McJadeddog
Registered User
so i was reading the other thread about the idea of a weighted lottery pick for the upcoming draft (whenever that might be)... i think bettman has the right idea, in that he should base it on past years standings... but there should be certain "limits" on the picks as well (ie. the top teams should have no chance at the number 1 pick and the bottom teams should pick no later than 15th or so)
here is my reasoning for it.... everybody is saying that we dont know what this past seasons final standings would have looked like, due to injuries, bad play, trades etc etc....
this much is true, we dont know exactly how they would have looked, but by using the past history of the league, we could get a very good idea... for instance, since 1970 a team finishing 1st then placed no lower than 19th the following year.... so all those people claiming that detroit should be given a chance at the #1 pick dont really have anything to base this claim on.... there are also people claiming that "elite" teams can fall from grace quickly and dramatically over the course of 1 season.... this is somewhat true, but not entirely.... in 1987/88 the NYI finished 6th overall, and then proceeded to finish dead last in 1988/89, this marks the highest a last place team placed the year before (again since 1970).... other than NYI the only other team to have a "dramatic" fall was the boston bruins, who finished 8th in 95/96 and then last in 96/97.... after these two teams, the next largest fall was 16th to last by carolina in 01/02
so, as you can plainly see, large swings in the standings can indeed happen, but not nearly to the extent that many people are stating.... in fact, as i was going over the standings for the past 30 years, i noticed the "extreme" teams (those at the top or bottom of the standings) tended to place very similarily in any two year period... in other words, the extreme teams did not have large deviations in their standing placements
this brings me to me point, and solution, to the draft problem....
keeping in mind that swings in the standings *do* occur, but tempering that with some facts (based on what history has told us) we can come up with a manageble solution, that is fair to all teams..... use the past history (the date range used can be whatever the NHL deems appropriate) to determine how large a position swing a given team can expect.... to use 1970-now, i would say that the 1-5 teams (tampa, TO, san jose, detroit, boston) would have no chance at picking #1 (as history has shown they would not have finished last had the season been played)
by using history as its guide, the NHL could come up with some guidelines as to a range that each team would be able to pick in
the problem with the method being talked about right now is that each team would have 1 ball in the draw, and history has shown that the top 5 teams would have had no chance at picking #1, so therefore they should not be given any balls for the #1 pick
here is my reasoning for it.... everybody is saying that we dont know what this past seasons final standings would have looked like, due to injuries, bad play, trades etc etc....
this much is true, we dont know exactly how they would have looked, but by using the past history of the league, we could get a very good idea... for instance, since 1970 a team finishing 1st then placed no lower than 19th the following year.... so all those people claiming that detroit should be given a chance at the #1 pick dont really have anything to base this claim on.... there are also people claiming that "elite" teams can fall from grace quickly and dramatically over the course of 1 season.... this is somewhat true, but not entirely.... in 1987/88 the NYI finished 6th overall, and then proceeded to finish dead last in 1988/89, this marks the highest a last place team placed the year before (again since 1970).... other than NYI the only other team to have a "dramatic" fall was the boston bruins, who finished 8th in 95/96 and then last in 96/97.... after these two teams, the next largest fall was 16th to last by carolina in 01/02
so, as you can plainly see, large swings in the standings can indeed happen, but not nearly to the extent that many people are stating.... in fact, as i was going over the standings for the past 30 years, i noticed the "extreme" teams (those at the top or bottom of the standings) tended to place very similarily in any two year period... in other words, the extreme teams did not have large deviations in their standing placements
this brings me to me point, and solution, to the draft problem....
keeping in mind that swings in the standings *do* occur, but tempering that with some facts (based on what history has told us) we can come up with a manageble solution, that is fair to all teams..... use the past history (the date range used can be whatever the NHL deems appropriate) to determine how large a position swing a given team can expect.... to use 1970-now, i would say that the 1-5 teams (tampa, TO, san jose, detroit, boston) would have no chance at picking #1 (as history has shown they would not have finished last had the season been played)
by using history as its guide, the NHL could come up with some guidelines as to a range that each team would be able to pick in
the problem with the method being talked about right now is that each team would have 1 ball in the draw, and history has shown that the top 5 teams would have had no chance at picking #1, so therefore they should not be given any balls for the #1 pick