Rumor: No weighted draft lottery

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Everything you have said during the lockout wants to keep the competitive advantage for your team.

Tampa gets Crosby? Yep...that would be fair.
How about Detroit? Again...super duper.
What about Philly? Buenos with a little noschachos.

Yeah, imagine a fan looking out for the best interests of his favorite team.

Look, I'm telling you what's fair.
And you know it.

What would be fair is to hold off on this draft until we have results from a freshly played season.

I've got NO PROBLEM with that because that is FAIR.

I have a problem with my team getting punished for past successes that no longer appear in line with expectations of the current team.

That is UNFAIR.

The Detroit Red Wings are an OLD, SLOW team with poor goaltending and a terrible head coach that has bounced from the playoffs in the first and second round of the last two seasons. Furthermore, they no longer have the ability to go out and fix it the way they did the last time the team was in decline (going out and getting Hasek, Hull and Robitaille).
If last season had been played, the Wings would have been without Hull and Schneider. Maybe without Chelios and YZerman. Maybe without Datsyuk (A RFA who was being courted by Russian teams much like Bykov was courted the year before). Key players like Hatcher and Cujo have big questions marks over their heads.

Yeah, that's an excessively gloomy look at the team.
But my honest opinion going into what should have been last season was the Wings would no longer be an elite team. Capable of winning their crappy division, maybe. But otherwise the kind of team that is scrambling for a playoff spot.

So yeah, I've got a big problem with some haphazard "analysis" that fails to recognize that the Wings are a fading, aging team.

And if you're at all concerned with the "right decision," so should you.

 

[MontrealCruiser_83*]

So projecting performance results doesn't make much sense? Well, you just put several hundred thousand accountants, actuaries and economists out of work. Nice job.

As I said earlier, why bother playing games at all? Why not just throw all the team names into a hat and draw out the name of the Stanley Cup winner? It's fair and it won't harm the sensibilities of those that like to talk out of both of their faces.

Well, you see... Nobody cares about the teams that finish last. They don't really have much authority and they don't really bring much to the NHL. Quite frankly, the important teams will get their way and small market fans are going to keep pissing in the ocean by complaining. I hope that whomever the GM of your team is concerns himself a bit more with scouting draftees than with the actual lottery. Then again, even if they try to scout it doesn't seem to do any good, either.

 

[LordHelmet]

Everything you have said during the lockout wants to keep the competitive advantage for your team.

How does a 1/30 chance for everyone give any team a competitive advantage?

And again, nobody has answered my question..

If Crosby goes to the teams benefiting from a weighted system (Washington, Columbus, Carolina, Pitt) he will be paired with other premium draft picks from the last few years (AO, Nash, Staal, Malkin) for the entirety of their rookie and RFA contracts - probably 10 years..

Please tell me where the word 'fair' enters in to that equation..

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Awwwww, would you like a kleenex? I'm sure that everyone feels soooooo sorry for you and you $70 million payroll. Too bad, so sad. If you were so concerned about the draft after the lockout you should have hoped your Red Wings would have sucked real hard and finished at the bottom of the league instead of the top of the heap. Yeah, the Red Wings have really been on a downward trend! Losing a whole point in the standings from the year before! Yup, they deserve the first overall pick, the poor dears!

Again. This is about punishing the big market teams, isn't it?

You've got major self-esteem issues, Ico.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Awwwww, would you like a kleenex? I'm sure that everyone feels soooooo sorry for you and you $70 million payroll. Too bad, so sad. If you were so concerned about the draft after the lockout you should have hoped your Red Wings would have sucked real hard and finished at the bottom of the league instead of the top of the heap. Yeah, the Red Wings have really been on a downward trend! Losing a whole point in the standings from the year before! Yup, they deserve the first overall pick, the poor dears!

Just to play devil's advocate then, who does deserve Crosby? Is it Washington who went into full out salary dumps in 2003/2004? Is it Pittsburgh, who even with an arena full of people and good tv viewership, still tanked? Is it Columbus who has been plagued by 'mediocre' management at best? Is it Atlanta who stank for years until they hired a real coach? Is it Chicago, who have essentially given the shaft to their fans by dealing players who were popular, but were asking for raises? Is it Carolina, who made some of the worst contract offers to players in history and then jumped on board the salary cap bandwagon only when it was convenient?

Truth of the matter, out of all the teams that deserve Crosby, there would only be one team I would award him to. On a pure hockey decision, in terms of player management, budget management, etc.....I would award him to the Tampa Bay Lightening. Jay Feester and John Tortorella deserve huge kudos for turning that organization around in such short time. Everyone may be lead to believe that it was Rick Dudley, but he did jack s**t to that organization. Dudley is a mark for his own publicity. He stank in Florida, he stank in Ottawa, and now he's going to be running Chicago eventually (even with a salary cap in place, I'm sure he'll make Chicago smell worse than a public outhouse on a hot summer day).

If it was a Canadian franchise, then I'd say it would have to be Ottawa for the same reasons as Tampa Bay. They have run their organizations effectively and efficiently and should be rewarded for that. Who cares about the talent they have there. The fact of the matter is that they know what it takes to make a franchise successful and I think if the NHL is to hold any kind of lottery, that's what they have to take a look at in judging who drafts where.

 

[Riggins]

What would be fair is to hold off on this draft until we have results from a freshly played season.

I've got NO PROBLEM with that because that is FAIR.

Is it fair for the 2005 eligible prospects?

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Is it fair for the 2005 eligible prospects?

Double the size of the draft.

It would be a tremendous draft.

Even a team picking 30th (last) would be getting a player who normally goes 15th or so.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

So projecting performance results doesn't make much sense? Well, you just put several hundred thousand accountants, actuaries and economists out of work. Nice job.

As I said earlier, why bother playing games at all? Why not just throw all the team names into a hat and draw out the name of the Stanley Cup winner? It's fair and it won't harm the sensibilities of those that like to talk out of both of their faces.

A Stanley Cup win isn't a projection, though. It is very far from a projection. It's hard work.

Every weight system I have seen is fatally flawed. They will be a very hard sell.

You are right that projections have their place. Yeah, economists, etc. do it. It's a lot different when you are trying to favor members of a group of 30 equal partners over others based on some formula concocted after the fact.

 

[LordHelmet]

Is it fair for the 2005 eligible prospects?

Sure. Raise the draft age to 19 in the new CBA.

It solves this controversey, and gives teams another year to scout players..

By the way, this approach - the one that I think is best for the league - virtually guarantees that my team (Dallas) would have no shot at Crosby. (just to show that my posts on this subject are not motivated by team loyalty..)

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Again. This is about punishing the big market teams, isn't it?

You've got major self-esteem issues, Ico.

Hmmmm, it seems you're the one that keeps throwing "market size" into the equation, and wanting to punish them, not anyone else. Everythig seems to come back to market size to you. I have been arguing that the team that has sucked the hardest deserves the first pick. Guess who that is? The Rangers! The BIGGEST of the big markets. Oh, oh. You're little stream of BS about my sense of fairplay being anti-big market just got shot completely full of holes. Check into your own self-esteem issues bub.

 

[Slats432]

How does a 1/30 chance for everyone give any team a competitive advantage?

And again, nobody has answered my question..

If Crosby goes to the teams benefiting from a weighted system (Washington, Columbus, Carolina, Pitt) he will be paired with other premium draft picks from the last few years (AO, Nash, Staal, Malkin) for the entirety of their rookie and RFA contracts - probably 10 years..

Please tell me where the word 'fair' enters in to that equation..

Debate of weighted lottery vs. Equal chance lottery.

Personally I don't necessary say that I agree with any format suggested, but having the lottery based on the last 5 years performance to me seems a better concept than equal chance.

The teams I cheer for would be mid pack in their chance, but for a team like Columbus or Atlanta or whoever that has relatively small prospect pools, if you really look at it, over the last 6 years, teams like Atlanta and Columbus have only had a few years in the draft, their prospect pools will take time to develop. One would say by being in the league for a lot less time than other teams, they are disadvantaged.

Don't let a salary cap fool you....there still will be some competitive advantages for large markets.

 

[gobolt7]

Truth of the matter, out of all the teams that deserve Crosby, there would only be one team I would award him to. On a pure hockey decision, in terms of player management, budget management, etc.....I would award him to the Tampa Bay Lightening. Jay Feester and John Tortorella deserve huge kudos for turning that organization around in such short time. Everyone may be lead to believe that it was Rick Dudley, but he did jack s**t to that organization. Dudley is a mark for his own publicity. He stank in Florida, he stank in Ottawa, and now he's going to be running Chicago eventually (even with a salary cap in place, I'm sure he'll make Chicago smell worse than a public outhouse on a hot summer day).

Its really hard to argue with logic like that, plus the irreversible damage that has been done to the Lightning organization because of this lockout. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying other teams have not suffered. But a team in the position such as Tampa, needed every bit of momentum that it gained by winning a cup. Unfourtunatly, that was taken from us.

 

[LastChancePrice]

Imagine one second Crosby ending up in Nasville or Carolina....woaaaa.Id stop watching hockey forever!!!

 

[kdb209]

Let me preface this by saying that my first choice (and the only real fair resolution) would be to up the draft age to 19, skip the draft this year, and let Crosby et al be picked based on next season's results. And I am a fan of the Sharks and Isles, who would do much better in a completely random "everybody gets one ping pong ball" draft lottery than in any past performance based lottery.

The draft is not about (and never has been about) predicting the future, it has always been about past results (ignoring the first few drafts in the 60s with the round robin #1 picks). Any talk about trying to predict how teams may or may not do under a new CBA, and using that to base draft order, is a complete red herring.

No, we don't have standings from last year, but does that make all 30 teams suddenly equal - no. Just because we don't have perfect information about what happened (or would have happened) last season, people (mostly fans of the good teams in enlightened self interest) say we need to throw out any information we do have.

I believe a lottery, based on performance (weighted over the last 3 yrs) is the most fair way to determine draft order.

I made a previous analysis which showed that various proposed draft lottery schemes historically were much more accurate two years down the road than a pure random draw:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=144410

So I ask you, proponents of the "everybody get an equal chance" camp, would you bet $100 that a random draw (picked in a public and transparent way) would do a better job in predicting the non-playoff teams next year than two out of three of these lottery weighting schemes - either a single draw or greater than 5 of 10 random draws.

Applying these schemes to the 2003-04 results:

Scheme A - Single Season (2003-04) Points

Rank Team Pts

1 Pittsburgh Penguins 58
2 Chicago Blackhawks 59
3 Washington Capitals 59
4 Columbus Blue Jackets 62
5 Phoenix Coyotes 68
6 New-York Rangers 69
7 Florida Panthers 75
8 Carolina Hurricanes 76
9 Anaheim Mighty Ducks 76
10 Atlanta Thrashers 78
11 Los-Angeles Kings 81
12 Minnesota Wild 83
13 Buffalo Sabres 85
14 Edmonton Oilers 89


15 Nashville Predators 91
16 New-York Islanders 91
17 St. Louis Blues 91
18 Montreal Canadiens 93
19 Calgary Flames 94
20 Dallas Stars 97
21 Colorado Avalanche 100
22 New-Jersey Devils 100
23 Philadelphia Flyers 101
24 Vancouver Canucks 101
25 Ottawa Senators 102
26 Toronto Maple Leafs 103
27 Boston Bruins 104
28 San Jose Sharks 104
29 Tampa-Bay Lightning 106
30 Detroit Red Wings 109



Scheme B - 3 yr Weighted Avg (03-04 50% / 02-03 30% /01-02 20%)

Rank Team 03-04 02-03 01-02 avg

1 Pittsburgh Penguins 58 65 69 62.3
2 Columbus Blue Jackets 62 69 57 63.1
3 Florida Panthers 75 70 60 70.5
4 Atlanta Thrashers 78 74 54 72
5 Chicago Blackhawks 59 79 96 72.4
6 New-York Rangers 69 78 80 73.9
7 Washington Capitals 59 92 85 74.1
8 Carolina Hurricanes 76 61 91 74.5
9 Phoenix Coyotes 68 78 95 76.4
10 Anaheim Mighty Ducks 76 95 69 80.3
11 Buffalo Sabres 85 72 82 80.5
12 Nashville Predators 91 74 69 81.5
13 Los-Angeles Kings 81 78 95 82.9
14 Minnesota Wild 83 95 73 84.6


15 Calgary Flames 94 75 79 85.3
16 Montreal Canadiens 93 77 87 87
17 New-York Islanders 91 83 96 89.6
18 Edmonton Oilers 89 92 92 90.5
19 San Jose Sharks 104 73 99 93.7
20 Tampa-Bay Lightning 106 93 69 94.7
21 St. Louis Blues 91 99 98 94.8
22 Boston Bruins 104 87 101 98.3
23 Dallas Stars 97 111 90 99.8
24 Vancouver Canucks 101 104 94 100.5
25 Toronto Maple Leafs 103 98 100 100.9
26 Colorado Avalanche 100 105 99 101.3
27 New-Jersey Devils 100 108 95 101.4
28 Philadelphia Flyers 101 107 97 102
29 Ottawa Senators 102 113 94 103.7
30 Detroit Red Wings 109 110 116 110.7


Scheme C - Made Playoff last 3 years

Rank Team 03-04 02-03 01-02

1 Pittsburgh Penguins 0 0 0 0.000
2 Columbus Blue Jackets 0 0 0 0.000
3 Florida Panthers 0 0 0 0.000
4 Atlanta Thrashers 0 0 0 0.000
5 New-York Rangers 0 0 0 0.000
6 Buffalo Sabres 0 0 0 0.000
7 Chicago Blackhawks 0 0 1 1.001
8 Phoenix Coyotes 0 0 1 1.001
9 Los-Angeles Kings 0 0 1 1.001
10 Carolina Hurricanes 0 0 4 1.004
11 Washington Capitals 0 1 0 1.010
12 Edmonton Oilers 0 1 0 1.010
13 Minnesota Wild 0 3 0 1.030
14 Anaheim Mighty Ducks 0 4 0 1.040


15 Nashville Predators 1 0 0 1.100
16 Calgary Flames 4 0 0 1.400
17 Dallas Stars 1 2 0 2.120
18 Montreal Canadiens 2 0 2 2.202
19 San Jose Sharks 3 0 2 2.302
20 Tampa-Bay Lightning 5 2 0 2.520
21 New-York Islanders 1 1 1 3.111
22 Boston Bruins 1 1 1 3.111
23 St. Louis Blues 1 1 2 3.112
24 Vancouver Canucks 1 2 1 3.121
25 Ottawa Senators 1 3 2 3.132
26 New-Jersey Devils 1 5 1 3.151
27 Toronto Maple Leafs 2 1 2 3.212
28 Colorado Avalanche 2 1 3 3.213
29 Detroit Red Wings 2 1 5 3.215
30 Philadelphia Flyers 3 2 1 3.321

 

[MS]

I just said it to make a point. Teams have already been compensated for their suckage in past years. There is no reason to compensate them again.

In my mind, that point overrides any discussion about the accuracy of predictive methods, the current roster of various teams, where the salary cap will be, and past team payrolls.

Look, we didn't have a season. Therefore, we have no stanley cup winner.

I've always said one of the two alternatives is fair.
1) 30 names in a hat.
Or
2) Don't have the draft until the end of the next season

I believe #2 is the most fair option.
But the NHL desperately wants Crosby in the league, I suppose.

So now we go to an imperfect solution.

And to me, the fairest of the imperfect solution is the 30 names in a hat method.

It's absolutely ridiculous to reward teams for a bad season they never even played.

Exactly.

The fairest thing would be to delay the draft, but the league desparately wants the positive press Crosby would create, and doesn't need the lawsuits from young players that would likely come with delaying the draft.

No season, no results, no-one knows what would have happened. Everyone is even. 30 balls go in a bin. Very few people outside of New York and Washington seem to have trouble with this idea.

 

[I in the Eye]

You are right that projections have their place. Yeah, economists, etc. do it. It's a lot different when you are trying to favor members of a group of 30 equal partners over others based on some formula concocted after the fact.

It's also a lot different when you're trying to predict a past event, rather than a future event...

With a future event, you've got the luxury to compare the projection to the actual results... With a past event, you don't...

I'm not against using projections in theory... If at the beginning of each year, the NHL made projections as to the end-of-year results, compared the projections to the actual results, and over time improved the projection formula (based on actual, past performance of this formula) to consistently come up with reasonably accurate results within a reasonable error range - I'd be all for using this tried and tested formula to project what last year's standings were... We've got history to see how well the formula works in reality... We've got proof of results... We've got a formula with history... a formula with substance... not a formula that is being made on the spot, after the fact...

 

[hockeytown9321]

How does a 1/30 chance for everyone give any team a competitive advantage?

The problem is these small market fans feel they're owed something. Parity and equality all sound great to them until thier team is affected. Sure, as a Wings fan, I would love to have Crosby, and a 1 out of 30 lottery gives them a better chance to get him than a weighted one. But make no mistake, all the whining, *****ing and complaining by these fans over this draft lottery is because they want their team to have their best chance at #1 too. They want an advantage. They don't want equality. Unless that "equality" benefits them.

 

[I in the Eye]

Let me preface this by saying that my first choice (and the only real fair resolution) would be to up the draft age to 19, skip the draft this year, and let Crosby et al be picked based on next season's results. And I am a fan of the Sharks and Isles, who would do much better in a completely random "everybody gets one ping pong ball" draft lottery than in any past performance based lottery.

The draft is not about (and never has been about) predicting the future, it has always been about past results (ignoring the first few drafts in the 60s with the round robin #1 picks). Any talk about trying to predict how teams may or may not do under a new CBA, and using that to base draft order, is a complete red herring.

No, we don't have standings from last year, but does that make all 30 teams suddenly equal - no. Just because we don't have perfect information about what happened (or would have happened) last season, people (mostly fans of the good teams in enlightened self interest) say we need to throw out any information we do have.

I believe a lottery, based on performance (weighted over the last 3 yrs) is the most fair way to determine draft order.

I made a previous analysis which showed that various proposed draft lottery schemes historically were much more accurate two years down the road than a pure random draw:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=144410

So I ask you, proponents of the "everybody get an equal chance" camp, would you bet $100 that a random draw (picked in a public and transparent way) would do a better job in predicting the non-playoff teams next year than two out of three of these lottery weighting schemes - either a single draw or greater than 5 of 10 random draws.

Good post... My preference is no draft, raise the age... Everything else is a distant alternative, IMO...

 

[NYR469]

To add to the fairness .. They should reset and redo the lottery picking each round ..

So instead on someone winning the 1st pick and then 1st pick in every round this would be more random ..

rumor is that regardless of what lottery system they use they will use a reverse order in the 2nd round, so 1-30 in the 1st, then 30-1 in the 2nd, 1-30 in the 3rd, etc. so you wouldn't pick 1st every round. the team that picks first wouldn't pick again till #60.

 

[NYR469]

i've been hearing for a few years that the league wants to raise the draft age and imo this is the PERFECT chance to do it since the easy way to increase the draft age is to skip a draft year. but they aren't going to do that because of crosby. if sidney crosby wasn't part of the draft i don't think there is any doubt that if crosby wasn't part of this draft they would just push everything back a year.

i've even heard rumors that they might phase in the change in age by moving the cutoff up a few months each year and after like 3 years it would be a year older...of course in this rumor they will use the old september 15th cutoff and start moving it next year, why?? because if they move it up this year crosby would fall into the next draft. so they have to let him get drafted this year and then start changing it.

as for being unfair to 2005 draft picks, first besides crosby who else is going to play in the nhl next year?? if brule is playing juniors next year it really doesn't have any impact on him if he is drafted this year or next. also is it fair that phil kessel has to wait till 2006 because he was born a month too late?? he'd be the #2 pick this year if he was part of the draft, so why is it fair that he has to wait?? ovechkin missed the 2003 cutoff by 2 days, was that fair?? because it is part of the rules everyone says that fine, but if the rules change to say you get drafted at 19 instead of 18 then wouldn't the same logic apply?

 

[NYR469]

NO ONE has 400 UFAs to pick from. There are 400 FAs. That includes (the grand majority of them) RFAs. Most of the teams are set. Signed players + RFAs not under contract. A couple trades to get under or over the cap. UFAs only account for a minority of players as long as the age drops to 30 for this season as predicted.

NYI can't fill 14 spots with UFAs. They have to tend qualifying offers to their RFAs or they'll be paying too many players (UFAs) too high and they'll never fit under a cap.

lots of RFAs won't get qualified cause they make too much $$...and if the deal isn't signed by july 1st you know IMG is going to court to try to get everyone declared ufas cause the deadline was missed.

 

[Hasbro]

As an Avs fan I don't think we deserve the number one and have no problem with the weighted lottery. However, if we do hit the jackpot doesn't expect me to feel guilty.

I do take exception to the "they bought their team" crap, especialy since people are justifying the Rangers being in for the top pick. The Rags bought teams more than ANYONE in the league and still managed to suck.

 

[Hasbro]

lots of RFAs won't get qualified cause they make too much $$...and if the deal isn't signed by july 1st you know IMG is going to court to try to get everyone declared ufas cause the deadline was missed.

I don't know what advantage that would be to the bulk of their clientele. 70% of the player are already in play and the cap is going to reduce offers, so why glut the market more?

 

[NYR469]

I've said it before, I'll say it again, New York is the 28th most popular place the NHL wants Sidney Crosby to be in. The Islanders and Devils are 29th and 30th.

you are kidding right?? if you want to argue that ny isn't the best place or that it wouldn't be the league's top choice i can buy that arguement. but i guarantee that having him play in ny is top 5-6 at worst simply because its such a big market. there is no way the team would rather see him in nashville or carolina...

but i guess it isn't surprising that a flyer fan has the rangers, devils and isles as the 3 least likable destination, i'm sure the bias and rivalry has nothing to do with that

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Debate of weighted lottery vs. Equal chance lottery.

Personally I don't necessary say that I agree with any format suggested, but having the lottery based on the last 5 years performance to me seems a better concept than equal chance.

My problem is, the bigger sample of years you use, the more you reward teams that were already compensated for their failure. Your sample becomes more accurate but you are also compensating teams that are supposed to breakout. I don't see why the team that got the highest number of high picks in the last five years would need the best chance at the highest pick this year. I just don't buy it.

If you go the other way and use a small sample, like one year, you get the opposite. You get a statistical sample that is very small (any team could have had an off year). You also GARANTEE that every last year of the CBA, more teams will tank from now on.

We already have too much tanking in this league. If anything, I'd like to see the draft process address this one day. So I am certainly not going to be in favor of making it worse right now.

Either way you go, all those methods also require subjective judgment calls in order to favor certain teams over others, and this after the fact. This is just wrong, IMO.