Possible frame work for next draft

[Jason MacIsaac]

Buffalo has 2....they made the playoffs twice in that period...I think. Boston has 1....you have them down for 3.

 

[Norseman]

The format looked as hell, so i edited a little (+ error):

4 Balls ~6.67%
Cbs
Nyr

3 Balls ~5.00%
Ana (Playoffs in 03)
Atl (1st OA in 01)
Buf (Playoffs in 01)
Cgy (Playoffs in 04)
Chi (Playoffs in 02)
Min (Playoffs in 03)
Nas (Playoffs in 04)
Pho (Playoffs in 02)
Pit (Playoffs in 01)

2 Balls ~ 3.33%
Car (Playoffs in 01, 02)
Edm (Playoffs in 01, 03)
Fla (1st OA in 02, 1st OA in 03)
La (Playoffs in 01, 02)
Mtl (Playoffs in 02, 04)
Tb (Playoffs in 03, 04)

1 Ball ~ 1.67%
Bos (Playoffs in 02, 03, 04)
Col (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Dal (Playoffs in 01, 03, 04)
Det (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Nyi (Playoffs in 02, 03, 04)
Nj (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Ott (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Phi (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Sj (Playoffs in 01, 02, 04)
Stl (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Tor (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Van (Playoffs in 01, 02, 03, 04)
Wsh (Playoffs in 01, 03, 1st OA in 04)

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Cbs 4 6,67 %
Nyr 4 6,67 %
Ana 3 5,00 %
Atl 3 5,00 %
Buf 3 5,00 %
Cgy 3 5,00 %
Chi 3 5,00 %
Fla 3 5,00 %
Min 3 5,00 %
Nas 3 5,00 %
Pho 3 5,00 %
Car 2 3,33 %
Edm 2 3,33 %
La 2 3,33 %
Mtl 2 3,33 %
Pit 2 3,33 %
Tb 2 3,33 %
Bos 1 1,67 %
Col 1 1,67 %
Dal 1 1,67 %
Det 1 1,67 %
Nyi 1 1,67 %
Nj 1 1,67 %
Ott 1 1,67 %
Phi 1 1,67 %
Sj 1 1,67 %
Stl 1 1,67 %
Tor 1 1,67 %
Van 1 1,67 %
Wsh 1 1,67 %

Ding Ding....we have a winner.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Buffalo has 2....they made the playoffs twice in that period...I think. Boston has 1....you have them down for 3.

Sabres made the playoffs only once.

Anyone who wants to help and find the mistakes can just search by team using this engine:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/teams.html

You are definitly right about Boston. Two balls less for them, which means that TECHNICALLY, everything should be fixed as soon as I edit. Thanks Jason!

There might still be mistakes, even if we are now at 60 balls. I could have a few balls on the wrong teams.

This thing has me scratching my head... and my balls!

 

[tom_servo]

Ding Ding....we have a winner.

I'm not sure they'd take a ball off the Pens for acquiring the first pick.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Sabres made the playoffs only once.

Anyone who wants to help and find the mistakes can just search by team using this engine:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/teams.html

You are definitly right about Boston. Two balls less for them, which means that TECHNICALLY, everything should be fixed as soon as I edit. Thanks Jason!

There might still be mistakes, even if we are now at 60 balls. I could have a few balls on the wrong teams.

This thing has me scratching my head... and my balls!

Read here Vlad, you may have to re-edit, though I am not sure as I did not check before posting this.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05139/507118.stm

The Pens for instance would not lose a ball for taking MAF #1 as it was aquired by trade, FLA who won the lottery that year loses the ball.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Read here Vlad, you may have to re-edit, though I am not sure as I did not check before posting this.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05139/507118.stm

The Pens for instance would not lose a ball for taking MAF #1 as it was aquired by trade, FLA who won the lottery that year loses the ball.

That's how I did it (or at least tried to). I only removed a ball if a team won the lottery.

 

[tom_servo]

Read here Vlad, you may have to re-edit, though I am not sure as I did not check before posting this.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05139/507118.stm

The Pens for instance would not lose a ball for taking MAF #1 as it was aquired by trade, FLA who won the lottery that year loses the ball.

Right.

The plan reportedly would give each team four balls for a lottery-style drawing, but would force them to surrender one for every year they qualified for the playoffs or had the No. 1 choice in the draft (without acquiring it in a trade) in the past four seasons.

So the Pens would stand at three.

 

[tom_servo]

That's how I did it (or at least tried to). I only removed a ball if a team won the lottery.

Yeah, that's where I confused you. I forgot the Pens actually made the playoffs within the timespan.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Yeah, that's where I confused you. I forgot the Pens actually made the playoffs within the timespan.

Ah, I didn't understand that! Ok, everything is clear now.

So, what does everybody think?

Personally, I don't like it, but as far as any system with some sort of weight, it's not that bad, I suppose.

 

[Norseman]

Florida won the lottery in both 2002 and 2003 ? If so they would only have 2 balls and Pittsburgh 3.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Interestingly the article ( http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05139/507118.stm ) says that the sole reason to let this system ride is payback for including revenue sharing. It further says that also under consideration is the same plan, but only using three years lookback instead of four meaning of course a much larger group than just NYR and CBJ at the top tier. Other options are also being considered.

And to answer your question Vlad, I have stated in the past that I do not at all like plans like this that give a large chance to teams that are already loaded, and who will remain loaded.

 

[tom_servo]

Interestingly the article ( http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05139/507118.stm ) says that the sole reason to let this system ride is payback for including revenue sharing.

If so, it's worth it.

 

[Barnaby]

As a Ranger fan I say we go back 7 years... you get one ball for each season without the playoffs.

 

[tom_servo]

As a Ranger fan I say we go back 7 years... you get one ball for each season without the playoffs.

And minus one for every $7 million player on the roster during that time.

 

[Barnaby]

And minus one for every $7 million player on the roster during that time.

Sorry, I think they said they wanted a system that would allow each team at least 1 ball.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

the total number of balls = 60 in your distribution Vlad . . . if based on only 3 years, the distribution according to the article would have 52 balls.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

the total number of balls = 60 in your distribution Vlad . . . if based on only 3 years, the distribution according to the article would have 52 balls.

Mine was based on 4 years. The articles stated it should have 60 balls.
How do they get to 52 balls in three years? I assume the system is different?

 

[Chaos Giraffe]

There's just way too many balls in this thread.



But seriously, this is one of the better concepts that have come up. I can't see many flaws in this..........it's probably the most "fair" such a draft can get.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

There's just way too many balls in this thread.



But seriously, this is one of the better concepts that have come up. I can't see many flaws in this..........it's probably the most "fair" such a draft can get.

Most fair = 30 balls, one for each team.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Mine was based on 4 years. The articles stated it should have 60 balls.
How do they get to 52 balls in three years? I assume the system is different?

The Edmonton Sun put forth a different scenario yesterday, that one based on playoff appearances the past three springs. Under that system, teams like the Penguins that sat out the postseason three years in a row would get three balls, clubs that missed twice would get two, and the rest one.

That plan would give the Penguins a 3-in-52 -- or 5.76 percent -- chance of getting the top pick in the draft. It, like the system in the Star, called for reversing the draft order in alternate rounds.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05139/507118.stm

Too tired to break this one down too?

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I did a draft6 based on this format putting 60 pieces of paper in the hat and this order will piss alot off

 

[Barnaby]

There has to be some type of system rewarding lousy teams. There is no way taking a team like Colorado who has been elite for 8 or so years, and giving them the same chance as someone like Chicago or Pitt whose fans haven't seen a winner in years is fair. Could a team get better or worse? Sure, but I guarantee a system based on the last 3-4 years will be much more accurate then 30 balls and 30 teams.... by the way the lottery should be on ESPN when/if it happens...

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

1.) Toronto
2.) Atlanta
3.) Montreal
4.) Chicago
5.) St Louis
6.) Washington
7.) Ottawa
8.) Colombus
9.) Calgary
10.) Florida
11.) Dallas
12.) Philly
13.) New York Rangers
14.) Tampa Bay
15.) San Jose
16.) Minny
17.) Vancouver
18.) Anaheim
19.) Colorado
20.) Buffalo
21.) Edmonton
22.) Nashville
23.) Boston
24.) New York I
25.) Detroit
26.) Los Angelas
27.) Phoenix
28.) Buffalo
29.) New Jersey
30.) Pittsburgh

 

[Jaded-Fan]

1.) Toronto
2.) Atlanta
3.) Montreal
4.) Chicago
5.) St Louis
6.) Washington
7.) Ottawa
8.) Colombus
9.) Calgary
10.) Florida
11.) Dallas
12.) Philly
13.) New York Rangers
14.) Tampa Bay
15.) San Jose

Next 15 in a few minutes

That is the thing, chances are we will get a result much like this. How anyone can argue that this is fair or in any way follows the intent of the draft system with a straight face is beyond me.