Divisional draft lottery

[TheOtherOne]

Sorry if I'm using up my quota of draft lottery threads. But on the other hand, this topic gets millions of replies, so that kind of indicates that we all want to keep talking about it. So let's do.

I think this idea is relatively unique (I haven't seen anything like it yet) and when weighing the pros and cons I think it's a really solid option.

The new draft:
- The bottom team in each division enters a lottery for the first 4 draft picks. Each of the 4 has an equal chance at each pick.
- All other teams draft in reverse order (worst teams get earliest picks).

Why?
- ** The main purpose of the draft is to make the worst teams better. This guarantees the 4 worst teams (divisionally) a top-4 pick, and all other teams draft accordingly by the standings. Bubble teams will not get early picks.
- Each of the lottery teams would have a better chance at better picks than they do under the current rules, due to fewer teams being in that pool. (My system: 25/25/25/25%; Current system: 18.5/16.5/14.4/50.6% at best)
- I like making divisions more relevant. Each division having its own lottery team seems nice, and removes some effect of one division having an easier or harder schedule than another.
- This will spread out the top talent evenly amongst the 4 divisions over time.
- ** The main purpose of the lottery aspect of the draft is to minimize incentive for tanking. Nearing the end of the season, there would be a much lower chance that a given game will affect the lottery odds. If 2 weak teams meet each other, chances are pretty good that A) they will be in different divisions or B) they will already be separated by about 8 points in the standings, making a single game pretty meaningless.
- Most people agree that the difference between 5th and 6th pick is minimal compared to 1st and 2nd, so it's not so important to randomize those.
- It's much simpler than a lot of alternatives I've seen. Easy for even a casual fan to understand.

Note: I am NOT claiming this is a perfect system that will completely eliminate the possibility of tanking. There will always be outside situations where it will be beneficial for one team to lose a game. What I am saying is that I believe this is the closest thing I can imagine to perfect, and I think it does the best job of fixing all the biggest concerns that keep popping up in the draft lottery threads ("the worst teams need lottery picks", "bubble teams shouldn't get lottery picks", etc.)

Click to read more...

 

[filinski77]

So Minnesota this year would have a guaranteed top 4 pick, even though they were 21st in the league standings?


Nope

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

It's better than a lottery for all non-playoff teams. What's best is no lottery, worst drafts first.

 

[Nickmo82]

So Minnesota this year would have a guaranteed top 4 pick, even though they were 21st in the league standings?


Nope

This.

This scheme assumes that all divisions are equal. That is rarely, if ever, the case. Some team would still get "screwed over" and another team that doesn't "deserve" a top pick will get it.

It's no better than the current format.

 

[Lays]

It's better than a lottery for all non-playoff teams. What's best is no lottery, worst drafts first.

That encourages tanking and bad teams don’t deserve anything. More randomness inspires teams to be as good as they can because the lottery isn’t just handing them the top pick. Awful idea to not have a lottery. I love the way it is now and I’ve loved it even before the Rangers won 2nd

 

[HanSolo]

That encourages tanking and bad teams don’t deserve anything. More randomness inspires teams to be as good as they can because the lottery isn’t just handing them the top pick. Awful idea to not have a lottery. I love the way it is now and I’ve loved it even before the Rangers won 2nd

I mean I was pulling for Anaheim to win one of those top 3 spots and they fell a spot.

But I agree. No lottery at all encourages tanking.

 

[Dogewow]

Ever hear of the KISS principle?

The way it's set up now is fine. We don't need more rules/additional structure in the draft set up to deal with a problem that doesn't exist on the scale people think it does.

 

[HarryLime]

the current system isn't actually bad tbh. I would just add a limit on how many times a team can pick in the top 3 over a certain amount of time so we can never get an Edmonton situation again. The goal is for struggling teams to climb their way up, but rewarding ineptitude over a long period of time hurts the rest of the league and enables poor management and even tanking tbh. Not that Edmonton tanked btw. Just hate seeing the same teams constantly picking 1st-2nd-3rd.

For example.... NJD won 2/3 lotteries. Next season they shouldn't be eligible to pick 1st.

 

[ricky0034]

if it were up to me i'd keep the system mostly how it currently is except make it so only the top 2 picks are lottery picks

still keeps the lottery system in place for the best players but makes teams fall less as well

 

[TheOtherOne]

So Minnesota this year would have a guaranteed top 4 pick, even though they were 21st in the league standings?


Nope

I don't see a problem with that. They're a bad team, worse than 2/3rds of the league. Worse than Chicago. Worst in their division. Why shouldn't they get a chance to improve?

Ever hear of the KISS principle?

The way it's set up now is fine. We don't need more rules/additional structure in the draft set up to deal with a problem that doesn't exist on the scale people think it does.

Yes. That's part of my reasoning. My proposed draft lottery is a LOT simpler than the current one. Do you happen to know the % chance the 26th place team has at the #3 pick off the top of your head? I don't. But I would under my system.

 

[Brian McDavid]

the current system isn't actually bad tbh. I would just add a limit on how many times a team can pick in the top 3 over a certain amount of time so we can never get an Edmonton situation again. The goal is for struggling teams to climb their way up, but rewarding ineptitude over a long period of time hurts the rest of the league and enables poor management and even tanking tbh. Not that Edmonton tanked btw. Just hate seeing the same teams constantly picking 1st-2nd-3rd.

For example.... NJD won 2/3 lotteries. Next season they shouldn't be eligible to pick 1st.

As an Oiler fan, I genuinely appreciate you adding this. It's so true.

 

[Juicy Pop]

So Minnesota this year would have a guaranteed top 4 pick, even though they were 21st in the league standings?


Nope

Seems good to me. What the hell has Minnesota achieved... ever?

 

[TGWL]

We can just rotate and give 1 division the top 3 picks. Every draft the division will be selected at random and 3 of the bottom 4 teams will get the top 3 picks... /s

It's better than a lottery for all non-playoff teams. What's best is no lottery, worst drafts first.

You don't have to finish last to be a struggling team. Getting a potential franchise player can do more than just improve you team record, it can also help market that team, fill seats and generate lots of revenue. Teams that struggle and don't finish last should still have a shot. It shouldn't just be given to the last place team every year.

 

[Dogewow]

Yes. That's part of my reasoning. My proposed draft lottery is a LOT simpler than the current one. Do you happen to know the % chance the 26th place team has at the #3 pick off the top of your head? I don't. But I would under my system.

What difference does it make whether or not I know the exact percentages of a given spot off the top of my head? I don't know the exact percentages, but I have a decent idea and know that you're much more likely to fall back from your spot, than you are to move up or stay put. As long as I know that the worst team has the best odds, with the percentages decreasing based on standing, that's straight forward enough. As long as a percentage isn't unreasonable one way or the other, I don't see the need to restructure this based on divisional format.

Under your system, a team like the Wild (83 pts) would have the same odds of winning a pick as the Senators (64 pts). No thanks.

After reviewing your post, it seems like this system you're proposing incentives tanking more. Right now only one team has the best odds of getting the number one pick at 18.5%, where as this system offers higher percentages to 4 teams. You don't even have to be the worst team in the league to secure better odds, but just be the worst in your division. That's much easier to accomplish if you're legitimately trying to tank, especially if you're in a competitive division where a lot of teams are fighting for playoff position.

 

[ponder719]

It's better than a lottery for all non-playoff teams. What's best is no lottery, worst drafts first.

You. You I like.

If we are going to do a lottery, which I'm not sure we need anyway, I think I'd prefer a graduated lottery. Bottom 5 teams enter into a lottery for pick #1. Teams 6-10 enter into a lottery for pick #6. Teams 11-15 (16 when Seattle shows up) enter into a lottery for pick #11. This limits a potential slide for any team to 1 slot, while still giving every team (except 1, 6, and 11) a chance to move up and get a more impactful player. It also prevents a situation like we could have had this year, where a team with a better record than 3 playoff teams could conceivably have picked #1. (You would have some brutal jockeying for position between the 5/6 teams and the 10/11 teams, but I'm not sure I find that to be too much of a problem.)

 

[filinski77]

I don't see a problem with that. They're a bad team, worse than 2/3rds of the league. Worse than Chicago. Worst in their division. Why shouldn't they get a chance to improve?



Yes. That's part of my reasoning. My proposed draft lottery is a LOT simpler than the current one. Do you happen to know the % chance the 26th place team has at the #3 pick off the top of your head? I don't. But I would under my system.

1) 1 point less than Chicago, but they actually had more wins, at the end of the day neither Chicago or Minnesota would 'deserve' a top 4 pick, Chicago got lucky, that's it.

2) They should, but I could just say 'Why doesn't Detroit get a chance to improve?' Since they had a much worse year than Minnesota, but they aren't last in their division, and the difference between the 5th pick and the 1st pick could be quite significant

At the end of the day, I think the current format is fair, as it:
a) It involves chance, with structure involved in the odds
b) Prevents complete tanking in the league, whilst still on average, gives lesser teams better odds to draft high

Doing your method does not stop tanking (actually promotes it within each division), and will screw over teams more than the current system.

In fact, looking back at previous years, the league-wide standing of the best last place team in a division:
2018/2019: Minnesota = 21st in the league, but last in their division
2017/2018: Rangers = 24th in the league, but last in their division
2016/2017: Buffalo = 26th in the league, but last in their division (They had 78 points, Colorado had 48 points)
2015/2016: Winnipeg = 24th in the league, but last in their division
2014/2015: Colorado = 21st in the league, but last in their division
2013/2014: Winnipeg = 22nd in the league, but last in their division

With the exception of 2016/2017, these teams that are between the 7th-11th last in point standings, which based off this past drafts odds, have 6.5% to 3% of the 1st OA, your suggestions would bump that to 25%. There is literally NO reason to give the 7th to 11th worst team the same chance of picking 1OA as the actual last place team does.

 

[Machinehead]

We should be doing less based on divisions, not more.

Divisions should exist for the schedule/travel. They shouldn't decide anything else.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

the current system isn't actually bad tbh. I would just add a limit on how many times a team can pick in the top 3 over a certain amount of time so we can never get an Edmonton situation again. The goal is for struggling teams to climb their way up, but rewarding ineptitude over a long period of time hurts the rest of the league and enables poor management and even tanking tbh. Not that Edmonton tanked btw. Just hate seeing the same teams constantly picking 1st-2nd-3rd.

For example.... NJD won 2/3 lotteries. Next season they shouldn't be eligible to pick 1st.

I agree. Its good the way it is now, so bottom feeders can't rely on the top overall pick every year to save them. The only thing is there should be a limit on how many spots you can move up. Like if you are 10-15 odds, you can move up to 5th at the highest, for example. Don't need bubble teams winning the top 1 or 2 pick

 

[tony d]

No to this, if they do anything with the lottery they should eliminate it. Worst picks 1st unless they're worst 2 years in a row in which case that year they'd pick #2.

 

[wetcoast]

So Minnesota this year would have a guaranteed top 4 pick, even though they were 21st in the league standings?


Nope

Exactly, all of this tinkering with the draft lottery is a solution looking for a problem.

The NHL isn't the NBA.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

I like the current system. I would disagree with any system that didn't allow for all non-playoff teams to win the #1 pick. I like that they have extended it to the top 3 picks now and all non-playoff teams can win one of the top 3 picks. I would definitely listen to any proposal that extended the lottery (to top 5 picks), but not sure if I would like that more or not. I would let this current system ride out for a while.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

That encourages tanking and bad teams don’t deserve anything. More randomness inspires teams to be as good as they can because the lottery isn’t just handing them the top pick. Awful idea to not have a lottery. I love the way it is now and I’ve loved it even before the Rangers won 2nd

Thanks to lottery Edmonton racked up additional 1st OA. No lottery no absurd Edmonton 1st OA.

 

[SotasicA]

if it were up to me i'd keep the system mostly how it currently is except make it so only the top 2 picks are lottery picks

If it were up to me, I would make it so that I pick who gets which player.

 

[Flukeshot]

I agree with the premise. Teams make the playoffs based on their divisions because the schedule is unbalanced.

I don't agree with the idea that the four bottom teams per division are the only ones who can get the top 4 picks.

Instead maybe hand out lottery %s that way. Ex. Each gets a 9% chance to win.