ATD 2017 Draft Thread IV

[jarek]

Sure, but now we can move on from that.Honestly, it's not a very important thing.

I won't discuss the rules and draft structure for next year because it's not the time yet, but I hope we return to every team making the playoffs.Also, the draft and the playoffs need to finish in May at the latest.

Agree on both.

I would also agree that it seems to be unnecessary to hide the seedings.

 

[seventieslord]

to play devil's advocate, maybe it's important to keep it that way, so people who lose know they were given a fair shot and not just assumed worse due to seeding? I felt more at peace with my series win and my loss due to this effect.

 

[BenchBrawl]

to play devil's advocate, maybe it's important to keep it that way, so people who lose know they were given a fair shot and not just assumed worse due to seeding? I felt more at peace with my series win and my loss due to this effect.

I'm fine with both options.

The two changes I care about is every team making the real playoffs, and the draft not ending in June.

Also, not sure how I feel about having divisions of death.On one hand, if many veteran GMs are killing each others inside one division, it gives a chance for an inexperienced GM to go deep from the other side (though it's not what happened this year).OTOH, it's not very fun to build a contender and get bounced in the 1st round.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Sure, but now we can move on from that.Honestly, it's not a very important thing.

Not the time yet for this discussion, but I hope we return to every teams making the playoffs.Also, the draft and the playoffs need to finish in May at the latest.So either a faster and more rigid playoff timeframe, or we start the draft earlier.Looking at some finals they ended in May, and the draft had way more teams, so I'm not sure what happened here.I didn't feel like the draft was dragged out at all, so it's bizarre.

I agree with speeding it up and everyone making the playoffs though the playoff thing was necessary for seedings purposes. But I think next winter when I start discussion on draft rules we won't go with it again

 

[seventieslord]

We have more than enough non-participating experts involved that we can trust them to come together and give us balanced divisions. We can both make sure no two teams are in the same division two seasons in a row, and balance them from a GM reputation/past results standpoint. It's not that hard. People may not like that it's not "random" but this year is what randomness got us. We can do better and we should.

I'm far from a sure thing to participate next year, and if I don't, I'll gladly take the time to do it for you (with help, I hope).

 

[ResilientBeast]

We have more than enough non-participating experts involved that we can trust them to come together and give us balanced divisions. We can both make sure no two teams are in the same division two seasons in a row, and balance them from a GM reputation/past results standpoint. It's not that hard. People may not like that it's not "random" but this year is what randomness got us. We can do better and we should.

I'm far from a sure thing to participate next year, and if I don't, I'll gladly take the time to do it for you (with help, I hope).

I like the idea, but we'd need to have a vote on it probably just so everyone gets a vote. I assume you'd build it based on past draft success right?

 

[BenchBrawl]

We have more than enough non-participating experts involved that we can trust them to come together and give us balanced divisions. We can both make sure no two teams are in the same division two seasons in a row, and balance them from a GM reputation/past results standpoint. It's not that hard. People may not like that it's not "random" but this year is what randomness got us. We can do better and we should.

I'm far from a sure thing to participate next year, and if I don't, I'll gladly take the time to do it for you (with help, I hope).

The draft would be better off if you participated again, time permitting.

But sure, I like this idea.I guess among non-participants Sturm could do it, since I don't think he planned on ever participating again (Maybe I'm wrong about his intentions though).You could also do it, but like I said above it would be better if you participated instead.

I hope we see the return of some of the heavy hitters like TDMM, Rob and many others who left the draft in the last few years.Also hope to see the rookies return for their sophomore.

 

[seventieslord]

I like the idea, but we'd need to have a vote on it probably just so everyone gets a vote. I assume you'd build it based on past draft success right?

I'd probably group people into tiers somewhat subjectively, yes. Longevity, past success, my general impression of what their reputation is around here.

It should not be hard to put one GM from each tier in a division while also ensuring there are no repeat divisional alignments.

Actually, I MIGHT have done this one year, like 2012 or 2013 when i was not participating, and I was able to let a randomizer do it, and on like the 5th or 6th try it gave me a result where there were no repeat matchups already, so it probably CAN do both successfully randomly.

 

[Theokritos]

So all the first place teams met in their respective conference finals rather handily, so the assumption that visible seating impact voting is in doubt slightly.

Unless I'm misreading all the division finals were 1 seed v 2 seed as well

You're right.Hiding the rankings was unnecessary, and it led to not knowing who had home ice advantage.

Until we did this experiment, it was impossible to know this for sure.

Sure, but now we can move on from that.

to play devil's advocate, maybe it's important to keep it that way, so people who lose know they were given a fair shot and not just assumed worse due to seeding? I felt more at peace with my series win and my loss due to this effect.

Partially related: extra-divisional playoffs seem preferable to me. You avoid voting on (more or less) the same thing twice.

Whether open or hidden seeding would have an influence on the outcome in that scenario is something you'd probably have to try out like the hidden seeding with intra-divisional playoffs was tried out this year.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Partially related: extra-divisional playoffs seem preferable to me. You avoid voting on (more or less) the same thing twice.

It was tried before and I don't think people liked it

 

[Theokritos]

Not the time yet for this discussion, but I hope we return to every teams making the playoffs.

Since we found out that even with hidden seedings it's still the #1 team and #2 teams who advance to the Division finals and the #1 teams who win them... what's the rationale for having more teams in the playoffs?

It was tried before and I don't think people liked it

Any idea what the reason was?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Since we found out that even with hidden seedings it's still the #1 team and #2 teams who advance to the Division finals and the #1 teams who win them... what's the rationale for having more teams in the playoffs?

So everyone has at least one chance to argue their way to an upset.It didn't happen this year, but it can happen in the future.

 

[Theokritos]

So everyone has at least one chance to argue their way to an upset.It didn't happen this year, but it can happen in the future.

It's possible, but how realistic is it? The rareness of upsets was a major issue prior to the draft and the very reason the seedings were hidden in the first place, right? Voting on divisional series after voting on the divisional ranking is mostly a redundant exercise, and if all teams make the playoffs, you only get more of these redundant series. Now I'm aware this is how the ATD traditionally operates, but in the recent past there has been quite a bit of talk about shaking things up as several participants and former participants seemed to be tired of the status quo.

But if the idea is to keep people involved by keeping them in the competition, then I can only agree with this notion. In the round-robin system I have proposed, no-one is eliminated after one vote that determines the regular season standings as it was the case this year. Every participant gets three series/votes (each against a different opponent) and thus three chances to argue his case. That's even more than in the traditional system where everyone gets one regular season vote and one playoff series vote.

At the same time, the playoffs after the round-robin would be shorter as only the top teams from each division advance – those who win their playoff series 99% of the time anyway in the current system. You don't get any series that are effectively redundant.

 

[jarek]

That's a good point about the #1 teams always winning. That seemed to happen again. Adding more teams to the playoffs may do nothing but lengthen the playoffs even longer.

After going through the consolation round, I can see some merit to the idea. It would be a lot more interesting if people didn't check out.

What about giving the winner of the consolation playoffs some kind of reward for the next draft? Maybe they get to choose their draft position?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'll think about which system I prefer later, but there's something else I want to add, concerning rewarding the GMs who stay to vote till the end.

Assume there's 4 playoffs rounds, then those who voted in all 4 rounds should be part of a group, call it Group 4.Those who voted for 3 rounds should be part of Group 3.Voted for 2 rounds, part of Group 2.Voted for one round, part of Group 1.Didn't vote at all? Part of Group 0.

So at the beginning of the draft, all members of Group 4 choose their draft position (if there's overlap, just randomly choose which one gets it).Once this is done, members of Group 3 choose their draft position among what's left, and once this is done...and so on up to Group 0 who will get what's left.

 

[seventieslord]

Where do you slot noobs? (I like it though)

 

[BenchBrawl]

Where do you slot noobs? (I like it though)

Either Group 4 or Group 3, based on the fact that it's hard to get any rookies at all.If the situation changes and we start having an unexpectedly high amount of new blood, then maybe Group 2 by that point.

 

[jarek]

New people should never be in group 4. They shouldn't be handed out freebies that much. Group 4 earned that privilege, they shouldn't have it taken away from them by new people coming in. Otherwise, the idea is solid.

I also think there's some serious potential in the consolation round. There just needs to be some way to get people who end up in the consolation bracket some incentive to actually participate. Maybe have a group 5.. the consolation round finalists?

 

[Theokritos]

I'll think about which system I prefer later

Looking forward to your thoughts.

there's something else I want to add, concerning rewarding the GMs who stay to vote till the end.

Assume there's 4 playoffs rounds, then those who voted in all 4 rounds should be part of a group, call it Group 4.Those who voted for 3 rounds should be part of Group 3.Voted for 2 rounds, part of Group 2.Voted for one round, part of Group 1.Didn't vote at all? Part of Group 0.

So at the beginning of the draft, all members of Group 4 choose their draft position (if there's overlap, just randomly choose which one gets it).Once this is done, members of Group 3 choose their draft position among what's left, and once this is done...and so on up to Group 0 who will get what's left.

That seems like a great idea.

EDIT: Apparently this has been discussed before. Not sure whether anything came out of it.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

That seems like a great idea.

EDIT: Apparently this has been discussed before. Not sure whether anything came out of it.

We did this for the 2013 voting...the GM's who voted in every round were rewarded by being allowed to choose their draft position in 2014, except for the top 5 spots. For the top 5 spots we had a lottery that any GM who was interested could participate in. After the lottery the rewarded GM's picked their spots (believe there was 8 of us), and then after that the remaining GM's submitted lists of their top 5 choices for draft position and those were assigned accordingly. Some GM's did not want to pick their spot, so those were randomly assigned at the end.

Ironically, we created the lottery for the top 5 because we felt everyone should have a chance at the uber-elite players, and then Mario ended up falling to the 8th (where I happily selected him).

 

[BenchBrawl]

We did this for the 2013 voting...the GM's who voted in every round were rewarded by being allowed to choose their draft position in 2014, except for the top 5 spots. For the top 5 spots we had a lottery that any GM who was interested could participate in. After the lottery the rewarded GM's picked their spots (believe there was 8 of us), and then after that the remaining GM's submitted lists of their top 5 choices for draft position and those were assigned accordingly. Some GM's did not want to pick their spot, so those were randomly assigned at the end.

Ironically, we created the lottery for the top 5 because we felt everyone should have a chance at the uber-elite players, and then Mario ended up falling to the 8th (where I happily selected him).

I remember that, it was crazy.But the ATD2014 draft was special because trades were forbidden, hence why people chose a defenseman over Lemieux.Maurice Richard over Lemieux was interesting though.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think Doug Harvey is the best building-block in the ATD from a meta-game perspective.Bobby Orr comes with an implied constraint to build an offensive team or build a 1st line as a function of himself, whereas Harvey leaves you the maximum amount of freedom going forward.Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux are harder to build around.Gordie Howe is easy to build around, but your #1 D pick in the 2nd/3rd round will be bad value, whereas it's much easier to steal a forward (or two) in the 2nd/3rd round at good value, which is what you usually do if you have Harvey.The same is true for Ray Bourque to a (slightly) lesser degree.

With Harvey and Bourque, you will have the best #1 D everytime except if you face each other or face Orr.But hopefully, if you do face Orr, you capitalized on that extra freedom to build a better overall team.Ironically, I just recalled that I won with Bourque in 2013 (and Harvey in 2017), so maybe I'm just biased.

I don't think this applies to Lidstrom, Shore and Potvin.I'd take Gretzky ahead of them for example.But if you put a gun to my head and tell me you're going to shoot me if I lose, then taking Harvey at 1st overall is not a bad way to go, except for the negative attention it would bring to your strategy.This is why picking Harvey at 5th is the best (likely to happen) initial position any GM could hope for, which is what I was lucky enough to have this year.

 

[Iceman]

I think Doug Harvey is the best building-block in the ATD from a meta-game perspective.Bobby Orr comes with an implied constraint to build an offensive team or build a 1st line as a function of himself, whereas Harvey leaves you the maximum amount of freedom going forward.Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux are harder to build around.Gordie Howe is easy to build around, but your #1 D pick in the 2nd/3rd round will be bad value, whereas it's much easier to steal a forward (or two) in the 2nd/3rd round at good value, which is what you usually do if you have Harvey.The same is true for Ray Bourque to a (slightly) lesser degree.

With Harvey and Bourque, you will have the best #1 D everytime except if you face each other or face Orr.But hopefully, if you do face Orr, you capitalized on that extra freedom to build a better overall team.Ironically, I just recalled that I won with Bourque in 2013 (and Harvey in 2017), so maybe I'm just biased.

I don't think this applies to Lidstrom, Shore and Potvin.I'd take Gretzky ahead of them for example.But if you put a gun to my head and tell me you're going to shoot me if I lose, then taking Harvey at 1st overall is not a bad way to go, except for the negative attention it would bring to your strategy.This is why picking Harvey at 5th is the best (likely to happen) initial position any GM could hope for, which is what I was lucky enough to have this year.

I'm with you on this.

Watch Harvey get picked 4th ahead of Lemieux next year. ;-)

 

[jarek]

I hope that we get to pick our draft positions next year..

 

[Dreakmur]

I hope that we get to pick our draft positions next year..

As long as it's a no trade draft.