Preferred Outcome for the Pens Pick

[Cas]

Why is tanking a problem?

 

[rideaucrusher21]

Why is tanking a problem?

Why should fans care about spending money or time on their team if the team isn’t trying to win? Or putting a competitive product out on the ice?? It’s bad business, and it’s it’s embarrassing (see Sturm’s comments)

 

[YUPPY]

If the NJ Devils win the lottery this year so does the Sharks go back to 1st spot since the Devil are not allowed to have 3 wins lottery in 5 years? or does the 2nd place team go to 1st and then the Sharks move up to 2nd or do they do over? Confusing.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Why should fans care about spending money or time on their team if the team isn’t trying to win? Or putting a competitive product out on the ice?? It’s bad business, and it’s it’s embarrassing (see Sturm’s comments)

So teams should do what the Sharks did from 2019-2022 and just be bad anyway? That's not any better and there's no long-term hope. At least now they might possibly be good again in a few years.

Even the more casual Sharks fans are starting to realize what's going on and are starting to get onboard.

 

[rideaucrusher21]

So teams should do what the Sharks did from 2019-2022 and just be bad anyway? That's not any better and there's no long-term hope. At least now they might possibly be good again in a few years.

Even the more casual Sharks fans are starting to realize what's going on and are starting to get onboard.

I’m not saying it’s not the smart decision based on current circumstances. But it’s a problem. A team shouldn’t have to suck for 5 or 6 years, throw away decades of brand equity, just to compete again. I would argue it’s more a problem of the current CBA than anything else.

 

[Cas]

Why should fans care about spending money or time on their team if the team isn’t trying to win? Or putting a competitive product out on the ice?? It’s bad business, and it’s it’s embarrassing (see Sturm’s comments)

Then the fans don't spend money or time on their team. If the team is willing to accept that, and can afford it, why is that a problem?

 

[Pavelski2112]

Then the fans don't spend money or time on their team. If the team is willing to accept that, and can afford it, why is that a problem?

Exactly this; it's a self-regulating "problem"

 

[gaucholoco3]

The "two lottery wins in 5 years" rule is so unbelievably stupid that I can't believe it's real.

A rule literally only instituted to cater to GMs who never graduated high school and don't understand basic probability.

This is so true. Even if a team finished in the bottom 3 every year the odds are incredibly low of this ever occurring. Especially since they can’t have the best odds because that doesn’t count.

The highest odds of that occurring is 0.5% or for non math people 5 out of 1000. That is given the best odds. I think it is extremely unlikely to ever need that rule.

 

[coooldude]

Some of us are old enough to remember Pittsburgh blatantly tanking to get Mario Lemieux...Yes, tanking is an issue in the NHL.

Does it achieve in that it discourages tanking? Probably not but they cant stop teams outright unless they do something illegal so the best they can do is to lower the chances of the tanking team to get the top pick. Tanking has definitely been a problem but its on certain years because of who the player is: Lemieux, Daigle, Lindros, McDavid

The NBA's lottery has a draw for all non playoff teams for 1st overall, then 2nd overall, then 3rd overall, then 4th overall, with no max spots to jump up. Teams were still openly tanking for Wembanyama last season despite the fact that if you are dead last you can still end up picking 5th overall

I still diasgree thats its convoluted, theres a lot of moving parts but they are easy to understand

Just to push on this a bit more.

First question, whether the lottery discourages tanking. I think there is ample evidence from the past 10 years that the lottery does not discourage tanking. Not in the NHL, and apparently not in the NBA either. We tanked this year and basically last year. Ducks tanked last year. Hawks tanked last year. Toronto tanked. Oilers tanked. NJ tanked. Sens and Habs basically tanked. Buffalo tanked. Avs tanked, Lightning a long time ago rebuilt if not tanked.

So if it doesn't discourage tanking, why make a convoluted lottery? To create some sort of fair buffer around the distribution of high-skill assets, even if teams tank. OK. But the NFL doesn't have that, and it doesn't seem to matter for them. in the NBA, people tank, and get Wemby, but there's still ample previous-tank-targets who they have to compete with for a championship, to the point where there are 4-5 contender teams every year and team building and structuring matter. A top skill player or three are necessary but not sufficient.

Why not have a reverse standings draft in the NHL? Or if you want a little randomness, a simple lottery for the 4 division losers for 1st OA, and after that it just goes by record? Why have all the way up to 11th worst have a shot at 1OA, why cap the top odds at 25.5%? Make it simpler.

Second question, is tanking a problem? Let's take the Lemieux, Daigle, Lindros, McDavid examples. And add others later.

Lemieux - tanking for him in 1984. Won his cups in 1991-92. Others won cups before and after, some with tanking and some without. What's the problem? He rejuvenated a franchise, but it still took a lot of work to win cups. He was necessary not sufficient. Arguably Jagr was the piece they needed and he basically forced his way to PIT, nothing to do with draft order.

Lindros -- tanking for him did what exactly? It gave the Avs 1-2 cups, perhaps, because of the massive haul that the Nordiques got for trading him. Flyers didn't win anything.

Daigle - what did he do for the Senators?

McDavid -- Oilers not only tanked for him, but tanked and got lucky many other times, too. It helped them to where they are today, which is a contender, but pretty inefficiently and embarrassingly. So I don't think Oiler tanking was bad, in fact, I think the lottery added to the unfairness of their getting overly rewarded (leading to yet another rule on top of the system to try to prevent too many lottery wins).

Tanking is a way for teams to get top talent, but it's fairly clear that repeated tanking doesn't make a winner all the time, that tanking doesn't guarantee success even if the draft were just reverse standings order, and there's enough damage to a franchise for being dogshit for a long time that there are incentives to stop tanking at some point and try to win. As others have said, it's a self-regulating cycle.

All to say -- I am in favor of a reverse standings order draft, or a "division losers get a 1OA lottery and that's it" draft. Simpler, probably fairer and less chaotic than the NHL structured lottery.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Just to push on this a bit more.

First question, whether the lottery discourages tanking. I think there is ample evidence from the past 10 years that the lottery does not discourage tanking. Not in the NHL, and apparently not in the NBA either. We tanked this year and basically last year. Ducks tanked last year. Hawks tanked last year. Toronto tanked. Oilers tanked. NJ tanked. Sens and Habs basically tanked. Buffalo tanked. Avs tanked, Lightning a long time ago rebuilt if not tanked.

So if it doesn't discourage tanking, why make a convoluted lottery? To create some sort of fair buffer around the distribution of high-skill assets, even if teams tank. OK. But the NFL doesn't have that, and it doesn't seem to matter for them. in the NBA, people tank, and get Wemby, but there's still ample previous-tank-targets who they have to compete with for a championship, to the point where there are 4-5 contender teams every year and team building and structuring matter. A top skill player or three are necessary but not sufficient.

Why not have a reverse standings draft in the NHL? Or if you want a little randomness, a simple lottery for the 4 division losers for 1st OA, and after that it just goes by record? Why have all the way up to 11th worst have a shot at 1OA, why cap the top odds at 25.5%? Make it simpler.

Second question, is tanking a problem? Let's take the Lemieux, Daigle, Lindros, McDavid examples. And add others later.

Lemieux - tanking for him in 1984. Won his cups in 1991-92. Others won cups before and after, some with tanking and some without. What's the problem? He rejuvenated a franchise, but it still took a lot of work to win cups. He was necessary not sufficient. Arguably Jagr was the piece they needed and he basically forced his way to PIT, nothing to do with draft order.

Lindros -- tanking for him did what exactly? It gave the Avs 1-2 cups, perhaps, because of the massive haul that the Nordiques got for trading him. Flyers didn't win anything.

Daigle - what did he do for the Senators?

McDavid -- Oilers not only tanked for him, but tanked and got lucky many other times, too. It helped them to where they are today, which is a contender, but pretty inefficiently and embarrassingly. So I don't think Oiler tanking was bad, in fact, I think the lottery added to the unfairness of their getting overly rewarded (leading to yet another rule on top of the system to try to prevent too many lottery wins).

Tanking is a way for teams to get top talent, but it's fairly clear that repeated tanking doesn't make a winner all the time, that tanking doesn't guarantee success even if the draft were just reverse standings order, and there's enough damage to a franchise for being dogshit for a long time that there are incentives to stop tanking at some point and try to win. As others have said, it's a self-regulating cycle.

All to say -- I am in favor of a reverse standings order draft, or a "division losers get a 1OA lottery and that's it" draft. Simpler, probably fairer and less chaotic than the NHL structured lottery.

Exactly this. Tanking is not a cheat code and it requires work to take advantage of in the first place. Owners still have to eat the losses from revenue drops, and you need a competent management team to build around the picks that are taken. And if everything goes right? Great, now he's old and the cycle continues, as with every other team.

 

[sharski]

No matter your opinion on tanking and the lottery, I think we can all agree that as soon as the Sharks are about to benefit from either, the NHL will preemptively change the rule so that it doesn't end up applying to the Sharks for basketball reasons

 

[landshark]

Manned net goal differential to decide lottery order? Must be non-ploff team to qualify.

It's kind of interesting the Isles have neg goal diff and are in the playoffs... Meanwhile the Wings, PIT and Buffalo have positive goal diff over the season, but aren't going to the playoffs.


(link isn't manned net diff only, not sure where to find that)

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Manned net goal differential to decide lottery order? Must be non-ploff team to qualify.

It's kind of interesting the Isles have neg goal diff and are in the playoffs... Meanwhile the Wings, PIT and Buffalo have positive goal diff over the season, but aren't going to the playoffs.


(link isn't manned net diff only, not sure where to find that)

Like you’d want the team with the best or worst differential to have the best pick?

 

[landshark]

Like you’d want the team with the best or worst differential to have the best pick?

The worst differential would get the best pick. I mean Sharks were -150 goal differential this season...

I just feel like there's got to be some other, more logical and analytical, way to decide who gets 1 OA.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The worst differential would get the best pick. I mean Sharks were -150 goal differential this season...

I just feel like there's got to be some other, more logical and analytical, way to decide who gets 1 OA.

I have often thought idly about a system where lottery odds depended on points percentage rather than reverse standings. Basically that if four teams were all within a point of each other (like the bottom four teams last year), they’d get extremely similar lottery odds. But if there was a runaway worst or couple worst teams, they’d get much better odds relative to the field. The worst team wouldn’t have the same exact lottery odds every year (ie automatically 25% from finishing last).

I haven’t put in the legwork to know if it would actually work, but I think it’s an interesting idea.

 

[Cas]

The worst differential would get the best pick. I mean Sharks were -150 goal differential this season...

I just feel like there's got to be some other, more logical and analytical, way to decide who gets 1 OA.

There is - reverse standings order. It's simple and logical.

 

[landshark]

I have often thought idly about a system where lottery odds depended on points percentage rather than reverse standings. Basically that if four teams were all within a point of each other (like the bottom four teams last year), they’d get extremely similar lottery odds. But if there was a runaway worst or couple worst teams, they’d get much better odds relative to the field. The worst team wouldn’t have the same exact lottery odds every year (ie automatically 25% from finishing last).

I haven’t put in the legwork to know if it would actually work, but I think it’s an interesting idea.

Yes! I feel like the worse the manned-net goal differential is the higher the odds should be for 1 OA.

There is - reverse standings order. It's simple and logical.

It'd be nice, but I feel like there's a nuance to manned-net goal differential that's not there in reverse standings order. Maybe a combo of the two could yield something useful.

 

[TheBeard]

Exactly this; it's a self-regulating "problem"

It is except for the fans that just enjoy watching hockey and aren't the dorks like us who only care about the team when we're good. Purposely making your team as bad as they can be deprives the younger generation of fans who aren't as emotionally invested as we are.

 

[Cas]

It is except for the fans that just enjoy watching hockey and aren't the dorks like us who only care about the team when we're good. Purposely making your team as bad as they can be deprives the younger generation of fans who aren't as emotionally invested as we are.

If the team is willing to accept that, why is that a problem, as opposed to teams just being garbage accidentally?

 

[TheBeard]

If the team is willing to accept that, why is that a problem, as opposed to teams just being garbage accidentally?

It's not a problem per se except for the casual fans who don't need massive success to enjoy watching their favorite team.

 

[Pavelski2112]

It is except for the fans that just enjoy watching hockey and aren't the dorks like us who only care about the team when we're good. Purposely making your team as bad as they can be deprives the younger generation of fans who aren't as emotionally invested as we are.

If the rebuild works out, you'll get them back, and more. It's not like there's another option after a certain point.

 

[gaucholoco3]

I have often thought idly about a system where lottery odds depended on points percentage rather than reverse standings. Basically that if four teams were all within a point of each other (like the bottom four teams last year), they’d get extremely similar lottery odds. But if there was a runaway worst or couple worst teams, they’d get much better odds relative to the field. The worst team wouldn’t have the same exact lottery odds every year (ie automatically 25% from finishing last).

For example the 4th worst team this season is 19 points Ahead of last and has the same odds as the Sharks last year who were 2 points from last place.

I think the solution is too complicated for the average person so it would never happen but no way should last years Sharks and this years Canadians have the same odds.

 

[Cas]

It's not a problem per se except for the casual fans who don't need massive success to enjoy watching their favorite team.

Right, and those casual fans show up the next time the team is good, so why should it be a problem or have any impact on the draft?

 

[TheBeard]

Right, and those casual fans show up the next time the team is good, so why should it be a problem or have any impact on the draft?

I mean they’d probably show up if there was a reason to. Hard to draw when there’s like an 85-90% you’re not only gonna lose but you’re gonna get outclassed in every way. The allure of possibly winning, especially against rivals draws casual fans.

 

[Cas]

I mean they’d probably show up if there was a reason to. Hard to draw when there’s like an 85-90% you’re not only gonna lose but you’re gonna get outclassed in every way. The allure of possibly winning, especially against rivals draws casual fans.

I don't think casual fans notice or care about the difference between a team in Columbus or Anaheim's position and a team in the Sharks' position. To the casual fan, bad is bad.