Is the draft lottery working?

[GOilers88]

The Canucks have been one of the worst teams of the last four years, and they've dropped in the draft standing every single year to wind up 5,5,7 and 10.

The system is stupid. Tanking is a mythical thing made up by people to justify the need for a stupid lottery in which the actual worst team in the league is more certain to draft at 4 than top 2.

 

[Rangers79]

I completely get why a lot of people are pissed Chicago moved up but didnt Carolina move up from 11 to 3 last year? I dontd recall many people being angry about that. It's just that it's Chicago and they're the NHLs main marketing team.

 

[Pizza the Hutt]

-Canucks
-Red Wings
-Avalanche
-Kings
-Coyotes

The Red Wings made the playoffs for 25 years straight until 2016. They can spend some time out in the cold.

The Avalanche are a playoff team with a 4OA, 1OA, 2OA and recently traded a 3OA. They are doing much better than average.

The Kings drafted 2, 4 and 5OA and won the cup twice. They aren't even in the conversation.

The Canucks have drafted in the top 10 6 times in the last ten years. A bit unlucky but made some bad choices and some amazing choices. They are fine, rebuilds take time when you cling to the bubble. You can't really complain when you have the rookie of the year on your team.

The Coyotes have been unlucky, most definitely. But that's really the only team that has a case.

 

[c3z4r]

I would rather the NHL implement the NFL's system where draft position is determined solely by team records in the regular season.

 

[Rangers79]

The Canucks have been one of the worst teams of the last four years, and they've dropped in the draft standing every single year to wind up 5,5,7 and 10.

The system is stupid. Tanking is a mythical thing made up by people to justify the need for a stupid lottery in which the actual worst team in the league is more certain to draft at 4 than top 2.

And yet they were able to draft Petterson and Hughs. They're getting good talent still. Elite? No one knows yet but they're still drafting well. Maybe they'll be bad again next season and get a top 3. But I assume most of their fans hope they arenta

 

[JetsHomer]

Yes. Teams such as the Carolina Hurricanes and Dallas Stars have been able to get the help they so desperately need.

I mean kind of? Would it be better that they languish in the 10-15 draft range, unable to acquire the elite talent they need to make the push?

 

[GOilers88]

And yet they were able to draft Petterson and Hughs. They're getting good talent still. Elite? No one knows yet but they're still drafting well. Maybe they'll be bad again next season and get a top 3. But I assume most of their fans hope they arenta

I get that a good scouting department and a bit of luck can make up for losing a top 3 pick, but that doesn't make the system any less stupid. The worst teams in the league should get the high picks. Being bad doesn't equate to tanking, so you shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[StreetHawk]

The Canucks have been one of the worst teams of the last four years, and they've dropped in the draft standing every single year to wind up 5,5,7 and 10.

The system is stupid. Tanking is a mythical thing made up by people to justify the need for a stupid lottery in which the actual worst team in the league is more certain to draft at 4 than top 2.

Teams do not tank especially the coaches and players.
But the NHL hated the optics of seeing home team fans cheer against their team.

One thing to talk about Lose for Hughes on social media another to be cheering against your team in the arena for example.

 

[Rangers79]

I get that a good scouting department and a bit of luck can make up for losing a top 3 pick, but that doesn't make the system any less stupid. The worst teams in the league should get the high picks. Being bad doesn't equate to tanking, so you shouldn't be punished for it.

Rangers had the least ROW in the league yet had 6th place because of OT loses. Does that make them the worst or is the worst solely based on points? I'd say most teams in the bottom 10 are pretty much equally bad.

 

[Munch89]

I think it's working pretty well personally. It fixes a couple of issues in the NHL;

1) it inhibits the effects of tanking which is huge.

2) the bottom teams still get quality picks in order to build a squad in a rebuilding process (2-5 year time frame)

3) it gives borderline playoff teams a chance to immediately improve without shaking up their core (Philly, Carolina, Toronto, Florida... Think of how many teams just sit on the 8-10 spot for years having a good core but no real chance at being a competitor competitor in the playoffs)
*Keep in mind I'm not talking about today's Toronto group, I'm talking about their anttopov, Jason Blake days where they say at 10th spot every year

I personally have no issue with the format

 

[GOilers88]

Teams do not tank especially the coaches and players.
But the NHL hated the optics of seeing home team fans cheer against their team.

One thing to talk about Lose for Hughes on social media another to be cheering against your team in the arena for example.

This. Social media and fans created this myth that teams who finish last are doing it intentionally, so something had to be done to stop it. Then these same idiots who accuse these professionals of losing on purpose sit there and cheer and hope for their team to lose.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

The contrast between how thoughtful the OP is and its absolute worst timing for thought is blinding. You need to post this a month before the draft.

 

[MacBradley]

It definitely works as intended, but the issue is that people don't like how it works.

If the lottery prevents tanking, how do you explain the Sens tanking this year, without even having a pick to tank for?

Clearly, even when there is incentive to win and lose a higher pick to another team, a team will still sell it's assets, not buy to win now, and plan for the future.

It's a neseccary step in pro sports, and it's "tanking" is just an insulting way to say "rebuilding." Hell, the Rangers even publicly made a statement they were "rebuilding", the lottery odds didn't stop them, and they even got a reward for it with the 2nd OA pick.

 

[GOilers88]

Rangers had the least ROW in the league yet had 6th place because of OT loses. Does that make them the worst or is the worst solely based on points? I'd say most teams in the bottom 10 are pretty much equally bad.

Since teams are placed based on points, I'd say the worst team is the team with the least points.

 

[Zaddy]

I really like it the way it is now. I like that competitive teams that miss the playoffs have a solid chance at getting a top3 pick that could put them over the top. Before it was so hard for those teams who were not good enough to go deep in the playoffs but also not bad enough to place bottom-five and get a legit talent. I think it's great to see teams like Hawks, Canes and Flyers jump up.

 

[chet1926]

It almost made me sick to my stomach seeing Chicago get "rewarded" with a top 3 pick. Absolute nonsense. They've had their turn at the top for 10 years now, yet by getting lucky in a lottery, they get another top 3 pick.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous to watch decent teams slide in front of teams that struggled. It should never happen that way, and I hope the NHL does something to address this issue.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

By the same token, why should one random terrible team get rewarded with a high pick?

Let's say team A finishes with the worst record in the league and team B finishes with the 2nd worst record. However, team A has the most stacked prospect pool in the league as they have drafted top 5-10 for 5 straight seasons and this is team B's first time drafting top 5 in years. With no lottery, team A would get the #1 pick by virtue of the worst record, despite having a significantly better future compared to team B.

Point is, anyway you do it, it's not going to be equal for everyone.

I was quoting someone that said that Chicago "earned" to pick above bottom feeders because they were competitive while other mediocre teams got mid 1sts.

my point was that type of logic is silly to reward one random mediocre team to the point that they pick higher than the worst teams in league while the rest of mediocre teams get mid rounders. The top picks should be given to the worst teams

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

I was quoting someone that said that Chicago "earned" to pick above bottom feeders because they were competitive while other mediocre teams got mid 1sts.

my point was that type of logic is silly to reward one random mediocre team to the point that they pick higher than the worst teams in league while the rest of mediocre teams get mid rounders. The top picks should be given to the worst teams

It's about trying to shape behavior: it was Chicago this year, it was Carolina last year, it could have been anybody like that (or nobody like that). The Schmaltz-Strome trade will play out over the long term, but maybe they got 5-10 points this year because they made a good hockey trade and Dylan Strome played well.

The Islanders were supposed to be years and years away, I'm looking at predictions before this season. Sporting News: bottom of the Metro. And everyone knew the Devils and especially the Rangers would be what they were. But the Islanders hired a "winning" coach, not a "development" coach, they signed a bunch of depth veterans who fit in and they hit 100 points. They could have put out one of those Charles Wang teams, and maybe them, Chicago and the Habs would have if the odds weren't flattened.

The system still rewards failure, there's still a direct correlation between putting putrid garbage on the ice and getting rewarded with stars in the draft, it's just not as strong as people would like.

 

[Rob Brown]

If the lottery prevents tanking, how do you explain the Sens tanking this year, without even having a pick to tank for?

Clearly, even when there is incentive to win and lose a higher pick to another team, a team will still sell it's assets, not buy to win now, and plan for the future.

It's a neseccary step in pro sports, and it's "tanking" is just an insulting way to say "rebuilding." Hell, the Rangers even publicly made a statement they were "rebuilding", the lottery odds didn't stop them, and they even got a reward for it with the 2nd OA pick.

The Sens made that trade before they were terrible, realized they were terrible this year and traded off UFA assets in order to collect more picks and prospects. Not really sure what you mean here. They clearly weren't tanking for a high pick because they didn't have one. They traded the players they could in order to set themselves up for the future.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

When did that happen?

Sorry three in a row.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

The Canucks have been one of the worst teams of the last four years, and they've dropped in the draft standing every single year to wind up 5,5,7 and 10.

The system is stupid. Tanking is a mythical thing made up by people to justify the need for a stupid lottery in which the actual worst team in the league is more certain to draft at 4 than top 2.

lol how is tanking 'made up'?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I was okay with the original one, where it's not a guarantee that the last place team drafts 1st overall because one non-playoff team could win the lottery and move up. I'm not a fan of the new system where the first 3 spots are up for grabs, and the last overall team can fall all the way down to 4th overall.

 

[Shaman464]

I would like a system like this:

The lottery is the 5 worst teams are in the lottery. They each get a 20% chance of drafting the first overall. After that its reverse order. So if the 5th worst team wins it would be 5th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. No team can slip more than one spot down. If a team wins the first overall the prior season their odds are cut in half to 10%, and the other ten percent is redistributed evenly to the other 4 teams. So the odds would become 10% for that team and 22.5% for the rest. Every other team outside of the 5 worst drafts at their normal position, again ensuring many teams that need good picks don't get pushed lower by a bubble team winning.

 

[swiftwin]

It's perfect. Tanking is such a stupid concept. This is a professional sport. At no point should people want to lose on purpose, nor should fans want to cheer for their team to lose.

Honestly, all 15 non-playoff teams should have equal odds, and have a lottery for all 15 picks.

 

[TheOtherOne]

The express purpose of the NHL entry draft being ordered from worst teams to best is to help the bad teams get better.

I really think this needs some caveats.

On average, yes, we want to help bad teams get better. But bad teams need to do their own work too in addition to being handed all the best players.
- If a team fails year after year to convert the best prospects in the world to success, they deserve to stay bad for a while. There shouldn't be any guarantees for them. They're still going to get their 4ths and 5ths and 6ths but they need to do their own work.
- If a team rebuilds in a "good sportsmanship" way, they deserve some help. IMO that means they fight year after year aiming for the #16 spot with overachieving kids and a never-give-up attitude, but without the elite talent they need to put them over the edge. That team doesn't deserve the purgatory of being a bubble team forever. Once in a while we should throw them a bone, but again, with no guarantees.

Ideally, Chicago was not the "best" team to give a lottery pick to. But they were still worse than over half the league this year. Therefore they still need some help. Ideally it would have taken a few more years for that to happen but I think that's an acceptable cost of the randomness that makes the whole thing work.

I'm happy with my Red Wings getting 6ths for a while until one of two things happen. They overachieve and become a playoff team despite their bad lottery luck. Or they're set back for long enough that they finally get their lucky break and can adjust the rebuild from there. I don't want any guarantees, I just want the system to average out properly in the long run.