Draft position - Tank/Win? Upcoming Schedule, etc.

[PhoPhan]

The odds of your team being rewarded go up as your team loses more and more. Until that changes, tanking doesn't away.

Probability is a more useful determinant than possibility. The odds have changed dramatically, and especially in a draft without a real franchise-caliber prospect at the top, there is significantly less incentive to tank.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

The odds of your team being rewarded go up as your team loses more and more. Until that changes, tanking doesn't away.

The sole reason for the convoluted draft rules is to remove the incentive to tank. Geez, do a little reading.

Chance of winning the 1st pick from the 2nd position is 12.1%. Chance of picking second from the second position is 11.1%. Chance of picking 3rd is 11.1%

Chance of winning the 1st pick from the 3rd position is 10.3%, 2nd pick 10.1%, 3rd pick 9.9%

You want to tank over a 1% greater chance of getting picks 1, 2, or 3? Not at all worth it.

 

[Rink Rage]

Those draft rules won't anything. The odds of your team getting a higher draft pick still increase when you lose.

 

[MIGs Dog]

The sole reason for the convoluted draft rules is to remove the incentive to tank. Geez, do a little reading.

I thought they were changed to try and prevent Edmonton from picking first every year.

 

[Headshot77]

I would have went full tank mode sooner to land Eichel and Matthews in their respective draft and I would have fired Tippett.

I still think it's criminal that Matthews is in Toronto. A pick like that can *save* a franchise. Especially since he is local.

 

[Sinurgy]

Those draft rules won't anything. The odds of your team getting a higher draft pick still increase when you lose.

The opportunity cost of tanking is not worth a 1% increase in your chances, especially in a draft year with no known franchise players.

 

[BUX7PHX]

The opportunity cost of tanking is not worth a 1% increase in your chances, especially in a draft year with no known franchise players.

Meh, I will disagree a little, b/c all it takes is for one team to fall in love with a specific player.

The 1st pick simply means that you have the choice of all players available, even if the top 5 are relative equals. Teams will try and figure out ways to move around the draft board if one team has tagged one of those top 5 players as being far ahead of the others. There is still something said for the opportunity cost of picking the player that your team's scouting metrics shape as the clear #1. But, that does get marginalized in a draft with no true stud player.

 

[Spirit of Lindgren]

Chayka this morning on Doug and Wolf said they didn't need to tank to get young talent.
Young talent is already there and on the ice.
They want to get the young kids into the habit of winning.

I just can't wait till its over and I hope they announce something about the franchises future before next years ST's go on sale.

 

[rt]

I want the team to win.

 

[Sinurgy]

Meh, I will disagree a little, b/c all it takes is for one team to fall in love with a specific player.

The 1st pick simply means that you have the choice of all players available, even if the top 5 are relative equals. Teams will try and figure out ways to move around the draft board if one team has tagged one of those top 5 players as being far ahead of the others. There is still something said for the opportunity cost of picking the player that your team's scouting metrics shape as the clear #1. But, that does get marginalized in a draft with no true stud player.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. You seem to be arguing that while there's no known franchise player available the #1 overall pick is still preferred. I don't think you'd find anyone who would disagree. My point is tanking only increases your chance by 1%. That's so small it might as well not even exist. I'd rather the team try to finish on a high note. It gives the fans and players a little sweetness on top of a season that's been largely sour but more importantly I think taking momentum into the offseason is far more valuable to a team that's trying to learn how to win than getting a 1% better chance at a higher pick.

1% illustrated in ASCII

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000

 

[BUX7PHX]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. You seem to be arguing that while there's no known franchise player available the #1 overall pick is still preferred. I don't think you'd find anyone who would disagree. My point is tanking only increases your chance by 1%. That's so small it might as well not even exist. I'd rather the team try to finish on a high note. It gives the fans and players a little sweetness on top of a season that's been largely sour but more importantly I think taking momentum into the offseason is far more valuable to a team that's trying to learn how to win than getting a 1% better chance at a higher pick.

1% illustrated in ASCII

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000

True, but even with lottery odds, if you finish with worst record or 4th worst record, the worst position that you can draft in changes remarkably. As I was alluding to, if there are 5 players at the top of the list, and tanking means the difference between the 4th and 7th pick (assuming lottery balls do not fall your way), that is still a potentially large difference. If we were to offer the pick in a trade for a different player, there will be a difference over what teams are willing to pay, even in a 3 spot difference. That 1% increase for the top pick still can mean a lot more than just 1% if other teams jump or don't jump you in the lottery. Plus, because there are three lotteries, losing the #1 pick isn't the worst thing, as your odds could go up considerably for the 2nd pick.

The #1 pick still allows you to have the choice of any one of the 5, whereas the 4th pick only guarantees that two of the top 5 are what you get to choose from. If the crystal ball says that 4 of the 5 top players will wind up in the HOF, you have an 80% chance of picking one of those players from #1 spot. If picking 4th, and the first 3 to go are all players in that group of 4, you have a 50/50 shot of taking the HOFer if it comes down to those two. You always want to have more possibilities available, as opposed to fewer.

That where I was trying to get at - in the McEichel sweeps, it was all about being in the bottom 2. Even though this draft is not as inherently strong up top, there is still a cutoff point of the most attractive players at all levels of the 1st round. It may be 1, 4, 5, or 20 players deep. You want to position yourself as best as possible for that gap between the top and second tiers.

 

[Sinurgy]

True, but even with lottery odds, if you finish with worst record or 4th worst record, the worst position that you can draft in changes remarkably. As I was alluding to, if there are 5 players at the top of the list, and tanking means the difference between the 4th and 7th pick (assuming lottery balls do not fall your way), that is still a potentially large difference. If we were to offer the pick in a trade for a different player, there will be a difference over what teams are willing to pay, even in a 3 spot difference. That 1% increase for the top pick still can mean a lot more than just 1% if other teams jump or don't jump you in the lottery. Plus, because there are three lotteries, losing the #1 pick isn't the worst thing, as your odds could go up considerably for the 2nd pick.

The #1 pick still allows you to have the choice of any one of the 5, whereas the 4th pick only guarantees that two of the top 5 are what you get to choose from. If the crystal ball says that 4 of the 5 top players will wind up in the HOF, you have an 80% chance of picking one of those players from #1 spot. If picking 4th, and the first 3 to go are all players in that group of 4, you have a 50/50 shot of taking the HOFer if it comes down to those two. You always want to have more possibilities available, as opposed to fewer.

That where I was trying to get at - in the McEichel sweeps, it was all about being in the bottom 2. Even though this draft is not as inherently strong up top, there is still a cutoff point of the most attractive players at all levels of the 1st round. It may be 1, 4, 5, or 20 players deep. You want to position yourself as best as possible for that gap between the top and second tiers.

Perhaps this format will better illustrate to you what 1% looks like.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000010000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000100000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100000
00000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000
00001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000100000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000100000000000000000000

 

[PhoPhan]

There is never such a steep dropoff between, say, the 4th and 5th best players in a draft, at least not one that is apparent at draft time. Occasionally, you have one or maybe two generational talents at the very top, but short of that, there's not a big enough distinction for that logic to be worth pursuing (via tanking) far enough in advance for tanking to be feasible. Just not how it works.

 

[BUX7PHX]

There is never such a steep dropoff between, say, the 4th and 5th best players in a draft, at least not one that is apparent at draft time. Occasionally, you have one or maybe two generational talents at the very top, but short of that, there's not a big enough distinction for that logic to be worth pursuing (via tanking) far enough in advance for tanking to be feasible. Just not how it works.

The issue is that there is a misconception over what tanking is. Tanking is actually not done simply to improve odds on the #1 pick. It is actually done to improve your draft position. The improvement in odds for the #1 pick is a byproduct of improving draft position. Since there is a lottery for the #1 pick, no team can guarantee that tanking gets the team to the #1 pick.

The Strome/Marner/Hanifin decision is a great example of why I disagreed with Sinurgy regarding the opportunity cost of tanking solely being based on getting the #1 pick or improving odds on #1 pick. Let's say that Arizona, Toronto, and Carolina all had those three players on their draft board in the exact order that they were taken. The opportunity cost for us to tank was to get ahead of those two teams so we could take Strome ahead of the other two. Even though the results of the lottery worked against us, the tank could be considered as a success if Strome was the most coveted player by all 3 teams, and we were able to pick ahead of those two teams.

This year, the percentage improvement for the #1 pick is slim for where we are, no doubt. But three weeks ago, Arizona was the clear team with the 2nd best odds at picking #1. Now, we may fall anywhere between 2nd best and 6th best, looking at teams within 6 points of our standing. So, while there may not be a clear cut #1 player at the top, a tank accomplishes moving your team ahead of other "like" teams so that you have the opportunity at players that the teams behind you don't get. Hence, why I told Sinurgy that it all depends on how much a team falls in love with certain players. Trades can happen. Teams can go off the board. What we want is to simply put ourselves as far up the list as possible with the best value available. If that means tanking your final three games so that you go from the 6th best to 5th best odds, it still could be done with the intention of being ahead of that one team, as your needs are comparable.

It probably does not make sense to tank for the 1% increase in lottery odds, but that is not to say that the opportunity cost is solely based on that, either. That was probably more what my argument was detailing - the value of opportunity cost as it ties to improving lottery odds.

 

[Heldig]

The tanking part is done. Teams that have given up on the season and are working towards the next year jettison veterans and pending UFA's at the trade deadline. Once that is accomplished the team starts building for the next season. Brings up young players to give them a taste of the NHL game and elevates young players in the lineup (more PP time, PK time, more ice time). You never try not to win (yes there have been exceptions - see Pittsburgh embarrassing the league in order to draft Lemiuex).

 

[AZviaNJ]

see Pittsburgh embarrassing the league in order to draft Lemiuex).

The tank of all tanks. That Pens team was MUCH better than NJ, however, Devils continued to play hard down the stretch and were rewarded with Kirk Mueller, while Mario became a Pen thanks to Pittsburgh's obvious tanking.

 

[Plub]

The time to tank was McEichel because you either got a generational player or a franchise one, there was no way to lose by finishing last. After that, Matthews was a long shot even finishing last and this year there's no one actually worth tanking for.

I want the team to win and get better, especially on the back of youth. Coincidentally, or not, our team has looked better and better the more the youth has been put in a position to have an impact. Who would have thought?

 

[Jakey53]

The time to tank was McEichel because you either got a generational player or a franchise one, there was no way to lose by finishing last. After that, Matthews was a long shot even finishing last and this year there's no one actually worth tanking for.

I want the team to win and get better, especially on the back of youth. Coincidentally, or not, our team has looked better and better the more the youth has been put in a position to have an impact. Who would have thought?

It's called maturity.

 

[Sinurgy]

The time to tank was McEichel because you either got a generational player or a franchise one, there was no way to lose by finishing last. After that, Matthews was a long shot even finishing last and this year there's no one actually worth tanking for.

Unfortunately Don Maloney got out maneuvered pretty handily by Tim Murray and it may end up being the final pivotal moment that ended NHL hockey in Arizona. If DM doesn't get out tanked, the Coyotes could be in a different situation right now. Man just imagine what McDavid or Eichel could've done for this franchise. They'd finally have the elusive cornerstones in place, a franchise 1C and a 1D!

 

[Jakey53]

Unfortunately Don Maloney got out maneuvered pretty handily by Tim Murray and it may end up being the final pivotal moment that ended NHL hockey in Arizona. If DM doesn't get out tanked, the Coyotes could be in a different situation right now. Man just imagine what McDavid or Eichel could've done for this franchise. They'd finally have the elusive cornerstones in place, a franchise 1C and a 1D!

I still get sick watching McDavid playing with the Oilers. We lose out on McDavid, Eichel and home boy Matthews. I bet we win the lottery this year. We have the worst luck.

 

[Alberta Yote]

Yes it would be much better to lose the lottery again