Guest post by Kelvin Eisses edited by Chris Ralph
Fail for Nail is Out – Honour for Connor is In
A couple of years back I explored several options to overhaul the current NHL entry system which, in essence, rewards failure. The NHL has considered changes to the current lottery system, and change is coming, but there is much room for further improvement.
Kelvin Eisses, in this guest post, presents yet an alternative solution – an In-Season Playoff Method for NHL Entry Draft Order Determination.
The Objectives of a Sports Entry Draft
A good sports entry draft should be designed to contribute to parity in the league while not discouraging teams from winning. Ideally, it would actually encourage teams to win. The draft lottery system has removed some of the motive to lose down the stretch but has not provided a motive to win. The alternative outlined here attempts to provide that motive.
The Concept: In-Season Playoff Method for NHL Entry Draft Order Determination
Any team that does not reach 60 points by the 62 game mark (an approximate trade-deadline date) competes for the top draft picks. These teams (usually 4 to 6 teams have less than 60 points at 62 games) may not have quite given up at this point but are sellers at the trade deadline and do not have a realistic hope of making the playoffs. Under this concept, the draft order of these teams would be determined by their record over the final 20 games of the season. Bad teams would still get high picks; they would just be competing for these high picks. A standings table for teams who did not achieve 60 points would be added as a tab on sports websites once teams have played 62 games. Down the stretch this has the potential to be the most exciting storyline in the NHL.
Motivation to Win
(Roberto Luongo’s reaction after the Florida Panthers won the 2014 draft lottery)
The last 20 games of the season would be better for everyone. Teams that had more than 60 points would still be in the playoff hunt without the distraction of fans wanting them to lose to possibly get a top pick. The teams that had less than 60 points get to play for something – something potentially franchise-altering. Over the last five full seasons, three out of five first overall draft races would have come down to one point and all of them would have been within three points.
The only part of the season where motivation may not be adequate for all the teams would be the games leading up to the 62 game mark. Those well below and those who still are very much in a playoff hunt will still have motivation to win. Only those few teams on the cusp may have incentive to lose to have a chance at a top draft pick. Given that this would be for a limited number of games for a limited number of teams that likely still consider playoffs a possibility, this shouldn’t be a deciding factor.
The draft is a crucial part of ensuring there is parity in the league. It must be structured in such a way that a team that has bottomed out and cannot attract free agents has a means to rebuild. This system would ensure that poorly performing teams still would get high draft picks and the first overall pick would still go to a bad team. Even a team that was relatively good at the trade deadline but falls apart down the stretch would only fall a couple of positions from where they are now. Here are some results looking at the average of the past five full seasons:
|Team||Current System Pick||In-Season Playoff Method||Difference|
The teams that finished in the bottom three in the league on average would pick 1 or 2 slots down from where they would pick under the current system.
*Note~ teams would have acted differently at the trade deadline and may have played differently down the stretch under this system.
The dynamics of the trade deadline would certainly be different. The price for talent would likely go up. This in theory should contribute to parity as the best teams are the ones that would be paying the higher prices. It could also lead to less action at the trade deadline or at least less selling and more hockey trades.
Optional – Use concept for other non-playoff teams (own group)
All teams would now be guaranteed to be playing for something down the stretch no matter how many points they may have. These non-playoff teams’ differences in abilities are often small (seven points separated 17th from 24th in 2013/14) and the related draft picks are also not necessarily that significantly different in value. For this group though there is a negative correlation between where teams finished and what draft pick they would receive. Toronto’s monumental collapse down the stretch in 2011-2012 would have resulted in a 14th overall pick instead of a 5th. One needs to look at the teams in this group to see if positioning is really an indication of the future success of these teams. If it is, it is perhaps better not to pursue this option.
Optional – Only use this format for the first round
The motivation to win is achieved by applying this concept to the first round. The other rounds, which also contribute to parity, do not need to follow this format. They could follow the worst to best order that is currently used to maximize parity.
Optional – Randomize Cut off Point
If the 60 points in 62 games cut-off was deemed to be a distraction for teams and their fans, the actual cut-off point could be randomized. After all teams have played a set number of games (such as 62) the NHL could have a lottery for the cut-off point. This can be done in a number of ways and obviously would add a level of complication.
- Appealing to owners and management
- Appealing to coaches and players
- Appealing to fans
- Motivation to win and the related excitement is greatly enhanced
- Parity is only slightly affected
What If This System was Used in Previous Seasons
Hindsight 20/20: To highlight how one team’s fortunes might have been altered, reflect back on what could have been for the Calgary Flames in the spreadsheet that follows had this system been implemented:
- 2013-14: From 4th overall to 2nd overall draft slot
- Potential Flame: Sam Reinhart (instead of Sam Bennett)
- 2011-12: From 14th to 6th overall
- Potential Flame: Hampus Lindholm (instead of trading down for Mark Jankowski)
- 2010-11: From 14th to 8th overall
- Potential Flames: One of Sean Couturier, Dougie Hamilton or Jonas Brodin (instead of Sven Baertschi)
- 2009-10: From 13th to 10th overall
- Potential Flame: Cam Fowler, but pick (Brandon Gormley) was traded to Coyotes in Olli Jokinen deal
Draft Positioning Using the In Season Playoff Method – Two Groups – A Look Back at Last Five Non-Lockout Seasons
The following spreadsheet looks at this concept over the past five non-lockout seasons, highlighting draft slot position changes if the system would have been implemented for those years. Of course, things could have played out different if all the teams involved were cognizant of the rules and implications of the proposed system.
- Only a portion of the table displays by default; you can scroll through or select “View full-size workbook” option, which is the icon in the bottom right hand corner, to view the full table.
How did your team fair and what do you think of the proposed draft system overhaul?