One of the things I like to do in my columns is to throw a new idea out into the world. Helpful suggestions, if you will. Sometimes, it’s because I really think I have a genuinely better way of doing things. Other times, I’m trying to make a larger point.
Not today. I’m under no illusions that today’s suggestion would ever happen, because I acknowledge that on a certain level, it’s just silly. It has zero chance of becoming reality, and even writing about it is a total waste of my time and yours.
Also, it’s completely brilliant. Stay with me.
While I wish I could claim all the credit here, that honor goes to reader Drew, who sent me an outline of the idea. It’s a topic that’s I’ve railed about before: The draft order, how best to determine it, and the related issues of tanking and fan bases checking out on the season. As it stands now, we encourage bad teams to lose as much as possible, assign some odds based on the final standings, and then let a barrel full of ping-pong balls sort it out. Surely, there has to be a better way.
By now, you know my view on that one. I’m a big fan of the Gold Plan, the idea that we should determine draft order based on how many points a team earns after being eliminated from the playoffs. It’s a great system, one that gives an advantage to the worst teams while still forcing them to win their way to the top pick and giving their fans a reason to cheer them on and stay engaged. Yes, there are objections, and no, none of them are especially convincing, a case I make here. The Gold Plan rules.
But there are other options. We could scrap the draft entirely. We could go to some sort of auction-based system. We could keep the lottery but change how it works, maybe by flattening the odds so three or five or all of the non-playoff teams (or even all the teams period) have the same shot at the top pick. Maybe you flip the script and give the better picks to the best non-playoff teams, instead of the worst. Maybe we steal the NBA’s idea for The Wheel that they considered but never implemented. Or maybe we even make all the bad teams stick around to compete in a postseason tournament for the top pick, and hope against hope that the exhausted players would actually try. (They wouldn’t)
All solid enough ideas, each with pros and cons. And all of them at least a tiny bit realistic. Today’s idea probably isn’t realistic. It’s also awesome. Let’s get into it.
The NHL lottery — also known as the Bedard Bonanza — finally has a date.
The ping pong balls will roll May 8 to reveal who wins the rights to draft hockey's next superstar.
More: https://t.co/5XZCYlpt2X
— The Athletic NHL (@TheAthleticNHL) March 15, 2023
The idea
Here are the key details:
We’re keeping the current system that gives the worst teams the best odds at the top pick, without guaranteeing it. But we’re scrapping the lottery. Not changing it, or tweaking it. It’s gone. No more ping-pong balls.
On the surface, that doesn’t make sense. If there’s no lottery, how do we decide which bad team gets the coveted No. 1 pick?
Simple: By pairing each bad team with one of the good teams that made the postseason. If the playoff team that you’re paired with wins the Stanley Cup, you win too, because you get the first pick.
Let’s assume the Blackhawks finish dead last this year, and use them as an example. Instead of getting top odds and then hoping they get lucky in the lottery, they end up getting paired with this year’s heavy Cup favorites, the Boston Bruins. If the Bruins win it all, the Hawks win the top pick.
Here’s the neat part: The actual odds don’t change all that much. Right now, whichever team finishes dead last has a 25.5 percent chance of “earning” the No. 1 pick in the lottery. Depending on what model you like, the Bruins have very similar odds of winning the Cup. (Dom’s model has recently had them bouncing between 21 percent and 24 percent.) Not quite the same, but pretty close.
Dom’s second-best team right now is the Avs, at 13 percent, almost exactly matching the second-worst team’s 13.5 percent lottery odds. Dom’s third favorite comes in at 12 percent. The lottery odds for that slot are 11.5 percent. Fourth spot is 10 percent for Dom, 9.5 percent for lottery odds.
It’s eerily close. That won’t necessarily be the case every year, but in the parity era, it’s not going to swing wildly. And of course, now that Seattle has joined the league, we’ve got a perfect split between playoff teams and non-playoff teams, with 16 of each. Everyone can pair up.
The Cup winner’s partner team get the first pick in the draft. The second pick goes to the team paired up with Cup Final loser. Third pick to whoever has the conference finals loser that lasts longest, and on down the line, for each of the first 16 picks.
By this point, I’m guessing that you think this sounds silly but find yourself weirdly intrigued. Good. Now comes the question you’re probably wondering about. How do we decide which team gets paired up with which? Not all playoff teams are created equal, so how do we decide which ones are actually better? Do we just rely on regular-season points? Go by the playoff seedings? What about factoring in playoff matchups, or injuries, or who finished strong, or all the other factors that go into deciding who should be considered Cup favorites? How do we assign the teams in a way that ends up being fair?
That’s the beauty of it. We don’t worry about any of that. Those non-playoffs teams do, because each one gets to draft its partner team.
Welcome to the draft pick draft
(OK, the name might need work. I’m open to suggestions.)
This is where the advantage for the bad teams comes in. You finish dead last, you get first pick in the draft of all the playoff teams. In our example, we’re assuming the Blackhawks would take the Bruins, but maybe they’d prefer a team with an easier path through the weaker Western Conference. That’s their choice to make. Then the 31st-place team gets to pick the best of the rest, and so on until all 16 non-playoff teams have their playoff partner.
One more thing, and I hope this goes without saying. Those picks will happen at a special draft that we’ll televise the night before the playoffs start, because dear lord would that ever make for a fascinating night.
You’re telling me you wouldn’t drop absolutely everything to be in front of your TV when each non-playoff team has to announce which team they’re taking as their draft pick ride-or-die? Imagine being a fan of one of those bad teams, arguing with your fellow fans over which team they should take, then watching teams come off the board while you’re waiting for your pick to come up. Or imagine being a fan of one of the playoff teams, sitting there simmering as you watch your team get snubbed with pick after pick while teams you know are worse teams get taken ahead of them.
How would GMs of non-playoff teams decide who to pick? Do you trust your analytics folks, or the pro scouts? Would they let history or rivalries influence their choices? If the Habs ended up last this year, would they actually take Boston? If they did, and you’re a Montreal fan, is the lure of Connor Bedard enough to make you cheer for the hated Bruins to win it all? Imagine a year where the Flames had a chance to pick the Oilers, or the Islanders got the Rangers. And how many friendships between golfing buddies would be destroyed when some GM snubbed his pal’s quasi-contender?
Now imagine watching the playoffs, knowing that both the Stanley Cup and the first pick were on the line. I wouldn’t have thought that it was possible to make the playoffs even more important than they already are, but we just did. As a fan, you might go from being vaguely aware of a contender from the other conference to knowing everything about them as you cheered them on to a Cup win that would give your team the top pick.
I don’t know about you, but I think this sounds a lot more fun than cheering for ping-pong balls or Bill Daly flipping cards for a few minutes.
OK, I’m guessing there are a few objections. Let’s handle those in a fair and impartial manner.
The objections, which are wrong
Objection No. 1: This is silly.
Response: Agreed. Who cares?
Objection No. 2: No, seriously, this is silly.
Response: No seriously, I agree. But do you know what else is? Ping-pong balls! We’re taking a decision that will impact the top prospects’ entire lives, several franchise’s futures, maybe a few Stanley Cups, and millions of dollars, and we’re deciding it the same way your kid’s kindergarten teacher decides who gets to win the cake raffle. At least this system would make it feel like teams had actually earned the top picks if only a little.
Objection No. 3: Under this system, a team could be terrible all year and pick the “best” contender only to watch them run into a hot goalie or an injury or some bad luck. Is that really fair?
Response: Welcome to the realization that the postseason is flipping coins. If it’s a fair enough way to determine a champion, it’s also fair enough for the first pick. And it’s at least as fair as bouncing ping-pong balls for teams that just openly tanked.
Objection No. 4: Wait, speaking of tanking, wasn’t that half the reason to change the current system? If we’re still giving the top contenders to the worst teams, aren’t they still going to tank?
Response: Probably. But the incentive isn’t quite the same, because you’re no longer chasing an absolute number. Having to pick your team adds an extra layer of uncertainty, and that changes the perception around the whole thing. If the bad team you cheer for wins its last two games, you’re no longer quite as despondent over dropping two spots, because depending on who your team wants to pick it may not even matter.
But even if the tanking behavior didn’t change at all, we’ve created way more fun and speculation, plus given fans of non-playoff teams a reason to live and die with the playoffs. Who could object to that?
Objection No. 5: I’m an NHL GM and I would hate this idea because I’m a frightened little coward and everyone would yell at me when the team I picked got swept in the first round.
Response: OK, but who else could object?
Objection No. 6: Wait, what if a team was already headed to a last-place finish at the deadline, and then they traded all their good players to the best team to make them more likely to win the Cup?
Response: I’ll be honest, this scenario just occurred to me as I was writing this, and I’m not sure if it’s a feature or a bug. I may have to get back to you on this.
Objection No. 7: This is the greatest idea I’ve ever heard.
Response: That’s not an objection, but thanks, and welcome aboard.
So what do we do now?
Nothing, because this will never happen. All I’ve accomplished here is making you mad at how much less entertaining the current system is. But enjoy Bill Daly’s card-flipping stare, I’m sure it will be almost as fun.
(Photo of Bill Daly from the 2013 NHL Draft Lottery / The Canadian Press, Aaron Vincent Elkaim)
"Idea" - Google News
April 07, 2023 at 04:01PM
https://ift.tt/ROJ250c
Change the NHL Draft lottery? Here’s an idea so absurd it might be brilliant - The Athletic
"Idea" - Google News
https://ift.tt/iUhyE9e
https://ift.tt/Fx20cGr
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Change the NHL Draft lottery? Here’s an idea so absurd it might be brilliant - The Athletic"
Post a Comment