Relatively Simple "Fix" to Tanking

[i1]

So it seems like Buffalo kicked up quite a stink this year in their awesome display of talent seeking ineptitude. It's as if every few years a different team decides to sell the farm and start over when they start getting old/losing depth: in the last decade Toronto, Edmonton, Florida, Colorado, Buffalo, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, LA etc. have all wandered around the basement at one point or another to varying degrees of success. It's not necessarily a bad thing; drafting & developing is the difference between first and worst in the cap era, and sucking in the current system is a legitimate strategy for acquiring talent. You can't blame the GMs for exploring every avenue possible for improving, but it certainly makes for some terrible hockey and looks awful on the sport/brand.

The draft does serve a noble purpose in trying to give the best players to the teams who need them most, and the spirit of that should stay in place; however, it shouldn't be so easy that teams have a valid reason to aim for the dirt. So here's my idea:

- All playoff teams get a # of balls equal to their final standing; 16th seed gets 16 balls, 15th gets 15, 1st gets 1, etc.
- Non-lottery teams (17-25) get 2 balls multiplied by their standing; 17 gets 34, 18 gets 36, etc.
- Lottery teams (26-30) get 3 balls multiplied by their final standing.
30th gets 90, 29th gets 87, etc.

What makes this interesting is that the chances for each team to pick next is completely random. If Team X finishes 30th but the first three picks go to 10, 15 and 26, their chance of picking 4th is 10.83%. But if 29, 24 and 20 go, it's 11.86%. Still comparatively good, but if a GM destroys his team for a ~10% chance at a non-guaranteed top five pick every year he probably wouldn't last in the league very long. The lottery would be pretty damn intense every year; I don't how to run a simulator but it would be very interesting to see how the picks would pan out over the long run.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[tempest2i]

Where are you going to find a machine large enough to handle 934 ping pong balls?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Playoff teams should not even be in the discussion for a #1 pick. It's already at best a 20% chance to win the lotto for the worst team in the NHL.

 

[wej20]

Playoff teams should not even be in the discussion for a #1 pick. It's already at best a 20% chance to win the lotto for the worst team in the NHL.

Yep.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Simple? This is a complete overhaul of the entire system.

I don't think playoff teams should be in the lottery, so big no from me.

 

[Cawz]

Almost as bad as the last 20 proposals.

 

[i1]

Playoff teams should not even be in the discussion for a #1 pick. It's already at best a 20% chance to win the lotto for the worst team in the NHL.

Not all playoff teams are created equal. New Jersey made the playoffs once in the last five years but they happened to make the finals. Florida has made the playoffs twice in the past fifteen years, Calgary made it to the second round this year after a five year drought, etc. I wouldn't say that they were all bad teams that miraculously became decent for a season or two then imploded. Bad teams have good years, good teams have bad years, and in the cap era the difference between a good and bad team is pretty darn close; look at who finished in and out of the playoffs this year for example. Are LA and Boston more "deserving" than Winnipeg or Ottawa because of one season?

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

Another solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Not all playoff teams are created equal. New Jersey made the playoffs once in the last five years but they happened to make the finals. Florida has made the playoffs twice in the past fifteen years, Calgary made it to the second round this year after a five year drought, etc. I wouldn't say that they were all bad teams that miraculously became decent for a season or two then imploded. Bad teams have good years, good teams have bad years, and in the cap era the difference between a good and bad team is pretty darn close; look at who finished in and out of the playoffs this year for example. Are LA and Boston more "deserving" than Winnipeg or Ottawa because of one season?

It doesn't matter. Their prize is the chance to win the Stanley Cup. They don't deserve to be in the lottery for the top pick.

 

[ZeroPT*]

No.

Next.

 

[Clock]

What does this fix?

 

[Mr Misty]

Where are you going to find a machine large enough to handle 934 ping pong balls?

As it currently is set up, the draft deals with many more than 934 options. It wouldn't be hard to assign 3 digit numbers to each team as set up by the OP and put balls with 0-9 on them in the current machine.

 

[Man Rocket]

imagine winning the cup and winning 1st overall LOL

 

[Derg12]

This has to stop.

 

[GFY]

I really do love how there is at least one or two threads a day about "how to fix tanking/the draft lottery".

 

[Weztex]

You cannot ''fix'' tanking. As long as the last place team has the biggest odds at #1, teams will tank. So let them do so.

 

[Sarcastic]

I thought the ideas couldn't get anymore stupid. I guess I was wrong.

 

[hohosaregood]

You cannot ''fix'' tanking. As long as the last place team has the biggest odds at #1, teams will tank. So let them do so.

Ooh I got a crazy one. Set it so that the 4th worst team in the league gets the best odds at 1st overall. 3rd worst gets 2nd, 2nd worst gets 3rd, and worst gets 4th best odds. That way a team can't straight up tank their way down.

PS I don't actually support this notion but I do think it's a funny thought.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

so do we get through 20 picks and then wait like 4 hours until those last 10 balls are pulled? What if we go through 930 picks before 29 and 30 are selected? This isn't even the biggest problem with it, it's just an idiotic idea overall

 

[Ducks in a row]

Nothing simple about this and it doesn't fix anything that needs fixing. All this does is allow playoff teams a chance to get 1st overall something that should never happen.

Teams tanking is not realistic like it is made out to be. Players don't suck on purpose because it will negatively effect their next contract. Coaches aren't healthy scratching their best players and having their worst get the most ice time.

 

[McShogun99]

They already did fix it. The two teams trying to tank didn't get the top pick while a team that was trying to win but was just a crappy team ended up winning the lottery.

 

[Ducks in a row]

imagine winning the cup and winning 1st overall LOL

Imagine your rival doing that

 

[Weztex]

so do we get through 20 picks and then wait like 4 hours until those last 10 balls are pulled? What if we go through 930 picks before 29 and 30 are selected? This isn't even the biggest problem with it, it's just an idiotic idea overall

Well, considering the lottery process itself is not televised I don't hink you'd have to wait for anything... but a better idea.

 

[Richi]

Another idea:

Why don´t all of the gm´s get together and play a round of "duck, duck, goose" to determine the winner?


Okok, there could possibly be one problem with certain gm´s:

 

[ozzie]

Personally I think the main problem is due to having 2 great prospects this year, it became an embarrassing issue. In 2010 it wasn't so bad, but neither player was comparable.

I personally would live to see teams out of the playoffs weighted by their points accumulated.

Buffalo and Arizona were separated by a few points, but Buffalo had a 20% chance.

If they had finished with the same points, one would have been declared "worse" and had a significantly better chance.

If you weighted the bottom 14 based on their accumulated points, you could curb tanking a bit. Meaning the worst team at 50 points, wouldn't have a much better chance with a team finishing at 55, 57 or 60 points. But obviously the team at 50 points would have a pretty good advantage over a team with 80 points who missed the playoffs.