It's late July and aside from a few arbitration cases hockey news has slowed to a crawl. A topic I would like to look into is the NHL draft lottery, some of the proposed changes and what solution I would have.
Here is a quick review of the current odds for the draft.
Team |
Odds |
Percent Change |
1 |
25 |
|
2 |
18.8 |
-24.8 |
3 |
14.2 |
-24.5 |
4 |
10.7 |
-24.6 |
5 |
8.1 |
-24.3 |
6 |
6.2 |
-23.5 |
7 |
4.7 |
-24.2 |
8 |
3.6 |
-23.4 |
9 |
2.7 |
-25.0 |
10 |
2.1 |
-22.2 |
11 |
1.5 |
-28.6 |
12 |
1.1 |
-26.7 |
13 |
0.8 |
-27.3 |
14 |
0.5 |
-37.5 |
I have included the percent change in the table above to address one of the reported goals of changing the current system which is to "smooth out" or "compress" the percentages. Overall from one pick to the next there is about a 24% percent change in the odds. Another possibility is that not just the first overall pick being in the lottery, but the top three or five. I would rather not see five, but I won't go into that here.
One of the ways the League might go about changing the odds is to drop the odds of first overall from 25% to 20%. Using some math and excel, this is how something like that might look.
Team |
Odds |
Percent Change |
1 |
20.0 |
|
2 |
16.2 |
-18.9 |
3 |
13.1 |
-18.9 |
4 |
10.7 |
-18.9 |
5 |
8.6 |
-18.9 |
6 |
7.0 |
-18.9 |
7 |
5.7 |
-18.9 |
8 |
4.6 |
-18.9 |
9 |
3.7 |
-18.9 |
10 |
3.0 |
-18.9 |
11 |
2.4 |
-18.9 |
12 |
2.0 |
-18.9 |
13 |
1.6 |
-18.9 |
14 |
1.4 |
-13.0 |
Note: The reason for the 14th team having such a difference in percent change is that the odds work out to be 1.3, but then the total odds don't work out to be 100, so I just bumped them up a little.
So the percent change between teams is decreased to about 18.9% instead of about 24%. Lets put the two side by side.
Current |
My Proposal |
Percent Change |
|
1 |
25 |
20.0 |
-20 |
2 |
18.8 |
16.2 |
-14 |
3 |
14.2 |
13.1 |
-8 |
4 |
10.7 |
10.7 |
0 |
5 |
8.1 |
8.6 |
6 |
6 |
6.2 |
7.0 |
13 |
7 |
4.7 |
5.7 |
21 |
8 |
3.6 |
4.6 |
28 |
9 |
2.7 |
3.7 |
37 |
10 |
2.1 |
3.0 |
43 |
11 |
1.5 |
2.4 |
60 |
12 |
1.1 |
2.0 |
82 |
13 |
0.8 |
1.6 |
100 |
14 |
0.5 |
1.4 |
180 |
So the top three teams see their odds decreased while teams 5-14 see their odds increase. Not big changes between the two, but are we really looking to reinvent the wheel here? It might not seem like much, but consider that currently the top three teams currently have a combined 58% chance to get the first overall pick. Under these numbers it would drop to 49.3%. I would say that those odds are slightly easier to follow than what is being thrown around.
In that Friedman article he brings up the idea of a "rolling" year period for the odds. Again, following all of that it seems to get rather messy so rather than using that idea for the odds it might be interesting to use for the placement of teams.
In an effort to discourage tanking or outlier years how about using a three-year rolling period based on where the team finished in the standings weighted for the most recent years. A team would have to be bad for several years to get the benefit of a high draft pick. Not just have a bad year, sell everything off and get the second overall pick (looking at you 2007 Flyers).
Some might point out that the goal is to discourage being consistently bad. Under what I outline below a team would have to be consistently bad to get the benefit of a high draft pick and ask the fans of Edmonton or fans of Florida how much they enjoy that. This method would also discourage a single year tank because other years are factored in.
This is how it could work for the most recent seasons. Take your place in the standings and multiply by 5, the year before multiply by 3, the year before multiply by 1 and then add them together. This is how it would have looked like for the 2012 Draft. For the sake of space I will only include the top 20 teams. The lottery system is only for non-playoff teams anyways.
Actual |
Proposed |
2011-2012 |
2010-2011 |
2009-2010 |
Total |
||
1 |
1 |
EDM |
29 |
30 |
30 |
265 |
Won Lottery Over CLB |
2 |
2 |
CLB |
30 |
24 |
27 |
249 |
|
4 |
3 |
NYI |
27 |
27 |
26 |
242 |
|
5 |
4 |
TOR |
26 |
22 |
29 |
225 |
|
9 |
5 |
WIN |
22 |
25 |
23 |
208 |
|
7 |
6 |
MIN |
24 |
21 |
22 |
205 |
|
3 |
7 |
MON |
28 |
14 |
19 |
201 |
|
11 |
8 |
COL |
20 |
29 |
12 |
199 |
|
8 |
9 |
CAR |
23 |
19 |
24 |
196 |
|
10 |
FL |
14 |
28 |
28 |
182 |
||
11 |
OTT |
16 |
26 |
13 |
171 |
||
6 |
12 |
ANA |
25 |
9 |
17 |
169 |
|
13 |
13 |
DAL |
18 |
16 |
20 |
158 |
|
10 |
14 |
TB |
21 |
8 |
25 |
154 |
|
14 |
15 |
CAL |
17 |
17 |
16 |
152 |
|
12 |
16 |
BUF |
19 |
15 |
11 |
151 |
|
17 |
NJD |
9 |
23 |
6 |
120 |
||
18 |
LA |
13 |
12 |
9 |
110 |
||
19 |
PHX |
11 |
11 |
4 |
92 |
||
20 |
CHI |
10 |
13 |
3 |
92 |
One of the issues is that team like FL and OTT that made the playoffs are in the lottery. That is easily solved though by kicking them out and replacing them with CAL and BUF. So the order would be 9-CAR, 10-ANA, 11-DAL, 12-TB, 13-CAL, 14-BUF.
The goal would be to take a team like ANA that is usually good and not reward them with the 6th overall pick. Same with MTL, instead of 3rd overall they drop to 7th. It also helps those who need it. Winnipeg for example is usually bad, therefore giving them 5th overall instead of 9th would in theory help them more.
Here is the 2013 Draft.
Actual |
Proposed |
2012-2013 |
2011-2012 |
2010-2011 |
Total |
||
7 |
1 |
EDM |
24 |
29 |
30 |
237 |
|
1 |
2 |
COL |
29 |
20 |
29 |
234 |
Won Lottery Over FL |
2 |
3 |
FL |
30 |
14 |
28 |
220 |
|
5 |
4 |
CAR |
26 |
23 |
19 |
218 |
|
3 |
5 |
TB |
28 |
21 |
8 |
211 |
|
14 |
6 |
CLB |
17 |
30 |
24 |
199 |
|
6 |
7 |
CAL |
25 |
17 |
17 |
193 |
|
8 |
NYI |
16 |
27 |
27 |
188 |
||
8 |
9 |
BUF |
23 |
19 |
15 |
187 |
|
13 |
10 |
WIN |
18 |
22 |
25 |
181 |
|
10 |
11 |
DAL |
21 |
18 |
16 |
175 |
|
12 |
MIN |
15 |
24 |
21 |
168 |
||
9 |
13 |
NJD |
22 |
9 |
23 |
160 |
|
4 |
14 |
NAS |
27 |
5 |
10 |
160 |
|
15 |
TOR |
9 |
26 |
22 |
145 |
||
16 |
OTT |
14 |
16 |
26 |
144 |
||
12 |
17 |
PHX |
19 |
11 |
11 |
139 |
|
11 |
18 |
PHI |
20 |
6 |
3 |
121 |
|
19 |
MON |
4 |
28 |
14 |
118 |
||
20 |
ANA |
3 |
25 |
9 |
99 |
Again, bump out NYI and MIN and reorder with PHX and then PHI. It would have given EDM another chance at a first overall pick, but remember we are decreasing the first overall pick odds also. CLB gets a big bump and maybe that helps them speed up their development. Nashville takes a big hit, but that would be an example of how a team that is normally decent doesn't get the benefit of a high draft pick for one bad year. Thus, discouraging a single year tank.
Finally, the 2014 Draft.
Actual |
Proposed |
2013-2014 |
2012-2013 |
2011-2012 |
Total |
||
1 |
1 |
FL |
29 |
30 |
14 |
249 |
Won Lottery Over BUF |
3 |
2 |
EDM |
28 |
24 |
29 |
241 |
|
2 |
3 |
BUF |
30 |
23 |
19 |
238 |
|
4 |
4 |
CAL |
27 |
25 |
17 |
227 |
|
7 |
5 |
CAR |
24 |
26 |
23 |
221 |
|
5 |
6 |
NYI |
26 |
16 |
27 |
205 |
|
9 |
7 |
WIN |
22 |
18 |
22 |
186 |
|
11 |
8 |
NAS |
19 |
27 |
5 |
181 |
|
* |
9 |
NJD |
20 |
22 |
9 |
175 |
|
8 |
10 |
TOR |
23 |
9 |
26 |
168 |
|
10 |
11 |
OTT |
21 |
14 |
16 |
163 |
|
12 |
DAL |
16 |
21 |
18 |
161 |
||
12 |
13 |
PHX |
18 |
19 |
11 |
158 |
|
14 |
CLB |
14 |
17 |
30 |
151 |
||
6 |
15 |
VAN |
25 |
8 |
1 |
150 |
|
16 |
TB |
8 |
28 |
21 |
145 |
||
17 |
PHI |
13 |
20 |
6 |
131 |
||
13 |
18 |
WAS |
17 |
10 |
15 |
130 |
|
19 |
MIN |
11 |
15 |
24 |
124 |
||
20 |
COL |
3 |
29 |
20 |
122 |
Again, swap out playoff vs. non-playoffs. Overall not huge changes, but it gives a little bump to those who need it like CAR, WIN and NAS instead of teams that made poor choices last year like VAN.
I don't really expect any of this to actually happen, but when I read articles about a lottery draft playoff, I feel like this is more realistic.
What do you think? How do you think the Draft lottery system should be changed? Should it be changed in the first place?