Is the draft lottery working?

[Djp]

It's actually proof that the lottery works by weakening the advantage of tanking. ... Late Feb - Early March, Chicago was in line to pick 4th in the lottery. Other teams fans were chanting "lose for Hughes". The Hawks GM said they wouldn't do that. The Hawk coach said building a better atmosphere was more important than a pick a few slots higher. The played hard, put themselves in the playoff hunt.
The team and management were essentially rewarded for playing to win. Should be a lesson for all future "lose for XXXX" teams.

some flaws in this argument

1. Chicago being a large city has advantages in UFA market

2. team has a recent history of winning the cup and still have a few of those key players with the team

3. most importantly---the draft after 1 and 2 is pretty similar. I think we would have seen a difference if their was generational talent or a big drop off after the top 4 or 5.a f

A factor in play with Buffalo and with Ottawa was that core players were hitting UFA and the teams didnt want them to walk for nothing.

 

[Djp]

Alternatively, they can keep it the way it is, but allow teams to only jump up 5 spots like before. That way, the good teams could still win a lottery for an upgrade, but they wouldn't get such an enormous swing just via luck.

they did that a few years ago when I think NJ was a winner and moved up 4 spots.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

How are you unable to comprehend that this idiotic and completely unnecessary system that took something that was a ridiculously minor problem and turned it into a gigantic problem by giving half the league skin in the game had the unintended consequence of costing a market that is struggling a franchise center who could've improved the team to the point the market would care about them again and they would be saved?

1. That's a hell of a long sentence to parse through.

2. I have been vocally against more "fixes" to the lottery, or any "we're going to prevent tanking" ideas, or any altruistic-like "young talent shouldn't be squandered on bad teams" notions.

3. You presume that in whatever retroactive "solution" you offer, it would have resulted in [team] getting [player] which you can't prove, but assume it's true and then run with to draw conclusions. I expect proof of the assumptions going in where they're not obvious or reasonable, and there's certainly zero proof that Matthews would have gone to Arizona in any reasonable revised lottery structure, much less that going to Arizona would save the franchise given the long-term damage inflicted by Balsillie's attempt to forcibly relocate than real without the league's consent.

 

[93LEAFS]

The draft lottery looks so fake. Don’t trust it at all. Why can’t they just put all the allotted balls with team logos on them and run them in the machine that way so everyone can see the draw. What is it with the 4 numbers and some guy looks on a sheet and says who gets the pick. So bogus. If there’s 14 teams and 1001 combinations, how come the guy finds the team in 2 seconds? Such BS.

Have you ever heard of ctrl+f?

 

[sabremike]

1. That's a hell of a long sentence to parse through.

2. I have been vocally against more "fixes" to the lottery, or any "we're going to prevent tanking" ideas, or any altruistic-like "young talent shouldn't be squandered on bad teams" notions.

3. You presume that in whatever retroactive "solution" you offer, it would have resulted in [team] getting [player] which you can't prove, but assume it's true and then run with to draw conclusions. I expect proof of the assumptions going in where they're not obvious or reasonable, and there's certainly zero proof that Matthews would have gone to Arizona in any reasonable revised lottery structure, much less that going to Arizona would save the franchise given the long-term damage inflicted by Balsillie's attempt to forcibly relocate than real without the league's consent.

OK here goes: If there was no stupid draft lottery the Arizona Cyotees would have a franchise center named Jack Eichel.

 

[HolyGhost]

Like the fact we did not get 100 threads screaming about the fact for 2 in 3 seasons the same team will be getting the first overall pick. When I say that I thought their would be a meltdown on this board

 

[Ciao]

OK here goes: If there was no stupid draft lottery the Arizona Cyotees would have a franchise center named Jack Eichel.

. . . and with the lottery, the Yotes could instead have a franchise playmaking winger named Mitch Marner.

I'm not understanding the point of your argument.

 

[sabremike]

. . . and with the lottery, the Yotes could instead have a franchise playmaking winger named Mitch Marner.

I'm not understanding the point of your argument.

And they also could've had Barzal. Strome was the consensus 3rd best player in that draft, anyone in that spot would've picked him. They wouldn't have been in that spot if there was no lottery, they would've been second and drafted the unanimous 2nd best player in the draft, which was Jack. The lottery completely defeats the entire purpose of the draft, which is to give the worst teams the first shot at new talent so that they can improve.

 

[Ciao]

I think the whole idea is to prevent teams from gaming the system.

If there is an arbitrary number, whether that's 31st, 29th, 21st etc that determines whether a franchise is in or out of the lottery for the 1OA pick, then there will always be an opportunity to purposely try to finish within the threshold, and a corresponding unfairness to the teams that finished next higher on the standings and are therefore ineligible.

Playoff qualification is a good cutoff for the draft lottery because it is not an arbitrary number. There is always a strong incentive to make the playoffs.

Perhaps the weight of the odds need to be adjusted, but the concept of gradually increasing odds for non-playoff teams is much better than some arbitrary lottery qualification threshold.

 

[Ciao]

And they also could've had Barzal. Strome was the consensus 3rd best player in that draft, anyone in that spot would've picked him. They wouldn't have been in that spot if there was no lottery, they would've been second and drafted the unanimous 2nd best player in the draft, which was Jack. The lottery completely defeats the entire purpose of the draft, which is to give the worst teams the first shot at new talent so that they can improve.

I still don't get it.

What is fundamentally different about access to the consensus #2 pick from access to the consensus #3 pick? Either one could be a hit or a miss.

What if Eichel had planned out poorly, and Strome had been the player the Coyotes thought they were getting?

Would those facts change your argument?

Remember, the outcome of the draft changes every year. I don't know what you might say about the Nail Yakupov or Alexandre Daigle draft years.

 

[TheOtherOne]

The lottery completely defeats the entire purpose of the draft, which is to give the worst teams the first shot at new talent so that they can improve.

Even if the lottery was completely random, the 15 worst teams in the league would have the first 15 shots at new talent. So all of the worst teams have a better chance to improve than all of the best teams.

I wish people would think a little harder before making such extreme claims. The only way to "completely defeat the ENTIRE PURPOSE" would be to make the entire draft random, 1-31. The best you can say is that it "weakens" that purpose, and then we can debate about whether that weakening is worth the secondary purpose of discouraging tanking.

 

[CDN24]

And they also could've had Barzal. Strome was the consensus 3rd best player in that draft, anyone in that spot would've picked him. They wouldn't have been in that spot if there was no lottery, they would've been second and drafted the unanimous 2nd best player in the draft, which was Jack. The lottery completely defeats the entire purpose of the draft, which is to give the worst teams the first shot at new talent so that they can improve.

Maybe the problem is less the player they selected in Strome than the team who selected him. he went from 0.30 PPG in Arizona to 0.88 PPG with the hawks.

 

[Space umpire]

some flaws in this argument

1. Chicago being a large city has advantages in UFA market

2. team has a recent history of winning the cup and still have a few of those key players with the team

3. most importantly---the draft after 1 and 2 is pretty similar. I think we would have seen a difference if their was generational talent or a big drop off after the top 4 or 5.a f

A factor in play with Buffalo and with Ottawa was that core players were hitting UFA and the teams didnt want them to walk for nothing.

Agree and disagree.
1) Having top level home growns mean you can be more selective toward top UFA's.
2) Nothing to do with my post
3) I think most have this draft in 2 top groups. 1 and 2 and then 3 through 8 or 9. Where Chicago was slotted would have had them outside of that.
4) Then create a winning atmosphere. A lot of the reason players leave is they feel there is no hope of winning. Then of course there has to be an owner willing to pay. I'm not sure Bob and Panarin go to the Panthers but without an owner willing to pay them it is not even a conversation. ... Nobody is talking about UFA's to Ottawa. ... for a reason.

 

[sabremike]

Even if the lottery was completely random, the 15 worst teams in the league would have the first 15 shots at new talent. So all of the worst teams have a better chance to improve than all of the best teams.

I wish people would think a little harder before making such extreme claims. The only way to "completely defeat the ENTIRE PURPOSE" would be to make the entire draft random, 1-31. The best you can say is that it "weakens" that purpose, and then we can debate about whether that weakening is worth the secondary purpose of discouraging tanking.

You are being pedantic here. When you have the worst team fall to 4th while the 13th best team moves ahead of that's absurd and does largely defeat the purpose. If you are the worst team you should get the first pick, second worst gets second pick and so on. The idea that this system is necessary to combat a situation of teams being designed to lose that has happened exactly twice in league history (84 Pens, 15 Sabres) is absurd. And for you fans of "What if" scenarios: if there had been a lottery in 1984 and the Pens lost it the team literally would've ceased to exist many years ago.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

I do not agree with this at all, in fact I think you have it completely backwards. IMO These middle teams are some of the best places to get high picks. It used to be that if you were in the middle you’d get stuck, not good enough to win but you couldn’t get high end players to get better. The only things teams in the middle could do if they really wanted to build a contender was to tank, so they could get some top 5 picks.


Also, unlike the teams that are just bad, these middle teams that make themselves bad on purpose typically have good management and don’t end up wasting top talent the way perennially bad teams do. So if anything it's a better place to send top talent.

How good is their management if they end up in the middle? It just means their rebuild failed. They didn't do enough with their top talent after they brought them in in the first place.
Everybody has got to make tough decisions. If middle teams stay the course, then they are responsible for the outcome.
Just like if you decide to rebuild, you except the risk that it might not work out. That includes never getting out of the bottom of the standing even with top picks. That also includes ending up in the middle of the standings and not going any further.

 

[lomiller1]

some flaws in this argument

1. Chicago being a large city has advantages in UFA market

2. team has a recent history of winning the cup and still have a few of those key players with the team

3. most importantly---the draft after 1 and 2 is pretty similar. I think we would have seen a difference if their was generational talent or a big drop off after the top 4 or 5.a f

A factor in play with Buffalo and with Ottawa was that core players were hitting UFA and the teams didnt want them to walk for nothing.

If Chicago were seriously intent on building back to a cup contending team from where they are now under system where teams in their spot are not included in the lottery, the only realistic way for them to do it is to tank. They would need to sell off all their cup winning veterans, become as bad as possible for 2-3 years so they can get a couple top 3 picks to build around.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

OK here goes: If there was no stupid draft lottery the Arizona Cyotees would have a franchise center named Jack Eichel.

Now, prove that this would have been the solution to everything that ails the Coyotes. Show your work, don't rely on supposition.

 

[lomiller1]

How good is their management if they end up in the middle?

If teams in the middle had good management they’d be tanking (without a lottery). Getting elite forwards outside the top 10 picks is almost entirely luck, it’s not something you have much control over, so if you are in that middle range you are not getting elite players though good management.

 

[sabremike]

Now, prove that this would have been the solution to everything that ails the Coyotes. Show your work, don't rely on supposition.

1) Nothing would be guaranteed but would you seriously argue they wouldn't be in a much better position if they had Jack.

2) This isn't an algebra equation, it's a message board.

3) I can see you are pretty much the Monty Python "Argument" skit in message board form, so to to quote Kenny Omega: "I must bid you adieu, goodbye and goodnight!".

 

[glenwo2]

I don't think a team should be able to win the lottery twice within a 5 year period. I'm not just saying that because NJ won, just my honest opinion.

Of course you're not.

 

[EXTRAS]

It's fun. I like it. Draft lottery makes for excitement.

 

[Frank Drebin]

It's actually proof that the lottery works by weakening the advantage of tanking. ... Late Feb - Early March, Chicago was in line to pick 4th in the lottery. Other teams fans were chanting "lose for Hughes". The Hawks GM said they wouldn't do that. The Hawk coach said building a better atmosphere was more important than a pick a few slots higher. The played hard, put themselves in the playoff hunt.
The team and management were essentially rewarded for playing to win. Should be a lesson for all future "lose for XXXX" teams.

Exactly. Like Montreal who battled for the last playoff spot till game 81 and was rewarded with the #15 pick.

It was just a fluke Chicago won the lottery, not some sort of karmic reward

 

[NyQuil]

You are being pedantic here. When you have the worst team fall to 4th while the 13th best team moves ahead of that's absurd and does largely defeat the purpose. If you are the worst team you should get the first pick, second worst gets second pick and so on. The idea that this system is necessary to combat a situation of teams being designed to lose that has happened exactly twice in league history (84 Pens, 15 Sabres) is absurd. And for you fans of "What if" scenarios: if there had been a lottery in 1984 and the Pens lost it the team literally would've ceased to exist many years ago.

You forget that the lottery was invented because the Senators lost on purpose to acquire Alexandre Daigle.

 

[lomiller1]

Here are the draft position of the top 10 scoring centers (listed as such by natural stat trick) over the last 3 years. The only one take outside the top 22 is Giroux and how lucky was it for the flyers that he was still there? If you want an elite F, especially a center you need to pick in the top 10 or get very lucky with someone who's overlooked. This is what makes it nearly impossible for teams in the middle to get to the top.

Player	Team	Position	drafted
Connor McDavid	EDM	C	1
Sidney Crosby	PIT	C	1
Leon Draisaitl	EDM	C	3
Nathan MacKinnon	COL	C	1
Claude Giroux	PHI	C, R	22
Evgeni Malkin	PIT	C	2
John Tavares	NYI, TOR	C	1
Nicklas Backstrom	WSH	C	4
Tyler Seguin	DAL	C	2
Mark Scheifele	WPG	C	7

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[glenwo2]

It's not working anymore. The Oilers haven't won in 4 years!

Might be because this guy isn't there anymore :

To think that both Hughes and Kakko dodged the Oilers bullet, and they are guaranteed to live a millionaire's lifestyle for the rest of their career in the NY Metro area, while McDavid has 8 more years of no playoffs to look forward to in the barren tundra known as Edmonton.

I think him being in Edmonton is more Taylor Hall's fault than anything else.

Had he already been in NJ, so would McDavid.

Hasn't worked very well for this guy:

And to think...he was one ping pong ball away from being an absolute God in Toronto.

Poor guy is going to waste away his prime and his career in no-man's land.

First chance he enters Free Agency, he needs to get the F out of dodge and go somewhere....ANYWHERE but the Oilers.

Three spots. Kings had a horrible year and could of really benefited from kakko or Hughes to help the rebuild.

Devils had a horrible year and will benefit from Hughes helping the rebuild AND Hall re-signing with NJ.

Nothing wrong with the Lottery from my end.