Is the draft lottery working?

[SJSharksfan39]

All you can do in the draft lottery is skip up to the top 3, stay in place, or fall 1-3 places if teams behind you skip up to the top 3. There wasn't an option for the Hawks to pick 10th or whatever.

2019 NHL Draft Lottery Odds | Tankathon

It looks like their individual odds of skipping up were pretty low (10.2%), but if you add those odds with the teams behind them, the teams directly above them, it's pretty likely that someone who's just average instead of bad will make the jump.

The actual mechanism they use for making the selections is four lottery balls, so even though I think I'm decent at math I wouldn't be able to wrap my head around it.

Well, that is confusing. Why not do the lottery process like 10 times, starting at number one and counting up, removing the teams balls at least pick.

 

[93LEAFS]

I say this without reading the thread so I'm probably repeating this question. I'm watching that last night and I wonder how the Blackhawks went from 12 to the top 3, and it was a foregone conclusion, like there was so math equation that hit to make that true. No one explained it and I was confused. The percentages should work as percentages. The lower the percentage, the lower the chance. If you have an 8% shot at the first pick, it shouldn't skyrocket up to 90% because where you were supposed to go didn't happen.

The lottery is done before the order is revealed. It is done going down. So, 1st is decided 1st, 2nd, is decided 2nd (and if the 1st teams number hits again, they re-draw), etc. So, since the top 3 picks are the only ones drawn, once a team isn't at its original allotted spot, it means they have automatically moved into the top 3.

 

[Panthaz89]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, nobody "deserves" high draft picks because they suck and they usually suck continuously because of bad management and rewarding those guys is just wasting talent.

Funny you mention Ottawa, even if they won the lottery they don't even have their pick this year - they'd have gifted Hughes to Colorado. Buffalo? You think a team like that needs more high picks? They ice the most 1st round picks in the league by far, they're icing horrible teams because their management has no idea how to build a team not because they lack high picks

Eichel - Round 1 #2
Reinhart - Round 1 #2
Skinner- Round 1 #7
Dahlin - Round 1 #1
Ristolainen - Round 1 #8
Okoposo - Round 1 #7
Mittelstadt - Round 1 #8
Bogosian - Round 1 #3
Girgensons - Round 1 #14
Thompson - Round 1 #26
Beaulieu - Round 1 #17
Nylander - Round 1 #8
Berglund Round 1 #25

Pominville - Round 2 #55
Larsson - Round 2 #56
McCabe - Round 2# 44
Scandella - Round 2 #55
Montour - Round 2 #55

This might be the worst argument I've seen listing where they were taken is smart when most of these guys are old vets who teams have thrown away and the core guys the Sabres have are good but they got unlucky on vets to lead them. Okposo had concussion problems after joining and Bogosian is broken from so many injuries...Pominville is closer to 40 than 30. Also listing 19-21 year old guys who haven't developed their game fully doesn't mean the Sabres won't have success once all of them start hitting their prime years.

 

[cowboy82nd]

It hasn't prevented a single team from entering a rebuilding period and it has screwed over multiple teams that are/were legitimately bad and need the most help.

So no, it isn't working. It's making things worse.

The draft is not suppose to prevent teams from rebuilding. And with a salary cap that almost guaranteed to happen at some point.

 

[Pizza the Hutt]

Are you ****ing serious? The Canucks don't deserve 1st because they have a Calder candidate??? Are you aware of how bad this team has been the last 4 years?

How many NHL teams have NEVER drafted 1st overall and NEVER won a Stanley Cup while being in the league for 50 years?

One team: Vancouver

The only other teams to have never been awarded 1st and never won a cup are Columbus, Minnesota Nashville, San Jose, and Vegas. All but one have been in the league for less than 20 years.

Oh now you've been bad for 4 years. What a sprawling tragedy. The Canucks had the 1st OA in 1999 and have never been last place since they joined the league. At least you've had a handful of 2OA, count your blessings.

And the Canucks had 3 chances to win the cup - but failed to do so, which has nothing to do with the draft.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

The lottery is done before the order is revealed. It is done going down. So, 1st is decided 1st, 2nd, is decided 2nd (and if the 1st teams number hits again, they re-draw), etc. So, since the top 3 picks are the only ones drawn, once a team isn't at its original allotted spot, it means they have automatically moved into the top 3.

Ok, that makes sense. It still seems dumb though.

 

[Panthaz89]

We haven't seen anything approaching what the Sabres did in 2014/15. So, I would say it is working as a deterrent.

The lotto-system will always have some people unhappy, thinking they got wronged. It's far from perfect, but I don't have an issue with it.

I'll take Mark Stone over all the players the Sabres traded in 2014/15 easy.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The percentages for each non-playoff team should never be fixed, and I think draft spots 1-15 should ALL be based on a lottery. That means even the 15th placed team in the standings has a shot at perhaps the 9th or 10th spot in the draft (just hypothetically speaking).

How would this work?

Let me just stop you here.

If you open up every spot for the lottery, you will increase the chances that the team that finishes last in the standings moves down. How far down they're expected to go depends on how you assign probabilities, but just on a back-of-the-envelope sketch I'd say 5th or 6th. Not to mention, this will sound great until that one time where the worst overall team - one that "does not have a good roster" as you say below - ends up dropping to 14th while three teams originally slotted 9th or lower jump up to the top-3 spots, at which point the lottery clearly screwed over a "more deserving" team at the expense of "less deserving" teams.

1st OA - New Jersey Devils (11.5%) = 11.5%/14 = 0.82% added to EACH REMAINING team
2nd OA - New York Rangers (7.5%) = 7.5%/13 = 0.58% added to EACH REMAINING team
3rd OA - Chicago Blackhawks (2.5%) = 2.5%/12 = 0.21% added to EACH REMAINING team

Proportionately, you end up giving better chances to teams who finish lower in the standings. After the first draw, The last-place team would go from 18.5% to 19.32% [so about a 4.4% improvement] while the last team out would go from 1.0% to 1.82% [or an 82% improvement].. Or, that worse team goes from having a 18.5x better chance over the best team to a 10.6x better chance. Do that a couple times, and you whittle that gap pretty significantly. In effect, you'd destroy the original relationships and keep tipping the relative advantage toward the better teams. That's why whoever wins each drawing has their chances totally removed [treated as a redraw]; it preserves the probability relationships between the remaining teams.

[Also, in your scenario you're not spreading 7.5% for the Rangers; you're spreading their 7.5% + 0.82% they got from the Devils = 8.32% across the remaining teams, and so on.]

Colorado at the 2017 draft should have received a significant lottery % increase increase in their lottery odds than team behind them (Vancouver). There was a -21 total points differential between 1st and 2nd that year. Arizona and New Jersey in the same year (3rd and 4th worst teams) should have both had the same odds %, they had the same amount of points (70). But, Arizona had higher odds because ROW's. I am proposing that the lottery should be points-based, not based on the standings.

I think this would not only help the teams that do "tank", or in better words, do not have a good roster lineup

That's the "argument" for doing what's being done now: teams that don't have a good roster are "obviously" tanking, and we don't want to give incentives for that. [Ignoring that one team getting worse is making someone else better - probably a team headed to the playoffs, which makes the playoffs better.] Going to a points-based system would likely incentivize tanking with a better chance, and apparently preserving the sanctity of how the entry draft order works is much more important than encouraging getting the best players into the playoffs where teams compete for the most prized trophy in professional sports.

 

[TorontoTrades]

I think they should change it to the bottom 9 teams for 3 spots. Tough to see teams like Chicago jump from 12 to 3. Not that I'm not happy for them I really didnt care how it shook out but when you could be a win or two from a playoff spot and get a premiere pick makes you reconsider it.

It does function as a deterrent to tanking. Clearly the odds have made it so uncertain of where you will pick.

 

[Ulysses31]

i thinks its good, rewards tanking a bit but not too much

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Ok, that makes sense. It still seems dumb though.

Well, just giving it to the worst overall team apparently incentivized teams to tank, and doing a drawing where one (1) team could move up four (4) sports still incentivized teams to tank, so we needed a system that doesn't incentivize teams to tank and gives everyone not in the playoffs a chance to pick 1st overall because of some weird notion about "fairness" - which is how we got to here.

 

[CraigsList]

Let me just stop you here.

If you open up every spot for the lottery, you will increase the chances that the team that finishes last in the standings moves down. How far down they're expected to go depends on how you assign probabilities, but just on a back-of-the-envelope sketch I'd say 5th or 6th. Not to mention, this will sound great until that one time where the worst overall team - one that "does not have a good roster" as you say below - ends up dropping to 14th while three teams originally slotted 9th or lower jump up to the top-3 spots, at which point the lottery clearly screwed over a "more deserving" team at the expense of "less deserving" teams.


Proportionately, you end up giving better chances to teams who finish lower in the standings. After the first draw, The last-place team would go from 18.5% to 19.32% [so about a 4.4% improvement] while the last team out would go from 1.0% to 1.82% [or an 82% improvement].. Or, that worse team goes from having a 18.5x better chance over the best team to a 10.6x better chance. Do that a couple times, and you whittle that gap pretty significantly. In effect, you'd destroy the original relationships and keep tipping the relative advantage toward the better teams. That's why whoever wins each drawing has their chances totally removed [treated as a redraw]; it preserves the probability relationships between the remaining teams.

[Also, in your scenario you're not spreading 7.5% for the Rangers; you're spreading their 7.5% + 0.82% they got from the Devils = 8.32% across the remaining teams, and so on.]


That's the "argument" for doing what's being done now: teams that don't have a good roster are "obviously" tanking, and we don't want to give incentives for that. [Ignoring that one team getting worse is making someone else better - probably a team headed to the playoffs, which makes the playoffs better.] Going to a points-based system would likely incentivize tanking with a better chance, and apparently preserving the sanctity of how the entry draft order works is much more important than encouraging getting the best players into the playoffs where teams compete for the most prized trophy in professional sports.

It was just a rough sketch but I do see what you mean. I feel the draft system for just 3 spots is flawed, if you move on from 1 lottery-based spot to 3, then you might as well do them for all of them. Thank you for correcting me about the draft percentages, I totally forgot to add the the new percentages after each round to each team. And, I would agree that the draft percentages should be allocated based on draft spot, not evenly distributed like I mentioned.

 

[Rob Brown]

Isn't trading good players to set yourself up for the future what "tanking" is though? AKA rebuilding. My point is that having ZERO CHANCE of first overall didn't stop the Sens from "tanking."

Unless you consider "tanking" somehow different from rebuilding. If so, how? You just established that you don't think selling off all the top talent for futures is tanking. Do you think players are intentionally dangling their multi-million dollar contracts by throwing games?

Tanking, to me anyway, means purposely losing in order to improve your draft position. They didn't have a first, so I don't think they were actively trying to lose games (or tank) to improve that.

 

[Spawn]

They never should have made changes. It was an overreaction to a once in a life time situation where the Oilers defied logic in being simultaneously so bad and also lucky winning 2 lotteries in 3 seasons.

 

[LDF]

since there was a lot of hate toward the Bhawks.....

how many times has the Bhawks won the lottery where they picked #1

 

[CraigsList]

They never should have made changes. It was an overreaction to a once in a life time situation where the Oilers defied logic in being simultaneously so bad and also lucky winning 2 lotteries in 3 seasons.

It wasn't an overreaction if Edmonton's has dropped spots over the past few drafts. That was the goal, to get teams that consistently were getting top picks to stop picking at the top. The only reason why you guys aren't in the bottom 5 anymore is because of #97.

15/16 - Edmonton drops two (2 to 4) - Doesn't get Laine and gets Puljujarvi
16/17 - Made playoffs
17/18 - Edmonton drops one spot (9 to 10) - Doesn't matter, I think Bouchard was on their list regardless
18/19 - Edmonton drops one spot (7 to 8) - ?

 

[Koivu11]

The current system is too random and was an overreaction to the Oilers getting so many first overall picks. It’ll be changed eventually.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'll ask, because I've pointed this out a few times now in other posts: why are people so bothered by the idea of teams tanking?

As I always point out in a lot of discussions, this isn't Lake Wobegone; every team can't be above average - and every team can't be above average in the standings every year. For every team that's really damn good, someone's going to be crap. No matter how much you go to great lengths to try to force teams to not be crap, it's going to happen; why not realize it and let it happen, and quit obsessing over zomg, they're teh suck, Ibet deywuz tanking! I don't get this need to punish all teams who are bad on the premise that they might be tanking, just because a couple of teams did tank.

So what if a team wants to go into the toilet for a few years and try to snag high picks? It's no guarantee of future success, and it's sure as hell not some guarantee to win a Cup or even get into the Finals. Hell, it's not even a guarantee that the guy you take 1st overall is going to be a bona fide superstar. [In one notable instance, both teams trying to tank for a "surefire superstar" picked guys who went on to become spectacular busts.] If a team wants to sell off at the deadline and go into the crapper, that likely means they're moving guys to teams interested in getting into the playoffs. That makes playoffs teams deeper and better and more competitive, and the playoffs a much higher quality product than if teams had to hang on to players for obtuse reasons about the integrity of how the draft order is selected.

All teams are mostly decent and a lot of good players sit at home in the spring, or a few teams go to shit so more better players go play for the Cup? Well, maybe some of you are more concerned with the integrity of regular-season standings and the sanctity of the draft order, but I'd much rather have 16 loaded playoff rosters and 15 teams that go to crap for about 20 regular season games, and watch the fun that unfolds as guys go to battle for the Cup. If that means teams are tanking for the possible promise of a guy who maybe gets them to the playoffs in 4 years and with some help and some luck threatening for the Cup in a few more, ... hey, good luck to 'em, some of them are going to fail along the way and they'll have to figure out how to deal with it.

 

[Cheddabombs]

hey, Devils fan here

yes it is.

 

[93LEAFS]

I'll take Mark Stone over all the players the Sabres traded in 2014/15 easy.

Yes, because a team like the Senators without their 1st round pick was trying to bottom out. Entirely comparable.

 

[Seattle Totems]

Oh now you've been bad for 4 years. What a sprawling tragedy. The Canucks had the 1st OA in 1999 and have never been last place since they joined the league. At least you've had a handful of 2OA, count your blessings.

And the Canucks had 3 chances to win the cup - but failed to do so, which has nothing to do with the draft.

False

They were not awarded 1st and did not draft 1st in 1999.

50 years. No 1st and no Cup. No team in the league comes close to this double drought.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

It just makes 0 sense that a team finishing dead last has a greater chance of picking 4th than picking in the top 3.

 

[Doctor No]

They were not awarded 1st and did not draft 1st in 1999.

He didn't claim that the Canucks drafted first in 1999. He claimed that "The Canucks had the 1st OA in 1999". Which they did (and traded it).

 

[Dirty Dan]

I think its generous enough as it it. tanking should never be an option

 

[Seattle Totems]

He didn't claim that the Canucks drafted first in 1999. He claimed that "The Canucks had the 1st OA in 1999". Which they did (and traded it).

His post was disingenuous. The fact that they were able to briefly trade for it once is totally irrelevant to the point that the league has never awarded it to them.

On a side note it's interesting that the Canucks finished 3rd and 2nd worst in 1998 and 1999 respectively and also fell in both of those drafts. The Canucks have actually fallen every time they've finished bottom five with a lottery in effect.