The Silver Plan: A Draft Lottery Alternative

MarkT

Heretic
Nov 11, 2017
4,013
4,960
I dislike how the current draft lottery system encourages fans to root for their team to lose at the end of the season to improve their draft position. I also dislike the concept of using random chance to determine draft position, especially something as important as who gets the #1 pick. I used to think the best solution was the Gold Plan. However, there are a couple of problems with it.

First, teams in different conferences can be eliminated at vastly different times, regardless of their points total, due to conference strength, which can change from year to year. Second, and more importantly, under the Gold Plan, if a team is unlikely to make the playoffs, fans are incentivized to cheer for early losses so the team is eliminated from contention as soon as possible.

With these issues in mind, let me introduce the tentatively named Silver Plan.

How It Works​

Starting in game 63, every point a team earns is banked as Silver Points. If the team then misses the playoffs, their Silver Points are subtracted from their total points, determining their draft position.

For example, in 2024, after 62 games, the Buffalo Sabres had 62 points. Over the next 20 games, they earned 22 Silver Points, giving them a final adjusted total of 40 points for draft positioning. Ties would be broken by regulation wins (more wins = better draft position) and the other usual tie-breakers.

Here's how that would work for the rest of the teams last year (OG = original draft order, NEW = Silver Plan Draft Order):

TEAM
62GP
SP
TOTAL
OG
NEW
DIF
Chicago
35​
17​
18​
2​
1
+1
San Jose
37​
10​
27​
1​
2
-1
Ottawa
54​
24​
30​
7​
3
+4
Arizona/Utah
55​
22​
33​
6​
4
+2
Columbus
52​
14​
38​
4​
5
-1
Anaheim
49​
10​
39​
3​
6
-3
Buffalo
62​
22​
40​
11​
7
+4
Pittsburgh
64​
24​
40​
14​
8
+6
Montreal
58​
18​
40​
5​
9
-4
Minnesota
64​
23​
41​
13​
10
+3
St. Louis
67​
25​
42​
16​
11
+5
New Jersey
64​
17​
47​
10​
12
-2
Calgary
67​
14​
53​
9​
13
-4
Seattle
67​
14​
53​
8​
14
-6
Detroit
72​
19​
53​
15​
15
0
Philadelphia
71​
16​
55​
12​
16
-4

Why It Works​

The biggest advantage is that it incentivizes teams to win even if they are out of playoff contention, at least for the final 20 games of the season. As shown in the table, Pittsburgh would have been rewarded for its late-season surge instead of being punished with a worse draft position. Meanwhile, Montreal’s collapse would have cost them rather than helping.

While this system changes the draft order, it does not dramatically alter the top selections. Outside of Montreal, the top seven teams remain the same, just reordered. Additionally, this system benefits teams that consistently hover around the playoff line. Under the current system, such teams rarely land top talent, keeping them stuck in the “mushy middle.” Under the Silver Plan, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Minnesota would have earned top-10 picks despite finishing near the top of the wild card race.

This system could also influence how teams approach the final stretch of the season. Columbus, Anaheim, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Montreal, Minnesota, and St. Louis would have been in a dog fight for draft positions 5-11. Suddenly, those games would carry more significance, energizing fans and motivating players to compete harder.

Think of the difference in narrative, too. Imagine Chicago going on a late season run to claim the #1 draft pick, rather than it just being awarded by the luck of the draw and as a reward for being terrible.

Now, the Gold Plan offers similar benefits, but the Silver Plan is more consistent. Every team starts accumulating Silver Points in game 63 (around the trade deadline), eliminating the need to rely on uneven playoff elimination across conferences and divisions. Teams also have 20 games to accumulate points, whereas under the Gold Plan, teams may get as few as 0–15 games, with most getting fewer than 10. As a result, the Gold Plan's benefits apply only to a small fraction of games, even for teams certain to miss the playoffs. An underrated flaw of the Gold Plan would be those last games leading up to mathematical elimination, where hardcore fans would be desperate for their team to lose.

Also, under the Gold Plan in 2023/24, Arizona/Utah would have received the second overall pick despite finishing with 77 points, while Chicago and San Jose had 52 and 47 points, respectively. San Jose, despite finishing dead last, would have dropped to the third draft position. Under the Silver Plan, Arizona would have needed to win 13 of its final 20 games just to match Chicago’s point total. It would then have had to win more games than Chicago over the remaining seven games to earn that 2nd draft slot. This scenario would be technically possible but extremely unlikely. Under the Silver Plan, the worst teams would still receive the best draft picks.

One possible drawback is that it could reduce trade activity at the deadline since teams would still be incentivized to win. However, while the trade deadline is exciting, a league where every team has a reason to compete in every game is far more compelling.

Finally, of course for the first 62 games of the season, fans of bottom-ranked teams may still hope for losses to improve their chances at a high pick. This is a flaw, but any system that rewards bad teams will have it. From what I’ve seen, this system is the best way to reward struggling teams without excessively incentivizing losing.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Death, taxes, and HF members coming up with ever more convoluted ways to not give the worst teams the highest draft picks.

I’m not reading all that.
Death, taxes, and someone making baseless assumptions about something they refuse to read. I'll help you out - in this system Chicago and San Jose would have drafted first and second last year, so how exactly is this a "convoluted ways to not give the worst teams the highest draft picks." Maybe read things before criticizing them next time.
It's a silly idea because bad teams want to sell off assets at the deadline to accrue assets for the future, but you're effectively punishing teams for doing that by having them have to win games to get the #1 pick after the deadline.
I addressed that in the second last paragraph.
How would you factor in strength of schedule differences among basement teams down the stretch?
By giving teams 20 games so it evens out. It would of course not be perfect, but note that strength of schedule would have less meaning in this system since every team would be trying their best to win every night, so games against non-playoff teams might not be any easier. In fact, teams with a secure playoff spot might play less hard than teams jockeying for draft position.
 
The argument makes no sense. A team is selling at the deadline to accrue assets for the future and have more chances at drafting and developing talent. Punishing that because "it's more exciting for teams to be competing in games" is silly.
I'm struggling to understand how having more competitive hockey games is a silly concept.
 
If an organization and fan base are willing to endure tanking they should be rewarded for such. Also teams would just start manipulating this point system by putting players on LTIR until after the delineation date to manipulate the standings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grate n Colorful Oz
What exactly makes it trash? I don't mind spending time on this. I find this kind of thing interesting and hoped it would spark some thoughtful discussion. So far, not so much on that second part.

I'm struggling to understand how having more competitive hockey games is a silly concept.

You're complaining about the lack of "thoughtful discussion" while being thoroughly obtuse and dismissive of any argument against your idea.

I don't know how you could seriously read my post of "bad teams want to accrue assets to help with their rebuild, so punishing them to do that because 'competitive games are more fun' is silly" with "how is having more competitive games silly?". Picking short term value so 2 bad teams are playing harder in meaningless games over a team's ability to properly rebuild and accrue assets to get better is insanely dumb.
 
That's on them, not the system. The system is designed to give the worst teams the best chance at improving and it currently does that.
And it has the side effect of rewarding teams for losing, and rewarding more teams for this as the season progresses. So it absolutely is on the system. Do you think fans would cheer for their team to lose if the system didn't incentivize them to do so?

With this system I was attempting to give the worst teams a good draft pick while still keeping games competitive at the end of the season.
 
Alternative plan:
1) Scrap the draft altogether
2) Increase the salary limit for ELCs
3) Tell the CHL to get f***ed and allow 18/19-year-olds to play in the AHL
4) Make everybody UFA eligible by age 24
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrLouniverse
You're complaining about the lack of "thoughtful discussion" while being thoroughly obtuse and dismissive of any argument against your idea.

I don't know how you could seriously read my post of "bad teams want to accrue assets to help with their rebuild, so punishing them to do that because 'competitive games are more fun' is silly" with "how is having more competitive games silly?". Picking short term value so 2 bad teams are playing harder in meaningless games over a team's ability to properly rebuild and accrue assets to get better is insanely dumb.
Yeah that was childlish, sorry. I found it annoying to put a bunch of thought into something and then see that the first comment with a bunch of likes is an incorrect assumption by someone who didn't even read it. I don't usually post in the main forums, so I'm not used to those kind of responses.

Anyway, you seem to be assuming teams would never trade away players to accrue assets under this system. If GMs agree with you, they would simply trade away their players and hope the remaining players can win enough games to get a good draft pick. If they want to prioritize the draft, like if there's a Connor McDavid available, they could load up for that race. It would depend on the GM and the context. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to be implying.
 
If an organization and fan base are willing to endure tanking they should be rewarded for such. Also teams would just start manipulating this point system by putting players on LTIR until after the delineation date to manipulate the standings.
Tanking teams would still do quite well in this system, as you can see.

I honestly didn't consider the LTIR thing, but I think that issue is a bit overblown. I can't imagine many players are going to agree to go on LTIR to help with that kind of scheme. Hockey players generally want to play hockey, not pretend to be injured.
 
This is very well thought out and I think it is an improvement on the Gold Plan. I still prefer a straight lottery.

The main thing to me is that any draft system is in place in order to give teams that are bad now the best chances to be good in the future. It's an idea that makes a ton of sense in closed leagues with no promotion/relegation and no academy system. Yes, a system where draft order is a direct function of your place in the standings does incentivize teams to lose, which sucks. The Gold Plan and your Silver Plan do not change this fact, they just shift the incentives on when to lose.

In both systems, you are encouraged to be extremely bad at the start of the season. The Silver System cleans up the Gold in this regard as you point out by standardizing what the inflection point is for every team, but the directive is still clear -- lose as much as you can for the first 62 games and then win as much as you can afterwards.

It does still give you 20 games of not cheering for your team to lose which certainly is not nothing. I think that is outweighed by the fact that (especially in a sport as streaky/sequencing heavy as hockey) it allows for "runs" to affect the final draft order in a way too pronounced way. Why does it matter whether a win came in the first 62 games of the year vs. the last 20? Teams that stay on pace for the playoffs in the first 3/4s of the season but fall off down the stretch like Seattle get doubly punished while teams like Pittsburgh who make a late push but fall short are doubly rewarded. For the teams fighting at the bottom, the timing of an injury or a really hot/cold goalie month becomes even more of a factor.

Ultimately the only way to fix tanking is to get rid of a draft system. That comes with its whole own set of problems though, as a cursory glance at European Soccer or the MLB's international posting system would give you. Absent that, the two best ways to mitigate it are:

1) massaging the lottery odds to put exactly the right amount of randomness into the system. While I think the NHL is closer than the NBA, I don't think either league has found the exact balance here yet and I think the NHL went backwards with its most recent set of changes.
2) Having the nature of your sport be such that one individual player cannot make that outsized a difference. This is where the NBA's biggest problem is.

TLDR: I like this mechanically more than the Gold Plan, but at a broader "philosophical" level I still don't like either.
 

Ad

Ad