The Silver Plan: A Draft Lottery Alternative

[MarkT]

I’m not commenting on your idea. As I said, your idea is overly complicated, convoluted and, in my opinion, not worth the time when there will be 20 similarly poor ideas and posts on the draft lottery before the end of summer.

I was replying to a question that someone asked me.

Instead of sending long winded PMs about how disgusted you are over the amount of likes my post mocking your idea received, and blaming my post for your idea being made fun of, maybe you should consider there is a reason myself…and many others…have said it is not a good idea.

There have been two kinds of criticism in this thread. The first are from people who read the post and have genuine concerns (see The Pale King below). The second are from people like you who either didn't read the post, didn't understand the idea, or chose to make no effort to understand the idea. I respect the first group.

The second group I'm happy to respond to and try to help them understand, but I'm not taking incorrect assumptions about my idea as evidence that there is something wrong with it. For example, you've just said the idea is "overly complicated, convoluted" - how do you know if you didn't read it? You accused this idea of being a way "to not give the worst teams the highest draft picks.", when it is definitively not that. And your reasoning is that since lots of people are going to post draft alternative ideas, it makes sense to not read any of them and to make fun of anyone who post one? This is what I meant in my PM when I said people like you stifle creativity and make this place unwelcoming for new ideas.

I kinda like this idea. Not concerned about the lack of activity at the trade line. This year's biggest deals were between contending teams anyway.

But how would you account for a tanking team LTIR-ing Mark Stone until game 63 and then activating him?

Thanks. I genuinely think the LTIR issue is a bit overblown. I sincerely doubt there are many NHL players who would agree to go on LTIR when they're not really hurt, especially if it's to help the team's draft position.

I do understand the system. In this system, a team like Predators would be more or less guaranteed the first overall pick if their last 20 games include 6 or 7 games against Hawks and Sharks, and they would probably not be picking higher than 6th if their last 20 games are against Jets/Stars/Avalanches.

So, as I was saying, having a schedule which is heave in the first 3 quarters but easy in the last quarter would be the key for getting the #1 OA, while having a killer schedule in the last 20 games would make this impossible. The schedule would matter more than how bad the team actually is for getting a top pick.

I appreciate you engaging with the idea like this, but I think you've got the math off.
This season, at game 62, here were the points totals for the bottom 3 teams:
San Jose: 37
Chicago: 46
Nashville: 53

For Nashville to earn the #1 pick in my system, they would need to earn 16 more Silver Points than San Jose (8 wins*). San Jose had been winning at a rate of .288 up to that point, so let's give them 5 wins in the 20 games, for 10 Silver Points. This means that to earn the #1 pick, Nashville would need 26 silver points (13 wins) in the final 20 games. It's certainly possible, but much better than the 7 wins predicted by their .358 win rate. My point is, regardless of the strength of schedule, to move up or down significantly in the draft, teams need to go on pretty big winning streaks. And this is just using the example of the bottom 3 teams - moving from 3rd to 1st is possible in the current system too, and nobody seems to mind. If we take the example of Boston, who had 64 points at game 62, they would need to earn 35 Silver Points to pass San Jose for the #1 pick (assuming San Jose earns 10 points). That would mean Boston going 17-2-1 in the final 20 games, which would also earn them 99 points and possibly a playoff spot. Basically the system is designed so that any team that is not a bottom feeder cannot earn the #1 pick, because if they play well enough in the final 20 games to do so, they end up making the playoffs instead.

I'll also add that no team ever has a schedule where the final 20 games are all against top teams or bottom teams. It may be skewed one way or the other, but it's never extreme enough to make the difference between 1st overall and 6th.

*I'm simplifying here - OT and shootout points would also count towards Silver Points

 

[Svencouver]

I actually do think this is a reasonably good plan. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this "punishes" teams for selling off at the deadline, but I don't think it's a fully compelling argument, either.

A team that is sufficiently terrible enough will accrue so little points by that 63 game mark that it's unlikely that they'll be harmed too much in the Silver Draft by selling off even more at the deadline (and this is evidenced by OP's case study of last year). If a team is merely just mediocre and then sells off and gets worse, then they probably weren't bad enough up to 63 games to really be in the chase for a top 5 pick anyway, so it doesnt move the needle much there, either. All in all, the most this system does is shuffle around some teams here and there in the last 19 games or so of the season depending on who can win the most within their own little "brackets" of suck, which I think is only mildly damaging at worst and genuinely beneficial at best.

I think it's a good incentive for teams to try to ice a decent roster capable of winning games - including tanking teams - not just for the "spirit of the sport" or even for watchability, but for escaping the rebuild hole and building a good team over time. Making a couple decent vet acquisitions and developing your young players well, deploying them appropriately, and providing the team with good coaching would be rewarded by the silver plan, and would subsequently improve the team going into the offseason, into training camp, and into next season.

Finally, I think its always worth keeping in mind that this system is being judged against its contemporary currently in place, the draft lottery, which is just stupid and shitty. How can you wring your hands about this rewarding teams that are already decent and punishing truly bad teams when a team that only barely missed can snag 1OA and a team at the bottom of the standings can fall 4 or however many spots under the current system? Relying on ping pong balls to determine the competitive and financial future of your franchise to the tune of billions of dollars in future revenue is insanity and it's amazing that the owners and fans accept it.

 

[Giant Panda]

I'll be honest, I hate this idea.

You've identified the flaw in the idea but hand waved it in like it's an inconvenience rather than an actual issue.

Having more stars in the playoffs is good for the sport. Marchand in Florida, every major Vegas deal, the Rantanen drama... These are good for the growth of the game, these are some of the most exciting moments of hockey.

Creating a system that essentially kills trades doesn't do it for me. If noone is incentivized to do worse, noone is trading their good players for futures. Rebuilds become an offseason thing, July 1 gets more exciting but we lose the trade deadline and a lot of in season drama.

I don't think it would work at all, I think it would make the game worse.

 

[Cas]

The whole point of a draft system is to direct the top picks to the lowest standing teams. If you want to argue for abolishing the draft and going back to a free agent system then that’s a whole other argument. As long as there is a draft, it’s counterproductive to try to find ways to punish teams in the lottery for said draft for finishing low in the standings. The NHL already addressed the teams that languish at the bottom by only allowing teams to win the lottery twice in a 5 year period.

Well, the whole point is the draft is really to artificially depress salaries, with the wider talent distribution being a bonus.

 

[MarkT]

I'll be honest, I hate this idea.

You've identified the flaw in the idea but hand waved it in like it's an inconvenience rather than an actual issue.

Having more stars in the playoffs is good for the sport. Marchand in Florida, every major Vegas deal, the Rantanen drama... These are good for the growth of the game, these are some of the most exciting moments of hockey.

Creating a system that essentially kills trades doesn't do it for me. If noone is incentivized to do worse, noone is trading their good players for futures. Rebuilds become an offseason thing, July 1 gets more exciting but we lose the trade deadline and a lot of in season drama.

I don't think it would work at all, I think it would make the game worse.

I appreciate your honesty. I think our difference of opinion lies in how much we value the trade deadline. I clearly don't value it as much as you do. I'll also point out that I think you're overestimating how much this plan would affect whether teams would sell off assets. Just look at this past deadline. Colorado and Carolina both sold off Rantanen even though they are in a playoff spot. The Islanders traded Nelson even though they are in the hunt. The Rangers traded away Lindgren even though they are in the hunt as well. Boston still had an outside shot at the playoffs when they decided to sell off Carlo, Coyle, and Marchand. If those teams were all still willing to make trades, I don't think a slightly better draft position will make much of a difference. Last year, the biggest likely swing was from between the 5th and 11th pick. Would teams refuse to sell veterans to gain assets in order to move up that much? Maybe, but I doubt it would be a universal thing.

If you want to talk about something that kills the deadline in the current system, I would point to the loser point. This keeps so many teams within potential reach of the playoffs (at least on paper) that very few teams fall into the genuine "seller" category most years.

 

[MrLouniverse]

I have not run numbers on how this would have effected past drafts and I think this would actually cause a problem with complexity which you more or less avoided with your proposal; however, I think the solution to the "all this does is shift the tank date" would be some sort of gradiated system starting earlier in the season.
Just as a jumping off point maybe the base point number is set and Silver Point accumulation begins after game 49, games 50-60 You get .5 Silver Points subtracted per point, games 61-71 you get .75 Silver Points per point, Games 72-82 you get a full Silver Point per point.
You could play with the multipliers, and the point at which it begins, but some variation of this could ameliorate the issue of just shifting the tank date without completely eliminating the core parts of your proposal, the need for "worst teams get the best picks" of it all, or the incentive to win games for the largest part of the year possible.

If you want to talk about something that kills the deadline in the current system, I would point to the loser point. This keeps so many teams within potential reach of the playoffs (at least on paper) that very few teams fall into the genuine "seller" category most years.

3/2/1/0 point system would also help, yes.

 

[MarkT]

I have not run numbers on how this would have effected past drafts and I think this would actually cause a problem with complexity which you more or less avoided with your proposal; however, I think the solution to the "all this does is shift the tank date" would be some sort of gradiated system starting earlier in the season.
Just as a jumping off point maybe the base point number is set and Silver Point accumulation begins after game 49, games 50-60 You get .5 Silver Points subtracted per point, games 61-71 you get .75 Silver Points per point, Games 72-82 you get a full Silver Point per point.
You could play with the multipliers, and the point at which it begins, but some variation of this could ameliorate the issue of just shifting the tank date without completely eliminating the core parts of your proposal, the need for "worst teams get the best picks" of it all, or the incentive to win games for the largest part of the year possible.

3/2/1/0 point system would also help, yes.

That is a genuinely interesting suggestion. I will have to test that out to calibrate how it might work, but it would certainly help with some of the complaints about the seemingly arbitrary game 62 cutoff. Thank you for the creative idea!

Oh, and yes, 3/2/1/0 would help, as long as that 0 represents losing of any kind.

 

[Giant Panda]

I appreciate your honesty. I think our difference of opinion lies in how much we value the trade deadline. I clearly don't value it as much as you do. I'll also point out that I think you're overestimating how much this plan would affect whether teams would sell off assets. Just look at this past deadline. Colorado and Carolina both sold off Rantanen even though they are in a playoff spot. The Islanders traded Nelson even though they are in the hunt. The Rangers traded away Lindgren even though they are in the hunt as well. Boston still had an outside shot at the playoffs when they decided to sell off Carlo, Coyle, and Marchand. If those teams were all still willing to make trades, I don't think a slightly better draft position will make much of a difference. Last year, the biggest likely swing was from between the 5th and 11th pick. Would teams refuse to sell veterans to gain assets in order to move up that much? Maybe, but I doubt it would be a universal thing.

If you want to talk about something that kills the deadline in the current system, I would point to the loser point. This keeps so many teams within potential reach of the playoffs (at least on paper) that very few teams fall into the genuine "seller" category most years.

This year is a perfect example of why to keep the loser point. It keeps the playoff race really close, means a lot more excitement for NYR, NYI, Columbus, and Montreal. More ticket sales, more focus on the games... It's adding a lot more excitement.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I'll admit the system does indeed punish some teams (Philly and Calgary) last season, but those teams earned that punishment through poor play at the end of the season.
[..]
As for the randomness, the final 20 games in my system are not more valuable.

Make it make sense! LOL. You are literally spelling out why this system would put a higher value on what happens in the last 20 games than the first 62. Which is silly.

The current system punishes them every time. My system at least gives them a chance to earn a better draft pick by being competitive.

You're wrong. The lottery gives them a chance. If they had won 1 more game last season they'd be in the playoffs. Your system gave them zero chance to improve their draft standing.

It would have also punished them this season, because their schedule just happened to be astronomically difficult in the last 20 games.

I realize this is just "my" team, but if you want the system to reward teams that compete and try to win for the full 82 games, not sure you can just ignore that it completely fails at rewarding perhaps the textbook example of a team doing just that.

having a killer schedule in the last 20 games would make this impossible. The schedule would matter more than how bad the team actually is for getting a top pick.

Exactly.

I'll also add that no team ever has a schedule where the final 20 games are all against top teams or bottom teams. It may be skewed one way or the other, but it's never extreme enough to make the difference between 1st overall and 6th.

Ehh..



That was with 27 games left. It just got more extreme in the final 20.

 

[MarkT]

Make it make sense! LOL. You are literally spelling out why this system would put a higher value on what happens in the last 20 games than the first 62. Which is silly.


You're wrong. The lottery gives them a chance. If they had won 1 more game last season they'd be in the playoffs. Your system gave them zero chance to improve their draft standing.

It would have also punished them this season, because their schedule just happened to be astronomically difficult in the last 20 games.

I realize this is just "my" team, but if you want the system to reward teams that compete and try to win for the full 82 games, not sure you can just ignore that it completely fails at rewarding perhaps the textbook example of a team doing just that.


Exactly.

I'm not sure you understand the system. Every game matters equally. The first 62 games just have the inverse meaning. In the first 62 games, when it comes to the draft, losses are what is valuable. In the last 20, the wins are what is valuable. Mathematically, each game is still worth 2 points. What the system does is put a higher value on winning in the final 20 games. It doesn't make those games any more valuable - it just moves the ideal outcome from a loss to a win.

As for Detroit, under my system, they cost themselves the chance at a better draft pick and the playoffs by gaining just 19 points (worse than .500) in the final 20 games. I'll agree that the system does punish teams that miss the playoffs due to a late season collapse, but so does the current system. I mean, in the current system gave them something like a 1% chance to move up - I'd hardly call that a legitimate chance.

I'll also say, the purpose of the system is not to reward teams. The purpose is to increase fan engagement at the end of the season. For teams like Detroit last year, fan engagement was already high because they were so close to the playoffs and in the race right until the end. But for teams that were already out of the race, fans had very little reason to remain engaged with the team. Also, it's worth noting that my system did absolutely nothing to Detroit - they got the 15th pick in real life and the 15th pick in my system.

You may also want to look at my response to

Make it make sense! LOL. You are literally spelling out why this system would put a higher value on what happens in the last 20 games than the first 62. Which is silly.


You're wrong. The lottery gives them a chance. If they had won 1 more game last season they'd be in the playoffs. Your system gave them zero chance to improve their draft standing.

It would have also punished them this season, because their schedule just happened to be astronomically difficult in the last 20 games.

I realize this is just "my" team, but if you want the system to reward teams that compete and try to win for the full 82 games, not sure you can just ignore that it completely fails at rewarding perhaps the textbook example of a team doing just that.

I'm not sure you understand the system fully yet. Every game matters equally. The first 62 games just have the inverse meaning. In the first 62 games, when it comes to the draft, losses are what is valuable. In the last 20, the wins are what is valuable. Mathematically, each game is still worth 2 points. What the system does is put a higher value on winning in the final 20 games. It doesn't make those games any more valuable - it just moves the ideal outcome from a loss to a win.

As for Detroit, under my system, they cost themselves the chance at a better draft pick and the playoffs by gaining just 19 points (worse than .500) in the final 20 games. I'll agree that the system does punish teams that miss the playoffs due to a late season collapse, but so does the current system. I mean, in the current system gave them something like a 1% chance to move up - I'd hardly call that a legitimate chance.

I'll also say, the purpose of the system is not to reward teams. The purpose is to increase fan engagement at the end of the season. For teams like Detroit last year, fan engagement was already high because they were so close to the playoffs and in the race right until the end. But for teams that were already out of the race, fans had very little reason to remain engaged with the team. Also, it's worth noting that my system did absolutely nothing to Detroit - they got the 15th pick in real life and the 15th pick in my system.

Exactly.

You may want to look at my response to nturn06 here: The Silver Plan: A Draft Lottery Alternative

Ehh..



That was with 27 games left. It just got more extreme in the final 20.

That tweet is a perfect example of why strength of schedule isn't always easy to predict. They have Montreal and St. Louis - two of the hottest teams in the league - in the easy category. Every team goes through hot and cold streaks, and you never know whether a team will be hot or cold when you play them.

That being said, for clarity, here are Detroit's final 20 games opponents:
WSH, OTT, BUF, CAR, VGK, WAS, VGK, UTA, COL, OTT, BOS, STL, CAR, FLA, MTL, FLA, TBL. DAL, NJ, TOR

My goodness that is a murder's row. I count maybe 3 "easy" games in there.

So yes, point taken. This is why I'm seriously considering MrLouniverse's idea.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I'm not sure you understand the system. Every game matters equally. The first 62 games just have the inverse meaning. In the first 62 games, when it comes to the draft, losses are what is valuable. In the last 20, the wins are what is valuable. Mathematically, each game is still worth 2 points. What the system does is put a higher value on winning in the final 20 games. It doesn't make those games any more valuable - it just moves the ideal outcome from a loss to a win.

As for Detroit, under my system, they cost themselves the chance at a better draft pick and the playoffs by gaining just 19 points (worse than .500) in the final 20 games. I'll agree that the system does punish teams that miss the playoffs due to a late season collapse, but so does the current system. I mean, in the current system gave them something like a 1% chance to move up - I'd hardly call that a legitimate chance.

I'll also say, the purpose of the system is not to reward teams. The purpose is to increase fan engagement at the end of the season. For teams like Detroit last year, fan engagement was already high because they were so close to the playoffs and in the race right until the end. But for teams that were already out of the race, fans had very little reason to remain engaged with the team. Also, it's worth noting that my system did absolutely nothing to Detroit - they got the 15th pick in real life and the 15th pick in my system.

I understand the system fine, I just think it arbitrarily decides what matters and when it matters.
"They cost themselves by gaining just 19 points in the final 20 games" says it all. You've decided those 20 games somehow matter more than the previous 62, even if you don't fully realize that's what you're saying. Again, they've been competitive 3 years in a row and on balance I'm fairly sure your system would have severely punished them for it.

I'd also add that any system that makes it beneficial for teams to tank out of the gate needs rethinking. If you're "fixing" the problem of fans cheering for losses at the end of the season, the correct solution isn't to make fans cheer for losses in the first 60 games.

 

[MarkT]

I understand the system fine, I just think it arbitrarily decides what matters and when it matters.
"They cost themselves by gaining just 19 points in the final 20 games" says it all. You've decided those 20 games somehow matter more than the previous 62, even if you don't fully realize that's what you're saying. Again, they've been competitive 3 years in a row and on balance I'm fairly sure your system would have severely punished them for it.

I'd also add that any system that makes it beneficial for teams to tank out of the gate needs rethinking. If you're "fixing" the problem of fans cheering for losses at the end of the season, the correct solution isn't to make fans cheer for losses in the first 60 games.

It wasn't an arbitrary decision. I explained it the logic to you already: The Silver Plan: A Draft Lottery Alternative

I just want to say honestly I didn't realize how much we've been talking back and forth in this thread - I've been talking with so many people in here that I didn't notice it was you each time. Can I just say thank you for the discussion. Your last comment did really change my view on the potential issues with the final 20 games. I had no idea it was realistic for a team to have such a ridiculous final 20 games.

As a Detroit fan, I can totally see why you wouldn't support this system. You cheer for a team that keeps having decent seasons up to the trade deadline then fall apart at the end. That's exactly the kind of team my system either punishes or at least doesn't help.

One thing I'll clarify. Detroit did indeed cost themselves in the final 20 games by only gaining 19 points, but they cost themselves even more by gaining too many points in the first 62 games. With 72 points in the first 62, there was no way for them to get a good draft pick, because if they won enough to earn the necessary Silver Points, it would have also been enough to make the playoffs.

I'll also say that I have yet to see a system (including the current one) that does not encourage tanking out of the gate. From my perspective, we currently have a system where fans are encouraged to cheer for their team to lose (if they don't think playoffs are realistic) for all 82 games. My idea was that 62 games are better than 82. It was also based on the idea that the earlier in the season it is, the more engaged fans will be, and the later in the season it is, the less engaged fans will be (if they are likely to miss the playoffs). So I don't think it's fair to criticize my plan by saying it encourages fans to cheer for their team to lose for 62 games without acknowledging that the current system encourages fans to cheer for their team to lose for all 82 games, and this gets worse as the season goes on and more and more teams are eliminated from playoff contention.

Also think you're failing to properly compare my system to the current one. It's fair to say my system does not help Detroit. But you then would have to show how the current system helps Detroit. See, I'm not trying to design a perfect system, because a perfect system doesn't exist - I'm just trying to design something better than the current system.

 

[Omni Owl]

Do you like the concept of fans cheering for their favorite team to lose? I know I don't.

Concepts of a fan.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Also think you're failing to properly compare my system to the current one. It's fair to say my system does not help Detroit. But you then would have to show how the current system helps Detroit.

1. Odds of Falling in the draft order when you're in the ~8-15 range are very low and almost astronomically so to drop more than 1 spot, i.e. you may not get a higher pick, but at least you're not dropping from 12 to 16 as is possible under your system
2. The lottery provides a small chance to jump significantly, i.e. even if you're 11th in the draft lottery you could get lucky and land a top 2 pick, this seems basically impossible under your system.

Detroit's yet to benefit from #2, but we've been happy to stay at 8, 9 and 15 the last few years. A draft system that allows for the possibility that a team falls 4+ spots in the draft order is just a kick in the balls.

 

[MarkT]

1. Odds of Falling in the draft order when you're in the ~8-15 range are very low and almost astronomically so to drop more than 1 spot, i.e. you may not get a higher pick, but at least you're not dropping from 12 to 16 as is possible under your system
2. The lottery provides a small chance to jump significantly, i.e. even if you're 11th in the draft lottery you could get lucky and land a top 2 pick, this seems basically impossible under your system.

Detroit's yet to benefit from #2, but we've been happy to stay at 8, 9 and 15 the last few years. A draft system that allows for the possibility that a team falls 4+ spots in the draft order is just a kick in the balls.

I have a lot of sympathy for you as a Detroit fan, and this is coming from a day one Avs fan. Even though you've given me a lot to think about, I still tentatively support my system, since it has a much better rate of helping middling teams than the current system, even though is also has an equal rate of hurting middling teams. I think I can live with that though since the differentiating factor is games won/lost, so on some level that seems fair. That being said, the insane schedule facing Detroit in the final 20 games this year tells me at the very least my idea needs to be adjusted. Well done. You more than anyone in this thread has caused me to consider that this idea might not work as currently constituted.

 

[islandersbob]

Ironically I feel the opposite. The simple thing to do would be to go to flat odds for all non-playoff teams.

The draft should not be a tool for poorly run franchises to get out of jail year after year.

Flat lottery odds would take the incentive out of losing. If you aren’t trying to be a playoff team (ie ice a competitive product), then you get put into the same bucket as everybody else.

I like this idea, but I'd doubt it work using NHL "randomness". Somehow their chosen, i.e. favorite team, would win every year.
It would be a little tiring with the draft lottery going with a rotation of Rangers, Blackhawks, flavor of the month southern team, team wanting a new arena, actual random choice, jk, Rangers AGAIN.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

If a system rewards a middling team it must a priori hurt the worst teams. There is little benefit to hurting the worst teams.

"But the worst teams should just try harder to not lose"

There's still 'worst' and 'middling' teams even if they try harder.

"But this system won't actually hurt the worst team"

Then what's the benefit in making a considerably more complex system?

 

[Breakers]

Brutal idea

 

[MarkT]

Ironically I feel the opposite. The simple thing to do would be to go to flat odds for all non-playoff teams.

The draft should not be a tool for poorly run franchises to get out of jail year after year.

Flat lottery odds would take the incentive out of losing. If you aren’t trying to be a playoff team (ie ice a competitive product), then you get put into the same bucket as everybody else.

@islandersbob Have you guys considered what it would be like to be a fan of a bottom feeding team under a flat odds draft lottery? What would even be the point? What is there to look forward to?

If a system rewards a middling team it must a priori hurt the worst teams. There is little benefit to hurting the worst teams.

"But the worst teams should just try harder to not lose"

There's still 'worst' and 'middling' teams even if they try harder.

"But this system won't actually hurt the worst team"

Then what's the benefit in making a considerably more complex system?

A) This system, such as it is, benefits and hurts both middling and worst teams, but the worst teams overwhelmingly still end up at the bottom of the draft.
B) The benefit is fan engagement. If the results of this system match the results of a straight worst-to-best draft, then great! That's not the point. The point is that it gives fans of every team in the league something to cheer for (besides hoping their team loses) at the end of the season.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

A) This system, such as it is, benefits and hurts both middling and worst teams, but the worst teams overwhelmingly still end up at the bottom of the draft.
B) The benefit is fan engagement. If the results of this system match the results of a straight worst-to-best draft, then great! That's not the point. The point is that it gives fans of every team in the league something to cheer for (besides hoping their team loses) at the end of the season.

A). On balance it moves draft value from the very worst teams further up the chain.
B). You get fans to cheer for wins in the final 20 games of the season, after cheering for losses in the first 62.

This system really helps decent teams who have one or two critical injuries early in the year. Frankly those aren't the sort of circumstances a team needs help.

All of these arcane systems have potentials to create positive feedback loops to the detriment of low talent teams.

 

[22Brad Park]

I think they should get rid of the lottery. Buffalo got robbed of McDavid to a team that already had a pile of top picks

 

[ColbyChaos]

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.

 

[SUX2BU]

no

 

[MarkT]

A). On balance it moves draft value from the very worst teams further up the chain.
B). You get fans to cheer for wins in the final 20 games of the season, after cheering for losses in the first 62.

This system really helps decent teams who have one or two critical injuries early in the year. Frankly those aren't the sort of circumstances a team needs help.

All of these arcane systems have potentials to create positive feedback loops to the detriment of low talent teams.

A) Can you explain what you mean here before I respond?
B) As I've explained over and over in this thread, the current system gives fans a reason to cheer for losses for 82 games. Ideally, it would be zero, but I'm not aware of a realistic system that achieve that. 62 would certainly be better than 82, and even fans of bottom feeder teams tend to wait until later in the season to start cheering for wins, since you never know (see: Columbus this season). Also, you're not considering the teams like Detroit, Pittsburgh, or Utah right now who have just recently fallen out of the race, so only now are their fans starting to cheer for losses.

 

[Cas]

The only fans who "cheer for losses" are wierdo obsessives. They're a rounding error.

Besides, who cares what some tiny subset of fans do? If I want to cheer for own goals, that's my business.