick doesn’t turn around a franchise. Three of them can, but not one.


The real reason the NHL has the lottery: 1992 Tampa, 1993 Ottawa, 1994 Florida. Three straight expansion team #1 overall picks.

The NHL added NINE expansion teams from 1991 to 2001. The other owners knew that they weren’t getting a franchise guy for decades without the lottery. The next generation of elite talent was going to go to the expansion teams. So they put the lottery in to give them a chance at franchise guys

(Ironic that expansion teams got 9 of 11 number one overall picks from 1992-2002 anyway!)

And now with new expansion rules, VGK/SEA were/are going to be instantly a really deep team because they can draft all 2nd line forwards/2nd D pair guys.


Now, everyone’s response to abolishing the draft is “But what about tanking!??! We can’t have tanking!”

One thing you forgot about the NBA lottery is that starting last year the bottom 3 teams in the standings were given the exact same odds of winning the 1st overall pick. New Orleans h went from the 7th pick to the 1st pick, Memphis went from the 8th pick to the 2nd pick, and New York was one of the three teams with the best odds and feel to the 3rd pick.

 

[KevFu]

What about Tanking?

Who cares? Teams were bad before the lottery, teams are bad during the lottery, and the only difference is that people think “Tanking is bad!”

DET is 23 points back of OTT, who's second worst in the league. Was DET tanking to get the number one pick? Probably not. We have the lottery and their odds of not getting #1 were 81.5%

If we conclude that DET was just BAD this year, and not tanking, it's TOTALLY FINE that they’re bad, right? No one is upset they’re bad, except DET fans. But tell me, what's the difference? What does it matter if DET is this bad, or this bad on purpose?

1. DET is just bad, we have a lottery, DET loses/no #1. This is fine, our system works.
2. DET is tanking, we have a lottery, DET loses/no #1. TANKING IS BAD, but system works!

3. DET is just bad, we have a lottery, DET wins/GETS #1. This is fine, our system works.
4. DET is really tanking, we have a lottery, DET wins/GETS #1. TANKING IS BAD, system didn't stop it.

5. DET is just bad, we DON’T have a lottery, DET GETS #1. Everything is fine, because no one tanked.
6. DET is really tanking, we DON’T have a lottery, DET GETS #1 pick. TANKING IS BAD!

The only difference between having a lottery and not having a lottery is that we’ve collectively decided “Tanking is bad” for some reason. Why is it not a viable strategy? It makes us uneasy to reward sucking on purpose. But the PLAYERS don’t tank. It’s management that would be tanking by decisions. And if management is putting their fan base through that, don’t the fans deserve a good player as a reward for suffering through a horrific season like that?


And of course, getting the #1 overall pick doesn’t mean you nail it. In 22 seasons from draft lottery thru Matthews in 2016…

8 times - #1 overall pick has had the most point shares in his draft class (MAF, Ovie, Sid, Kane, Stamkos, Tavares, MacKinnon, McDavid, Matthews).
6 times - #1 overall wasn’t first in the class, but still VERY GOOD (Thornton, Lacavalier, Kovalchuk, Nash, Hall, Ekblad).
8 times - #1 overall pick was a miss over someone else way better: (Berard over Iginla, Phillips over Chara, Stefan over Ryan Miller, Dipi over Gaborik/Lunqvist, Johnson over Toews, RNH over Kucherov/Hamilton/Landeskog, Yakupov over Andersen, Vasilevskiy/Forsberg).


So at the end of the day, if we abolished the Draft Lottery, it’s STILL “Tank at Your Own Risk” and the good clubs are build by smart guys drafting quality guys in the middle rounds, not just getting the #1 overall.

 

[KevFu]

One thing you forgot about the NBA lottery is that starting last year the bottom 3 teams in the standings were given the exact same odds of winning the 1st overall pick. New Orleans had the went from the 7th pick to the 1st pick, Memphis went from the 8th pick to the 2nd pick, New York was one of the three teams with the best odds and feel to the 3rd pick.

I didn't "forget," I just didn't really know or care. I kinda knew it was a lottery upset.

Why is that "Better" than not having a lottery?

 

[LeafsNation75]

I didn't "forget," I just didn't really know or care. I kinda knew it was a lottery upset.

Why is that "Better" than not having a lottery?

In the NBA's point of view they see it as a reason not to tank and finish last place overall, because you won't have the best odds of selecting 1st overall all by yourself since it's shared with two other teams.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

While should not be guarented the worst record wins the 1st overall pick, it shouldn't mean they drop 3 spots two years in a row like in 2019 and 2020.

An alternative way to combat intentional tanking is to make it so one team can't win the 1st overall two years in a row or twice in 3 year span, you win the 1st overall one year, then next year the best you can do is 3rd overall.

Put a hard coded limit how many times a team can win the 1st overall in a span of years and if they keep getting top 3 picks over a certain span of years then they are limited to the 4th overall and if after having been limited to 4th overall and they keep finishing with the 4th overall 2 years in a row then they are forced to pick no higher than 6th and if that repeats for 2 years then they are bumped to picking no higher than 8th.

 

[KevFu]

In the NBA's point of view they see it as a reason not to tank and finish last place overall, because you won't have the best odds of selecting 1st overall all by yourself since it's shared with two other teams.

I'm saying why is it better to have Zion go to the Draft Lottery winner instead of the worst team? To me, there's no difference.

I get IN THEORY why the NBA has an anti-tanking lottery: because the NBA #1 picks are guys like LeBron, Patrick Ewing and Zion, who can instantly make a team better overnight, so they might have multiple teams being terrible to "win" one of those guys...

But I really don't see the difference between having 8 truly terrible teams because the NBA has a massive parity issue, and having 8 truly terrible teams because teams are tanking.

And I don't know why on earth that applies to the NHL.

 

[KevFu]

Every Lottery argument is build on the core premise that "Tanking is a problem that must be eliminated." I'm saying this is "a problem" that people created in their own minds which doesn't really exist in any way that affects anyone negatively in anyway, shape or form.

See the DET example. I can provide a ton of evidence that DET wasn't tanking. They are just bad this year. Is anyone else in the league harmed by the fact that DET is a non-tanking bad team? No, not at all. We get the points from beating them! That's fun. That's great. Now, if DET was this bad on purpose there is no difference to us. There is no additional negative effect.

We still get the points, everyone in the league gets to play them at least twice. (Is it unfair that the Metro gets to play them less than the Atlantic when FLA is in the log jam with CBJ, NYI, NYR, CAR for two WC spots? Yes. It is. But no more unfair than the fact that the Metro has been loaded for years now. You want to say it's unfair the Atlantic gets to play DET twice, then let's see you demand a balanced schedule league or conference wide, or divisions aligned by some kind of rolling power index. But that ain't gonna happen).

Does it make us feel gross to give a team being bad on purpose the #1 overall pick? Yes. Because we view tanking as bad and not as a viable rebuilding strategy. Which is crazy to me because as fans, we all think "I'd rather finish DMFL and get a better pick than to finish 19th." If we all feel that way as fans, why do we have rules to prevent it? Because it feels icky when someone else does it and you don't?

 

[Dr Salt]

I'm going to go back to 2000 and look through 2015 and we can see how often the best player was taken in the top 3:

2000:
1. DiPietro
2. Heatley
3. Gaborik

Best player: Henrik Lundqvist(205)
Verdict: No, but close...Heatley and Gaborik are the next best players.

2001:
1. Kovalchuk
2. Spezza
3. Svitov

Best Player: Kovalchuk
Verdict: Yes

2002:
1. Rick Nash
2. Kari Lehtonen
3. Jay Bouwmeester

Best player: Duncan Keith(54)

Verdict: No

2003:
1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Eric Staal
3. Nathan Horton

Best Player: Either Getzlaf(19) or Bergeron(45) depending on personal taste

Verdict: No, but this draft was loaded and the top 3 did very well for themselves.


2004:
1. Ovechkin
2. Malkin
3. Barker

Best Player: Ovechkin
This is one year where outside the top 2 there was slim pickings.
Verdict: Yes

2005:
1. Crosby
2. Bobby Ryan
3. Jack Johnson

Best player: Crosby
Verdict: Yes....but the second best player is Kopitar who was taken 11th.

2006:
1. Erik Johnson
2. Jordan Staal
3. Jonathan Toews

Best player.....arguable between Toews/Backstrom/Giroux. This is a matter of personal taste, as all three have arguments to be the best player.
Verdict: Maybe

2007:
1. Patrick Kane
2. J. Van Riemsdyk
3. Kyle Turris

Best Player: Kane
Verdict: Yes


2008:
1. Stamkos
2. Doughty
3. Bogosian

Best Player.......Probably Erik Karlsson but it's close between Karlsson/Stamkos/Doughty
Verdict: Maybe


2009:
1. Tavares
2. Hedman
3. Duchene

Best Player: Either Tavares or Hedman
Verdict: Yes

2010:
1. Hall
2. Seguin
3. Gudbranson

Best player: Either Hall or Seguin
Verdict: Yes

2011:
1. Nugent-Hopkins
2. Landeskog
3. Huberdeau

Best player: Kucherov(58)
Verdict: No

2012:
1.Yakupov
2. Ryan Murray
3. Galchenyuk

Best player: Vasilevskiy(19)

Verdict: No


2013:
1. MacKinnon
2. Barkov
3. Drouin

Best player: MacKinnon
Verdict: Yes

2014:
1. Ekblad
2. Sam Reinhart
3. Draisaitl

Best Player: Arguable between Draisaitl and Pastrnak(25)...slight edge to Drai because he's a center.
Verdict.......Maybe. This one could go either way.

2015:
1. McDavid
2. Eichel
3. Dylan Strome

Best Player: McDavid
Verdict: Yes.

(end of analysis)

How many times does the best player go in the top 3? In 16 drafts, the verdict was:
Yes: 8
No: 5
Maybe: 3

Let's say for the sake of argument that it's about 60/40.
at best, if you argue for Toews/Draisaitl/Doughty or Stamkos, it becomes 11/16 which becomes just under 69%. If you argue for the other options, it drops to 50/50.

So, the current system is fine, as it's possible to find the best player in the draft outside the top 3 in 40% of the drafts on average.

All things considered, I think that there is a fair argument to be made that Stone should go down as the best player of the 2010 draft, and I support that idea.

 

[Zaddy]

The bottom team should should.

No, that encourages tanking.

It's funny how the narrative around the lottery has changed now. When the Oilers kept winning it everyone cried about how awful the system was and that the losing teams shouldn't have such a strong chance at winning the lottery. Now people seem to think it's unfair that other teams that are bad aren't winning. Can't have it both ways.

Personally I really like this system. It's more exciting and I like that teams that are competitive yet miss the playoffs have a good chance at getting a top3 pick. It's how it should be IMO. Incompetence shouldn't be rewarded. I much rather see teams that are on the bubble but not quite good enough can get their final missing piece through the draft and become a very good team than those top picks constantly going to the same teams that never really improves despite multiple top picks. It's much better if those teams don't get rewarded as it will put more pressure on ownership to remove incompetent people in the front office.