GDT: - 2025 NHL Draft Lottery on May 5th: NYI 1st, SJ 2nd, CHI 3rd, UTA 4th | Page 10 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

GDT: 2025 NHL Draft Lottery on May 5th: NYI 1st, SJ 2nd, CHI 3rd, UTA 4th

MrLunatik said:
Out of curiosity, I decided to look up their draft lotto history.

Retained 1st overall in 2018 and 2021
Moved down 1 spot in 2020, from 7 to 8
Moved down 2 spots in 2019, from 5 to 7
Moved down 2 spots in 2017, from 5 to 8 (including Vegas starting @ #3 due to expansion)... #5 won the draft lottery
Moved down 1 spot in 2015, from 1 to 2 (McDavid Draft)
Moved down 1 spot in 2014, from 1 to 2 (Ekblad, Drai and 2 Sams draft)

I'd say that between 2015 and 2017 that is some pretty shitty luck
Click to expand...
Even when you try to make it sound unlucky, it's not bad. Teams would kill to be that "unlucky"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzHawk
Tunapants said:
Even when you try to make it sound unlucky, it's not bad. Teams would kill to be that "unlucky"
Click to expand...
I didn't try make it sound anything, I listed facts.

I can't stand the Sabres and most of their fans, but to claim they have been lucky is straight up delusional and complete horse shit
 
I think folks saying they would rather not win this lottery are underestimating Schaefer. I think he’s a franchise changing level of blueline prospect. If he had stayed healthy, I think he’d clearly be the best blueline prospect since Dahlin (I think he is…but being out has people sleeping on just how good he is).

And given the drop between him and Smith/Mrtka versus the grouping of the top forwards - he’s absolutely a prize.
 
BKarchitect said:
I think folks saying they would rather not win this lottery are underestimating Schaefer. I think he’s a franchise changing level of blueline prospect. If he had stayed healthy, I think he’d clearly be the best blueline prospect since Dahlin (I think he is…but being out has people sleeping on just how good he is).

And given the drop between him and Smith/Mrtka versus the grouping of the top forwards - he’s absolutely a prize.
Click to expand...

Its also dumb because a year is a long ways off

Look at Hagens

People were talking about "Failing for Hagens" and how he was bigger get than Celebrini

Now Hagens isn't even the top prospect of his draft
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKarchitect
Will they do the lottery for 1st overall before 2nd overall or vice versa? Curious how this plays out on tv.
 
MrLunatik said:
I didn't try make it sound anything, I listed facts.

I can't stand the Sabres and most of their fans, but to claim they have been lucky is straight up delusional and complete horse shit
Click to expand...
Someone a lot smarter than me could figure out their average draft position vs expected and I'd bet a lot of money they've drafted higher than expected. Buffalo has a lot of issues, lottery luck isnt one of them
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzHawk
I am Canadian said:
Is Schaefer seemingly for sure going #1?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anything this draft is guaranteed. It all depends on the GM. I think picks 1-6 or so can be interesting as it seems a lot of those players are more or less in the same tier and there isn’t a huge gap. Schaefer is the consensus 1st overall though
 
Fine. And, indeed, the music was indeed much better! Cheers.

Edit: I take my “fine” back. “My” way is not arbitrary at all. In my scenario, with 10 teams, the last place team has precisely 10X the chance of winning than does the first place team - 18.1% to 1.81%. How, precisely, is that “arbitrary”? But still, whatever.

Alternatively, surely there’s a way to divide it up such that there’s a 10% chance, then a 9% chance, . . . 1%. Problem is that adds up to 55 not 50. So, again, I’m sure that there are mathematicians that could figure it out. As I said, I’m not one.
 
Last edited:
Last question, how long will the lottery take? I assume there is build up and filler. Is it 30 mins, 60 mins, or do they just get into it right away?
 
BTO said:
Using 14 ping pong balls and randomly assigning 1000 4-digit numbers is easier than simply using 55 ping pong balls and whichever ball pops out is the winner? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...

There are 2 parts to the difference. One is procedural (drawing 4 balls instead of 1), and the other is the actual odds.

As far drawing 4 balls instead of 1, the concepts are very much the same. It should be intuitively clear that every 4-ball combination is as likely to be generated as any other. In other words, each 4-ball combination is equivalent to 1 ticket, and each ticket has the same chance of winning as any other ticket. Having a total of only 14 balls jumping around in the machine does simplify the engineering aspect of it.

Now, I think in the later posts you have indicated that your issue is with the lack of explanation for why the number of tickets for each team (so, the odds) are chosen the way they are. It's a fair issue, but the proportional odds spread suffers from the same. It may have an easy formula to calculate what those odds are for each position in the standings, but that formula would need as much of an explanation for why it should be used as any other odds distribution scheme.

I think it may be a little easier to understand why the NHL did not choose proportional odds distribution by comparing the odds under the proportional distribution, and what the NHL ended up using. The odds for both schemes are posted in this thread. As far as I can see the differences are:

* substantially higher odds for the last place team
* tweak the odds higher for 3 bottom teams
* tweak the odds lower for teams outside bottom 3. The further moving away from the bottom 3, the stronger the tweak (the odds are lowered more).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Faterson and BTO
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom