Draft, Muckler says BOG favour 30 balls in a bin

[Vlad The Impaler]

Isn't that why the league seems to be going with the weighted system spread out over three of four years, to greatly lessen the impact of situations where there is some flux?

I've thought about that greatly in the last few weeks. Truthfully (I don't know about you) I couldn't decide whether I thought an average over a few years was better than going by last year alone.

I just couldn't.

If I go by the very latest season alone, (03-04) I get the "freshest of the fresh" rankings available. However, as you said, I get exposed to a greater possibility of statistical anomalies because my sample is exceedingly small.

If I take a bigger sample of several seasons, I eliminate the anomalies. But then I further pay off teams that have already been compensated. This, time, repeatedly. Which makes it worse from my point of view.

Under that system, I am sure to compensate teams that have sucked consistently, which is the plus. I am also sure to compensate the teams that have been already compensated the most and gotten the highest picks the last few years. Which is in total contrast to my own position on the issue, as you know.

And once again, the number is totally arbitrary. 1 year? 2 years? 3? 4? 5? How much do we go back? Everyone is going to have their very subjective position on the matter, making sure (in a totally arbitrary fashion) not to go so far back as to compensate the Lightning because they used to pick low but have now won a cup.

I have no idea what the NHL's favorite method would be. (when do they announce the decision BTW?)

By the way, you are stretching if all you could find was Dallas. They dropped no lower than what, 17th?

Didn't mean to stretch it. Just responding to someone who mentioned Dallas among other teams. Under many of the systems proposed here, that's the difference between getting a shot at Crosby and not getting it. Very significant. 2nd to 17th is absolutely huge. It's from top to middle of the 30-team pack.

There will be variences especially with teams in the middle of the pack to the top of the standings, but ranking those picks one hundred thousand percent accurately are far less important to most here than ranking the picks in the top ten, especiually the top five. In most years you have almost as good a chance of picking a good player at 17 as you do toward the bottom of the draft. Picks one to five are a different story though, especially in this year the top four.

You are absolutely right, which is why it is (of course, IMO) of critical importance NOT to use the past standings. Because the teams that would get high picks have already gotten compensated with, from your own admission, the most quality picks in recent years. Thus, past standings cannot be used as an accurate way to gauge who are the weaker organizations right now. Or doing so would, ironically, mean that the draft isn't so important after all. And if it isn't, why does everybody want a high pick so bad?

I realize how this puts us back to square one. You still are going to believe we can't go totally random, for reasons such as a powerhouse getting a pick. I myself still can't agree that it is preferable to arbitrarily decide that a team deserves a pick over another this year. I just can't.

But I must tell you, when we're both calm, I really enjoy the discussion

 

[I in the Eye]

Well it beats the hell out any other suggestion to date. The minute the NHL starts picking names out of a hat is when all creability for the league goes out the window. At that point the CFL will be the better operated sport.

The only suggestion that, IMO, is credible is to not have a draft this year - raise the draft eligable age to 19... To me, that's a cost of having a lockout for the year... IMO, too bad, BOG - there is going to be costs for having the lockout, and for the sake of fairness and credibility, this IMO, should be one of them... I agree that picking names out of a hat (however it's done) is very flaky... IMO, as is using the 2003-04 draft order...

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

The only suggestion that, IMO, is credible is to not have a draft this year - raise the draft eligable age to 19... To me, that's a cost of having a lockout for the year... IMO, too bad, BOG - there is going to be costs for having the lockout, and for the sake of fairness and credibility, this IMO, should be one of them... I agree that picking names out of a hat (however it's done) is very flaky... IMO, as is using the 2003-04 draft order...

I suggested that and got hammered. To me that is the ONLY solution where no one gets hurt and truely fair.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

But I must tell you, when we're both calm, I really enjoy the discussion

I am too . . .seriously. Your positions are well thought out and well argued. I do not entirely disagree with you, not by a long shot. In fact the only real disagreement that we have is on what would be worst of two imperfect options. I truly deep down believe that stacked teams who can compete, next season, for the Cup should not be in the running for the top five picks. You believe that because there was no season just randomnize everything. I think that you believe that any chance that someone might get screwed, as there is some variance between the predicitions and reality from year to year, makes a random draft the most fair. I believe that no one goes from worst to first, or the other way so if someone gets screwed it usually will be toward the middle of the pack or top of the standings (where the effect is far less) and it is better than having lots of people get screwed/unjustly rewarded.

I can respect your position but admitedly have a hard time buying it, otherwise I would not be arguing so strongly the other way.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I suggested that and got hammered. To me that is the ONLY solution where no one gets hurt and truely fair.

If you got hammered, that was unwarranted. That solution is very fair. It's just highly impractical.

In fact, out of all the solutions proposed (including those I want to see happen and those I would hate to see happen) it might be the fairest but also the most impractical and the only one I would bet will NOT happen.

I understand what I in the Eye says, and he may be right that there should be a cost to the BoG and they should try to make things right. But people have to be aware that there will also possibly be a cost not to draft those guys, including youngsters going to court, trying to exploit loopholes and possibly a whole crop of prospects trying to break the bank, trying to become UFAs and up the salaries.

Which is, ironically, why we are currently in lockout.

 

[I in the Eye]

But people have to be aware that there will also possibly be a cost not to draft those guys, including youngsters going to court, trying to exploit loopholes and possibly a whole crop of prospects trying to break the bank, trying to become UFAs and up the salaries.

These are challenges ... IMO, nothing that can't be dealt with and overcome... My opinion is that fairness should be one of the two driving forces in all business decisions... It should be included and be an important determining factor in any cost/benefit analysis... Profits + fairness... In the end, reputation is all we've got... IMO, to have integrity you sometimes have to take some scars... Anyone can do the right thing when things are good, it's when things are bad (how someone acts) that's the true measure of character, IMO...

I'm not upset or angry at all though, if the league doesn't cancel the draft and decides some ****ed up approach instead... To me, it's expected... and I see hockey more as a novelty these days, anyways...

 

[PecaFan]

Weighted lottery will give TB better odds than Washington for #1 overall.

If you're going to do this, stick to actual overall standings, rather than previous draft spots. They can already be skewed because of previous lottery results, etc.

Washington was 10th, 19th, 13th, 28th / 4 = 17.5
Tampa was 29th, 27th, 12th, 2nd / 4 = 17.5

So, not quite as bad as you thought. However, this is a good example of why the linear weight system is flawed. The 2001 season is far less indicative of the current status of teams, yet it gets equal weight with the 2004 season. This is why many of us have said different weights must be given to the various seasons.

The trick is finding the right percentages. At 75% / 20% / 5% for 2004 through to 2002, you get:

Wsh: 28th*.75, 13th*.2, 19th*.05 = 24.55 average
Tam: 2nd *.75, 13th*.2, 27th*.05 = 5.25 average

Much more reasonable. Tampa is near the top of the league, Washington near the bottom, as expected. (Those wouldn't necessarily be their final spots, as you'd have to do all the other teams)

We know for a fact everything has changed. Every player got older. Some players were not signed

Those events happen *every* year. We've never adjusted anyone's draft position because a player retired in April, or they made a trade before the draft. Why? Because we don't know what effect those moves will have. Maybe a team gets better because they're older. Maybe they got worse. Maybe the trade decimates a team. Maybe it gives a youngster a chance to step in, and they really improve.

We don't do that because it would be speculation. As you yourself said, we need to base the draft on firm criteria.

And the *only* firm criteria we have, the only factual data that shows the relative states of each team is the final standings of the previous seasons.

 

[Munchausen]

people have to be aware that there will also possibly be a cost not to draft those guys, including youngsters going to court, trying to exploit loopholes and possibly a whole crop of prospects trying to break the bank, trying to become UFAs and up the salaries.

That could be so if they decided to postpone the draft indefinitelly or until next year, but not if they raise the draft eligible age to 19yo. If it is written black on white in the next CBA that the NHL will from then on only draft 19+yo, there's nothing the draftees can do about it. It's full proof. The fact it's in the CBA means there is no way around it, not through courts, not through loopholes, it is set in stone. The draft age is 19yo and no player can demand to play or be drafted before that time. The fact the previous CBA had that age at 18yo is irrelevant right now.

I of course agree with the the fact the league will never have enough judgment to go ahead with this idea, since they're only motivated by profit and can't wait to draft Crosby, but they are offered a unique opportunity right now to make things right and bring the drafting to an age where it is easier for teams to determine what they're getting, and also where the player has more chance to make a direct jump to the NHL without being burned (ideal age for me would be 20yo, but what do I know).

 

[DaveMatthew]

John Muckler did indeed say this.

He said that there was a hand count, and the majority voted for an equal chance for everyone. He said he thinks thats how the draft will be.

And it should be like that. Nobody can predict what would have happened this year, and the bad teams from previous years already got rewarded with high picks.

 

[Russian Fan]

I'm with Vlad , nothing realistic except throwing 30 balls & the 1st pick get the 1st overall.

The best example is Toronto. Everyone hate them but they could be IN for a ROUGH RIDE when they come back with a lot of veterans to retired & a farm that is not really deep.

They should get a chance to pick Crosby like every 29 teams. Colorado could be in the same place with Sakic-Forsberg close to be OUT if not OUT.

No one knows how each team will look like in the next CBA so I don't see why people should be upset if the Rangers or the Avalanche or the Wings or the Leafs win the Crosby lottery.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

That could be so if they decided to postpone the draft indefinitelly or until next year, but not if they raise the draft eligible age to 19yo. If it is written black on white in the next CBA that the NHL will from then on only draft 19+yo, there's nothing the draftees can do about it. It's full proof. The fact it's in the CBA means there is no way around it, not through courts, not through loopholes, it is set in stone. The draft age is 19yo and no player can demand to play or be drafted before that time. The fact the previous CBA had that age at 18yo is irrelevant right now.

I of course agree with the the fact the league will never have enough judgment to go ahead with this idea, since they're only motivated by profit and can't wait to draft Crosby, but they are offered a unique opportunity right now to make things right and bring the drafting to an age where it is easier for teams to determine what they're getting, and also where the player has more chance to make a direct jump to the NHL without being burned (ideal age for me would be 20yo, but what do I know).

100% in agreement! Age for draftees should be 20 years old, but be prepared for a backlash with that opinion

I have to agre that I suspect they could put it in the CBA and go unchallenged, but do not bet on that. Laws are made to be challenged. Weird court decisions happen. **** hits the fan.

I don't think it's a BAD idea. I think it's a GOOD idea. But I don't think they will risk it right after sorting the CBA mess. They need peace and quiet.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Those events happen *every* year. We've never adjusted anyone's draft position because a player retired in April, or they made a trade before the draft. Why? Because we don't know what effect those moves will have. Maybe a team gets better because they're older. Maybe they got worse. Maybe the trade decimates a team. Maybe it gives a youngster a chance to step in, and they really improve.

We don't do that because it would be speculation. As you yourself said, we need to base the draft on firm criteria.

And the *only* firm criteria we have, the only factual data that shows the relative states of each team is the final standings of the previous seasons.

Previous season, singular

Not 12 months ago, not 24 months ago. Usually, it's a couple weeks after the playoffs. A flawed method involving a fair deal of abstraction, but it works, everybody has agreed to it in advance and all is well.

This year, it's very different, with people trying to determine a method after the fact, pulling rationalizations to favor this or that team.

I can respect that it works for you but it doesn't for me at all.

BTW, can anyone tell me when the NHL will make an announcement concerning the draft process? When are they supposed to decide and make it public?

 

[chriss_co]

About the draft, weighing out the teams to determine a draft order is basically like ordering all 30 teams at the beginning of the season and predicting who will win the cup.

Now, those who think Washington will win the cup next year should give their heads a shake. At the same time (tho i doubt they will win), Toronto has a much better chance of going deep into the playoffs than say the Penguins.

So if we can agree on this (dont you dare try and argue how your Leafs will stink it up and not make the postseason), then how can you not agree that teams like Carolina, Columbus and Pittsburgh deserve a good shot at the 1st pick overall.

As for averaging out the last 5 seasons, that is very intriguing.. it definitely smooths out the bumps.. but i think putting percentages on those 5 years is best... you can best predict a team's performance by their record in a previous year.. so i say stick with a weighted average

 

[Mess]

Previous season, singular

BTW, can anyone tell me when the NHL will make an announcement concerning the draft process? When are they supposed to decide and make it public?

It could be as soon as the BOG meeting April 20th, 2005

 

[DARKSIDE]

About the draft, weighing out the teams to determine a draft order is basically like ordering all 30 teams at the beginning of the season and predicting who will win the cup.

Now, those who think Washington will win the cup next year should give their heads a shake. At the same time (tho i doubt they will win), Toronto has a much better chance of going deep into the playoffs than say the Penguins.

So if we can agree on this (dont you dare try and argue how your Leafs will stink it up and not make the postseason), then how can you not agree that teams like Carolina, Columbus and Pittsburgh deserve a good shot at the 1st pick overall.

As for averaging out the last 5 seasons, that is very intriguing.. it definitely smooths out the bumps.. but i think putting percentages on those 5 years is best... you can best predict a team's performance by their record in a previous year.. so i say stick with a weighted average

Didn't someone already using statistics by going back several years, came up with Tampa actually having a better chance then Washinton of getting the first pick. It just won't work.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Didn't someone already using statistics by going back several years, came up with Tampa actually having a better chance then Washinton of getting the first pick. It just won't work.

That is very very skewed without the data behind it. Washington falls significantly in chances with a three or four year averaging. They fall to something like 16 or 17 if I remember correctly. TB sucked for quite a while so they two fall somewhere in the middle. If TB has a better chance that Washington, it would be something like TB being 16, Washington 17. Meaning that neither will have a huge chance at all.

 

[PecaFan]

Didn't someone already using statistics by going back several years, came up with Tampa actually having a better chance then Washinton of getting the first pick. It just won't work.

Geeze, I just ripped this argument to shreds in post #257, just above you.

 

[Mess]

100% in agreement! Age for draftees should be 20 years old, but be prepared for a backlash with that opinion

I have to agre that I suspect they could put it in the CBA and go unchallenged, but do not bet on that. Laws are made to be challenged. Weird court decisions happen. **** hits the fan.

I don't think it's a BAD idea. I think it's a GOOD idea. But I don't think they will risk it right after sorting the CBA mess. They need peace and quiet.

Been there and done that .. Would be the response ..

The NHL had the draft age higher and lost all the good young talent to the WHA .. The WHA used Gretzky and other top youngsters , Vaive, Messier, Ramage, Hartsburg, Linsman, Napier, etc as bargaining Power .. as a result of that the NHL lowered the age of its amateur draft and renamed it the entry draft to accommodate these young players entry into the NHL ..

The Irony exist again as the talk of raising the Age ,and the WHA starting up .. So the NHL will not gain from not allowing Crosby to play for a couple of years .. Rival leagues will gain be it the WHA or Europe or even independent AHL franchises like Chicago wolves ..

If the NHL is trying to come out of this lockout with a Revenue stream falling and trying to repair the damage and win back the fans and grow the game ..

Would it really be in the their best interest to handicap itself by removing possible one of its best pawns and excitement of a entry Draft and the impact Crosby could have on NHL recovery, because NO ONE could come up with a fair way to allocate his services ??..

 

[I in the Eye]

If the NHL is trying to come out of this lockout with a Revenue stream falling and trying to repair the damage and win back the fans and grow the game ..

Would it really be in the their best interest to handicap itself by removing possible one of its best pawns and excitement of a entry Draft and the impact Crosby could have on NHL recovery, because NO ONE could come up with a fair way to allocate his services ??..

So I'm clear...

It is your contention that 'business interest' is more important than fairness in determining decisions that affect the competitive relationship between teams in a sport... Is my understanding of your argument correct?

 

[mooseOAK*]

I'm with Vlad , nothing realistic except throwing 30 balls & the 1st pick get the 1st overall.

The best example is Toronto. Everyone hate them but they could be IN for a ROUGH RIDE when they come back with a lot of veterans to retired & a farm that is not really deep.

They should get a chance to pick Crosby like every 29 teams. Colorado could be in the same place with Sakic-Forsberg close to be OUT if not OUT.

No one knows how each team will look like in the next CBA so I don't see why people should be upset if the Rangers or the Avalanche or the Wings or the Leafs win the Crosby lottery.

Yes, please do something to help the poor Leafs! We have nothing, nothing!

 

[Mess]

So I'm clear...

It is your contention that 'business interest' is more important than fairness in determining decisions that affect the competitive relationship between teams in a sport... Is my understanding of your argument correct?

No not correct at All ?

It is in the best interest of the NHL that Crosby be drafted and marketed to help in recovery, and raising the entry draft age is just a cop out to avoid finding a fair way to allocate him.

I think that is not a good enough reason, as next season we could have replacement players and the people will argue you can't use Standings to determine Draft position.. IMO ..

 

[Russian Fan]

Yes, please do something to help the poor Leafs! We have nothing, nothing!

Why are you jealous of them ? because they have money ? that doesn't mean anything, they are cupless since 1967 !!!!!

I just think that we don't know what kind of team they will have once the NHL is back & they earn a fair shot like everybody else & who knows , they might take Jack Johnson with the 1st overall (joke)

 

[Mess]

Why are you jealous of them ? because they have money ? that doesn't mean anything, they are cupless since 1967 !!!!!

I just think that we don't know what kind of team they will have once the NHL is back & they earn a fair shot like everybody else & who knows , they might take Jack Johnson with the 1st overall (joke)

He actually claims to be a Fan of the Leafs, which might surprise you ...

So just chalk it up to him being a very confused young man .. The lockout has been going on so long, that he has forgotten what he is cheering for and who, or why !!!.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Pro NHLPA people who can't recognize sarcasm. Not a surprise.

 

[Russian Fan]

Pro NHLPA people who can't recognize sarcasm. Not a surprise.

Im sorry, I don't read the 1000 post on the board every day, especially when 95% of them is how we should punished every decent team that spend money on players. I'm no leafs fan, I'm no big market fans, I'm just a fan.