The Silver Plan: A Draft Lottery Alternative

[Beau Knows]

As for your scenario, I can't imagine any team doing that.

It would be the smart thing to do, and the fans would be cheering for it to happen.

What player is going to agree to be "rested" when they are in the hunt for the playoffs?

You've always got a handful of players playing through injuries, especially down the stretch. It wouldn't be that unreasonable for a coach to tell those players to sit out and get healthy.

And even so, if they're anywhere close to the playoff line, there's no way for them to get the #1 pick. If they win enough games to bank the necessary "Silver Points" they'd get into the playoffs instead.

If I'm understanding your concept correctly, the silver points start after game 20 right? So if you're in contention down the stretch, you could throw say the 5 games before that starts, ruining your playoff odds. Then you start trying to win again once the silver points are available.

Now, in that once every 10-20 years Crosby or McDavid scenario, I could see bottom teams actually loading up at the deadline in the hopes of winning enough games to earn that. But bottom teams would do crazy things in a Crosby or McDavid regardless of the system.

To me this seems like it would lead to an even more comical outcome. You'd have terrible teams risking their futures trading away picks they can't afford to lose, so that they can load up on rentals and have a shot at the #1 pick. On the other hand, you might have bubble teams trying to lose games before the silver points begin so that they can get the #1 pick themselves. After all that the basement teams that risked it all and didn't get that pick now have even bleaker looking futures. Imagine the state of a team like Arizona a few years after a failed attempt at loading up to get Bedard?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Is it a good thing or a bad thing when fans of a team are hoping their their favorite team loses?

lol, how does this make a team better in last 20 games. It doesn’t.

 

[MarkT]

It would be the smart thing to do, and the fans would be cheering for it to happen.



You've always got a handful of players playing through injuries, especially down the stretch. It wouldn't be that unreasonable for a coach to tell those players to sit out and get healthy.



If I'm understanding your concept correctly, the silver points start after game 20 right? So if you're in contention down the stretch, you could throw say the 5 games before that starts, ruining your playoff odds. Then you start trying to win again once the silver points are available.



To me this seems like it would lead to an even more comical outcome. You'd have terrible teams risking their futures trading away picks they can't afford to lose, so that they can load up on rentals and have a shot at the #1 pick. On the other hand, you might have bubble teams trying to lose games before the silver points begin so that they can get the #1 pick themselves. After all that he basement teams that risked it all and didn't get that pick now have even bleaker looking futures. Imagine the state of a team like Arizona after a failed attempt at loading up?

I appreciate your genuinely engaging with the idea.

I agree that there is the potential for fans and maybe GMs to want teams to lose leading up to game 63 in this system, but I just can't imagine coaches and players being on board with that. The only way I know to genuinely tank in the NHL is to trade away your good players and keep your good prospects in the minors. I have never seen any evidence that NHL player will agree to stay on the injured list when they could be playing.

As for your scenario, if we're talking about getting the #1 pick, it still wouldn't work. Let's take an example from last season. Say New Jersey decided last season they wanted to go for a high draft pick rather than the playoffs. In the real season, they were at 64 point at game 62. So we'll imagine that they contrived to lose the four games before game 62 (and we'll imagine they won those games in real life), putting them at 54 points. Chicago ended up with the #1 pick in my system with a total of 18 points. So to go from 54 to 17, which would mean going something like 18-1-1 in the final 20. Possible, but extremely unlikely. This is why the plan you proposed wouldn't make much sense.

For the loading up thing, is it any more comical than what the Sabres and Oilers did to try to get McDavid? And I'd wager those teams hurt themselves more long-term than they would have by loading up. But please, show me a system where bad GMs won't do stupid things to get a Crosby or McDavid.

 

[Djp]

Ivr sern as version of yh is d talked about before teearding comp er ting yrams so tjry ste outright tanking.

This does not factor in.
.

1. Teans who are out, like boston, sell off a bunch of players to rebuild

2. Differences in dchrfu are e. Some teams can have very j.g ard pi r very easy schedules like a metro team having home and home games with wash and car who have wrapped up their playoff spot while others p ln syerd them early when they were competing

3. Playets who have been battling nagging injuries that may need surgery will do it right after tdl instead of post playoffs.

4.war and peace was shorter...

 

[MarkT]

lol, how does this make a team better in last 20 games. It doesn’t.

All it does is make those games more meaningful and give fans a reason to cheer for the team to win. I think it reasonable that if the fans are excited and the games are meaningful, the players will play a bit better, but that's not the goal. Fan engagement is the goal of this system.

 

[ponder719]

Is it a good thing or a bad thing when fans of a team are hoping their their favorite team loses? I think it's a bad thing. It's bad the for fans. It's bad for the league. It's bad for the players, who feed off crowd energy, and playing in games that matter. It leads to general disengagement for potentially half the fans in the league, with the hope that those fans will come back when things start to matter again.

As a fan of a team who is hoping my favorite team does a good bit more losing over the next few games, I would, absolutely, 100% of the time, prefer short term pain for long term gain. Now, I may be a weirdo in that I am capable of denying myself immediate gratification in favor of a worthwhile reward down the line, but I don't need to see my team win meaningless games at the end of the season; I need to know they understand what goes into developing a long-term contender, and that they have a plan in place to do so. This, and all systems like it, incentivize teams retaining older talent for a short term push, rather than turning that talent into assets who fit a more reasonable timeline for success. It actually increases the odds of remaining in that mushy middle, because you always have half a team built for now, to try and pick up those last few points at the end of the season, and half a team built for the future.

I would much rather do away with the lottery and any sort of alternative system, in favor of giving the worst teams the best odds at top talent (best odds, in this case, meaning they have every prospect available to select from, rather than lottery odds, to be clear.) It's simple, it's clean, and as long as you're capable of looking ahead to the future rather than needing that endorphin rush of wins right now, it's the rational thing to do.

 

[Summer Rose]

All it does is make those games more meaningful and give fans a reason to cheer for the team to win. I think it reasonable that if the fans are excited and the games are meaningful, the players will play a bit better, but that's not the goal. Fan engagement is the goal of this system.

What I'd be curious about, considering the NHL is a for-profit business, is how it would affect a team's bottom line down the stretch, which we know is what the owners really care about. It's reasonably safe to assume that with the games being hypothetically more meaningful, local TV ratings would not dwindle like they currently do. However, those television rights are already bought and paid for, so would a bit of extra bump towards the end of a non-playoff season have a significant impact on the negotiations of future deals? I'm not so sure about that one. Another potential tangible benefit is the idea of ticket sales, which still drive 43% of the league's revenue or so, also not dwindling down the stretch of a non-playoff season. A counterpoint would be that a fair amount of teams are at or near capacity regardless of on-ice performance.

 

[MarkT]

As a fan of a team who is hoping my favorite team does a good bit more losing over the next few games, I would, absolutely, 100% of the time, prefer short term pain for long term gain. Now, I may be a weirdo in that I am capable of denying myself immediate gratification in favor of a worthwhile reward down the line, but I don't need to see my team win meaningless games at the end of the season; I need to know they understand what goes into developing a long-term contender, and that they have a plan in place to do so. This, and all systems like it, incentivize teams retaining older talent for a short term push, rather than turning that talent into assets who fit a more reasonable timeline for success. It actually increases the odds of remaining in that mushy middle, because you always have half a team built for now, to try and pick up those last few points at the end of the season, and half a team built for the future.

I would much rather do away with the lottery and any sort of alternative system, in favor of giving the worst teams the best odds at top talent (best odds, in this case, meaning they have every prospect available to select from, rather than lottery odds, to be clear.) It's simple, it's clean, and as long as you're capable of looking ahead to the future rather than needing that endorphin rush of wins right now, it's the rational thing to do.

Thank you for sharing this. I don't know if you're a weirdo or not (I know I am!)

Can I ask you - are you more or less interested watching games or going games, buying stuff from the team, talking about the team with your friends, etc.. I understanding just taking in the short term pain, but my worry is that even you, who are fine with it, are engaged as a fan.

I should say though, if you don't like the mushy middle, I think the current system is worse. If you end up at the 11-16th worst team, you're never going to get a top draft player. However, in my system, Buffalo (11th worst) Minnesota (13th), and Pittsburgh (14th), and ended up with the 7th, 10th, and 8th picks. Not the best picks, but much better they would get with the current system, and if they draft well, a way to get out of the mushy middle.

 

[Beau Knows]

As for your scenario, if we're talking about getting the #1 pick, it still wouldn't work. Let's take an example from last season. Say New Jersey decided last season they wanted to go for a high draft pick rather than the playoffs. In the real season, they were at 64 point at game 62. So we'll imagine that they contrived to lose the four games before game 62 (and we'll imagine they won those games in real life), putting them at 54 points. Chicago ended up with the #1 pick in my system with a total of 18 points. So to go from 54 to 17, which would mean going something like 18-1-1 in the final 20. Possible, but extremely unlikely. This is why the plan you proposed wouldn't make much sense.

Fair enough, if the math doesn't quite allow that to be a problem. Though I'm not sure that it would always be the case that the difference between the basement teams and the bubble teams would be high enough to make that kind of strategic tanking not worthwhile.

For the loading up thing, is it any more comical than what the Sabres and Oilers did to try to get McDavid? And I'd wager those teams hurt themselves more long-term than they would have by loading up.

I would say yes. Those teams selling off players and acquiring picks fits into the long term goals of a rebuilding team and happens to be actions that will help them secure good draft positions.

If instead it made sense for them to go nuts at the deadline, acquiring the best rental players available to win a 20 game tournament. They'd be rewarded for sacrificing other prospects and picks to score enough points to get that top pick. I think under this proposed system, bad teams might stay bad longer than they do now.

I think the trade deadline could become very strange as well. The way it works now the best teams and worst teams are natural trading partners. The best teams can send picks and prospects over to the the rebuilding teams in exchange for older impact players, helping both teams.

But with the silver points on the line, I could see trades becoming much less frequent. The bad teams would be incentivized to keep their impact players, even if they are aging and possibly leaving for nothing in the off-season, because they can't afford to lose their silver points.

 

[ponder719]

Thank you for sharing this. I don't know if you're a weirdo or not (I know I am!)

Can I ask you - are you more or less interested watching games or going games, buying stuff from the team, talking about the team with your friends, etc.. I understanding just taking in the short term pain, but my worry is that even you, who are fine with it, are engaged as a fan.

I should say though, if you don't like the mushy middle, I think the current system is worse. If you end up at the 11-16th worst team, you're never going to get a top draft player. However, in my system, Buffalo (11th worst) Minnesota (13th), and Pittsburgh (14th), and ended up with the 7th, 10th, and 8th picks. Not the best picks, but much better they would get with the current system, and if they draft well, a way to get out of the mushy middle.

At the moment, I am less interested in going to games and buying stuff from the team, but that has very little to do with the current draft, and much more with a) the economy, and b) my utter lack of faith in my team's understanding of the incentive systems in place. There's a large contingent of fans here in Philly whose entire understanding of hockey is "punch face good, mean good, Torts good, players bad for no like Torts," and until just a couple games ago, it looked like the entire organization was all in on that mindset. I'm cautiously optimistic they're going to move in what I consider to be a better direction, but there are some LAND MINES out there on the coaching market, let me tell you. (One name, in particular, will entirely sever my ties to the team, so I am hoping against hope we aren't the stupid assholes who go in that particular direction.)

That said, I'm here all the time, I watch their miserable games, I am fully locked in on the draft, and roster turnover, and plans for the future, I am 100% ready for this team to lay the groundwork to turn the corner. I just need to know that when they do, they're going to have the pieces to contend, rather than get back up to that "WC1 in a good year, 13th pick in a bad year" level that we've seen from the Flyers all too often for all too long.

Side note, I appreciate your attempt to sell me on the improved draft pick for the Penguins, but I note that you didn't look at the Flyers, who in fact did worse under your plan than the lottery or reverse standings order.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Do you know what’s worse for a franchise and the league? Having a team languish in 20th place for 2 decades until nobody gives a damn about them anymore.

The whole appeal of a tank and rebuild, and why fans openly cheer for it, is the end goal of winning. It is a way to still keep interest while the process is happening. If you have fans rooting to suck, they’re at least still paying attention and are emotionally invested in the team and league.

Mediocrity breeds disinterest which is worse.

Except no team has ever actually spent anywhere near 2 decades at 20th place.

Certainly there are teams we associate with “forever mediocre”, like the Flames or Blues. But the reality is that those types of teams do actually jump up and have great seasons from time to time, as when all three of them were among the best in the league circa 2017-19. The fans may complain that they never bottom out for a generational talent, but the Blues have won a Stanley Cup and the Flames a couple of division titles in the past few years. Are those franchises threatened with severe attendance issues? Nope.

Meanwhile the definitive forever-mediocre team, the Wild, has the second best attendance in the NHL.

Compare to teams that have deliberately cut talent only to find themselves in a feedback loop of losing. Buffalo being the obvious example, once again near the bottom of the league after a lost generation which centered around misguided tanks. Look at Arizona, a team which got stuck in an extended tank that they could never break out of, to the point that it became their death sentence.

The truth is, most people would rather see the local team win half its games and just barely make the playoffs only to lose, with the occasional Cinderella run thrown in for fun, rather than be embarrassed by association with a last place team. Most people are not the kind of nerdy sports fans who have arguments over tanking on online forums. When a team goes the tanking route, they risk whiffing on top talent and losing their market altogether. That’s a black eye on the franchise which is hard to recover from, and the failure of a franchise costs the league in turn. Either by losing the attention of a hockey-crazy market like Buffalo, or by losing the potential of a regional media hub like Phoenix.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I appreciate that.

Question: How would it be possible for the loser in that situation to get the #1 pick? I assume you're implying that the loser just barely missed the playoffs, right? In that case, even if they banked a ton of Silver Points, there's no way they would have been low enough at game 62 for even 40 Silver Points (the max) to drop them down enough. For reference, the team with the most points last season at game 62 was Detroit with 72. Even if they got 40 Silver Points, that would have put them at 3rd overall, and that would mean them going 20-0 to end the season, and certainly making the playoffs.

Maybe I’m misreading the system. Let’s say a team went 19-0 down the stretch, then lost game 82 to finish 19-1 in Silver Points. How would that team not have the most Silver Points and therefore the #1 pick?

 

[kvladimir]

I applaud the effort and creativity that went into this, it's very interesting.

That said, I have been wondering lately about how the "solution" (to a problem that may or may not exist in the first place) might be way simpler than most people think...

What if the current lottery system was kept, but the draft lottery was conducted as soon as every team hits 50 games played on the season, and the standings the lottery is based on is that of every team's 50-game record?

After 50 games, the teams near the bottom should be somewhat set, but to "tank" under these circumstances, teams would basically have to give up on their seasons by around the 30-35 game mark, and since the lottery remains, no team would be close to guaranteed a #1 or #2 pick...

And after the draft lottery is held and the positions confirmed, every team is then free to do whatever they feel is appropriate with their assets, free from draft-related incentives...

 

[dirtydanglez]

the worst teams should get the best shot at the best talent in the draft

 

[nturn06]

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?

And the first Overall pick goes to .......


the team who plays the Sharks and Hawks the most times during the last 20 games.....


Terrible idea to let a completely random schedule determine the top pick.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Imagine the NHL deciding that a team intentionally threw game 82 and stripped them of the first overall draft pick as punishment.

That’s the only appropriate response to something like blatantly throwing a game (which is effectively the same offense as game-fixing for gambling purposes).

I don’t mean to pick a side argument, but they should have done this to Pittsburgh for the Mario draft. As we’ve seen in ensuing decades, this stuff spreads if not cut off at the root.

 

[MarkT]

Fair enough, if the math doesn't quite allow that to be a problem. Though I'm not sure that it would always be the case that the difference between the basement teams and the bubble teams would be high enough to make that kind of strategic tanking not worthwhile.



I would say yes. Those teams selling off players and acquiring picks fits into the long term goals of a rebuilding team and happens to be actions that will help them secure good draft positions.

If instead it made sense for them to go nuts at the deadline, acquiring the best rental players available to win a 20 game tournament. They'd be rewarded for sacrificing other prospects and picks to score enough points to get that top pick. I think under this proposed system, bad teams might stay bad longer than they do now.

I think the trade deadline could become very strange as well. The way it works now the best teams and worst teams are natural trading partners. The best teams can send picks and prospects over to the the rebuilding teams in exchange for older impact players, helping both teams.

But with the silver points on the line, I could see trades becoming much less frequent. The bad teams would be incentivized to keep their impact players, even if they are aging and possibly leaving for nothing in the off-season, because they can't afford to lose their silver points.

Okay you've convinced me that the trade deadline would become a big temptation for bad GMs in the case of generation talent, and in that way this system would be worse than the current one. I also agree that the trade deadline would be very different, and less clearly defined in terms of buyers and sellers. It would become much more focused on hockey trades. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing though, especially if it's motivated by teams wanting to be competitive.

At the moment, I am less interested in going to games and buying stuff from the team, but that has very little to do with the current draft, and much more with a) the economy, and b) my utter lack of faith in my team's understanding of the incentive systems in place. There's a large contingent of fans here in Philly whose entire understanding of hockey is "punch face good, mean good, Torts good, players bad for no like Torts," and until just a couple games ago, it looked like the entire organization was all in on that mindset. I'm cautiously optimistic they're going to move in what I consider to be a better direction, but there are some LAND MINES out there on the coaching market, let me tell you. (One name, in particular, will entirely sever my ties to the team, so I am hoping against hope we aren't the stupid assholes who go in that particular direction.)

That said, I'm here all the time, I watch their miserable games, I am fully locked in on the draft, and roster turnover, and plans for the future, I am 100% ready for this team to lay the groundwork to turn the corner. I just need to know that when they do, they're going to have the pieces to contend, rather than get back up to that "WC1 in a good year, 13th pick in a bad year" level that we've seen from the Flyers all too often for all too long.

Side note, I appreciate your attempt to sell me on the improved draft pick for the Penguins, but I note that you didn't look at the Flyers, who in fact did worse under your plan than the lottery or reverse standings order.

I think we can say you're a pretty hardcore fan, so you remaining engaged is pretty much a given in any system. And haha yeah it would have been great if the Flyers were one of those middling teams who earned top 10 draft picks, but alas. But the proof of concept is there - under my system middling teams would get a pretty good chance to earn relatively high draft picks, unlike the current system.

Maybe I’m misreading the system. Let’s say a team went 19-0 down the stretch, then lost game 82 to finish 19-1 in Silver Points. How would that team not have the most Silver Points and therefore the #1 pick?

Yes you're definitely misreading the system. The Silver Points don't determine the draft position directly. They are subtracted from the team's already existing point total as of game 62. So in your example, you would subtract 38 point (19 wins) from whatever they had in game 62 to determine their new total. So whether they end up with the #1 pick depends on where they start from. In my first post you can see a table with all the teams 62 game point totals listed if you want to play around with it.

And the first Overall pick goes to .......


the team who plays the Sharks and Hawks the most times during the last 20 games.....


Terrible idea to let a completely random schedule determine the top pick.

Please read my response to tarheelhockey above. You clearly don't understand the system.

 

[WatchfulElm]

Congrats OP. I think that's a fabulous idea. Probably the best solution I've seen so far. I could get behind this.

Sadly, as you can see by the reception here, most fans are allergic to change.

They are so used to cheer for their team to lose that they don't see it as a problem anymore. They are so used to see 10-12 teams every year selling their best assets in order ot get worse that they don't see it as a problem anymore. And somehow, the idea that all 32 teams should have a reason to compete until the very end is seen as strange and useless.

These fans have gotten so used to a system that rewards mediocrity that any attempt to try to change that is considered a mistake.

Because tanking and losing on purpose is so fun and so sportsmanlike... or is it?

Honestly, excellent idea OP.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Right now, is it better objectively for Pittsburgh to win or lose games? Under the current system, it is better for them to lose so they can get a better draft pick. Look at the Draft Lottery thread. The 7th post is a Pens fan who wrote, "Penguins saw fit to start winning games so...yeah that sucks."

The players may not want to lose, but fans and GMs do if they are smart.

Why does the last 20 games matter more than the first 62? Under your new system, the best course of action would be to tank even harder from game 1.

They are so used to cheer for their team to lose that they don't see it as a problem anymore. They are so used to see 10-12 teams every year selling their best assets in order ot get worse that they don't see it as a problem anymore. And somehow, the idea that all 32 teams should have a reason to compete until the very end is seen as strange and useless.

Cheering for your team to lose the last 20 games: BAD
Cheering for your team to lose the first 62 games: GREAT

 

[Hasbro]

I think the #1 pick should go to the team whose fanbase whines the least about tanking.

 

[Hasbro]

Congrats OP. I think that's a fabulous idea. Probably the best solution I've seen so far. I could get behind this.

Sadly, as you can see by the reception here, most fans are allergic to change.

They are so used to cheer for their team to lose that they don't see it as a problem anymore. They are so used to see 10-12 teams every year selling their best assets in order ot get worse that they don't see it as a problem anymore. And somehow, the idea that all 32 teams should have a reason to compete until the very end is seen as strange and useless.

These fans have gotten so used to a system that rewards mediocrity that any attempt to try to change that is considered a mistake.

Because tanking and losing on purpose is so fun and so sportsmanlike... or is it?

Honestly, excellent idea OP.

Mediocrity means middle of the pack. So this system is more rewarding mediocrity as opposed to rewarding complete ineptitude.

 

[mr figgles]

They should have a second playoffs with all of the losers instead. Winner of the final gets 1st overall and the loser gets kicked all the way down to 16th

 

[MarkT]

Why does the last 20 games matter more than the first 62? Under your new system, the best course of action would be to tank even harder from game 1.


Cheering for your team to lose the last 20 games: BAD
Cheering for your team to lose the first 62 games: GREAT

Let me explain what you're getting wrong. Under my system, all 82 games matter when it comes to draft positioning. The difference, as you point out, is that for the first 62 games, for teams that miss the playoffs, it's better for them to lose. Note that in the current system, for teams that miss the playoffs, it's better for the team to lose all 82 games. It's not that cheering for your team to lose in the first 62 is in any way positive, but 62 games is certainly better than 82. Cheering for your team to lose is always bad. If you have a system that would remove that incentive completely, I'd love to hear it.

So why the change to the last 20 games?
Let's look at two scenarios. Scenario A is a bottom feeder team who everyone knows will suck all year (think Chicago or San Jose). Scenario B is a team that had hopes of the playoffs for a lot of the season, but has fallen off at the end (think Detroit or Utah).

Fans of A teams have to figure out some reason to support the team. This usually amounts to hoping young players and prospects improve and develop. That's hard to keep up a whole season, and that's why these teams see much less engagement overall. A lot of fans of these teams end up checking out until things get more interesting, and many likely never come back.

Fans of B teams maintain good engagement for most of the season, but by the end of the year, it becomes clear they aren't going to make it. This leads to a sharp decline in engagement, when fans stop caring about outcomes of games except to hope their team loses. Again, some of these fans are going to just check out and (hopefully) come back when things matter again.

What my system does is give fans of A teams something to look forward to besides just the draft. It also gives fans of B teams a reason for engagement to never drop off like it normally would. Every team in the league playing meaningful games at the end of the year would be good for fans, media, coaches, players, and owners.

Now to address you argument that under my system teams would tank even harder from game 1. First off, teams never know how each season is going to turn out. Columbus and Nashville both probably envisioned very different seasons than what the ended up with. But yeah, some teams will throw in the towel from the beginning, just like they do now. Second, if a team tanks from the start of the season, it's very unlikely they will be able to suddenly turn a switch and start winning in the final 20 games. So tanking from the start would not be an optimal strategy to get the top pick in my system.

 

[BKarchitect]

I just don’t think outright tanking to the point of essentially throwing games down the stretch is that huge of a problem. There will always be bad teams that stink.

I thought at first you named it the Silver plan after NBA commish Adam Silver - because this very idea has been bandied about for the NBA where tanking and unwatchable games in March are a legit concern. The difference is on a 5-player starting line-up it is so much easier and more obvious to “tank” by essentially fielding an entire line-up of scrubs and two-way contract call-ups. On a 23-man NHL roster where ice time, for physical reasons, has to at least be somewhat distributed - you can’t purposefully ice an all-AHL roster in the same way.

I think it’s a fun idea and I enjoy the thought process behind the concept…I just think it’s bridge too far. If you want to prevent something like the Oilers getting a bunch of #1 picks, it’s way easier just to make a rule that if you pick first (or top 2 or top 3) one year - then you can’t the following year or for a few years after. And while I like the idea of competative late season atmosphere…I like others don’t think rebuilding teams should essentially be punished for trading pieces off at the deadline.

 

[MarkT]

I just don’t think outright tanking to the point of essentially throwing games down the stretch is that huge of a problem. There will always be bad teams that stink.

I thought at first you named it the Silver plan after NBA commish Adam Silver - because this very idea has been bandied about for the NBA where tanking and unwatchable games in March are a legit concern. The difference is on a 5-player starting line-up it is so much easier and more obvious to “tank” by essentially fielding an entire line-up of scrubs and two-way contract call-ups. On a 23-man NHL roster where ice time, for physical reasons, has to at least be somewhat distributed - you can’t purposefully ice an all-AHL roster in the same way.

I think it’s a fun idea and I enjoy the thought process behind the concept…I just think it’s bridge too far. If you want to prevent something like the Oilers getting a bunch of #1 picks, it’s way easier just to make a rule that if you pick first (or top 2 or top 3) one year - then you can’t the following year or for a few years after. And while I like the idea of competative late season atmosphere…I like others don’t think rebuilding teams should essentially be punished for trading pieces off at the deadline.

Thanks for the comment. The name was just playing off the Gold Plan, and since I'm a nobody I put my plan in a lesser category.

To clarify, I don't think tanking is a problem, and this system isn't trying to remove it. It's also not designed to prevent the Oilers from getting a bunch of #1 picks. In my system, the same team could get the #1 pick every year if they earn it.

As for the trade deadline issue, yeah it's the one tradeoff against all the advantages of the system. I just happen to believe that having meaningful games is more important and more valuable than an active trade deadline.