Hello all,
Bob tells me that the WD has been moved deeper into December. I did not see an easy way of accomodating it on my schedule when it was December 1, and December 8 puts it into the "not going to happen" range. I have a very busy month coming up, and I will likely be out of town.
The good news is I am mildly obsessive about statistics and spreadsheets, and more than happy to put one together to let the league-robot draft for me. Do we have a designated league-robot, so I can discuss what is going to be most reasonable and readable? (Bob has volunteered to verify the accuracy of the league-robot on my behalf.)
Also, when will I know who is waiving whom?
Finally--because it's not worth beating a horse unless it's dead--I would like to retool our algorithm for the ED lottery in 2008 so it reflects how many points a team finished behind first place, rather than what slot they happened to fill in the points table.
Ideally this will encourage everyone to play as best they can right up to the end of the season, and, much like the "tie" points in the Challenge cup--which the league approved in September--it will reflect occasions when two teams are extraordinary close.
I would appreciate it if this could at least be discussed by the league so I can get a feeling for what reception is like out there. My proposed formula to generate chips--I'm open to discussing it--is:
Chips = [('Team's finishing points' - 'Herbivore finishing points') / 25] + 1 , round down.
and the herbivore winner's would be: Predator winner's chips + 1.
Is there anyone strongly opposed?
Is more lobbying necessary?
Are there any other options?
Please discuss.
Richard
GM, Lost Boys.
~~The Lemmings Demand Blood~~
Showing posts with label Lottery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lottery. Show all posts
11/13/2007
9/27/2007
Lottery Debate
Richard brought the notion up that our current system is not 'the best of all possible worlds', and he may be right.
Fortunately, any debate that occurs now for changing the lottery will be for next year.
So here are some thoughts to get this debate rolling;
Currently we use a weighted formula to give the last place team 12 ballots, followed by the 1st place team with 11, and the 2nd with 10 and so on.
This has two effects that are potentially objectionable;
- Teams finishing last have an incentive to finish last as it increases their chances of landing a better lottery pick
- Teams finishing high in the standings will be rewarded for doing so, while teams (aside from the one in last place) that finish low will be punished.
The fact is that these two objections are actually mutually exclusive!
If we are weighting the lottery to reward teams it will presumably be to reward either low finishers (creating an incentive to have your team suck down the stretch) or high finishers (giving to the 'haves' and punishing the 'have-nots').
The only way I can see out of this quandry is to cut the Gordian Knot all together, and go to an unweighted lottery, where everybody has an equal chance to win, and where you finish plays no role in how many ballots you have.
Some will argue that having no punishment for finishing low will encourage teams to 'tank'. I reply; that is what the Herbivore Award was specifically meant to deter.
Some may argue that teams that suck deserve to have some love at the Entry Draft or they risk having horrible FPs forever, and being stuck in a perpetuity of mediocrity as better finishing teams continue to get the better part of the deal.
To which I reply; finishing last will give you an advantage in the one area it should - prospects, but the one place it absolutely shouldn't give you an advantage at the draft table - that would be to reward failure, and punish excellence.
Thoughts?
Fortunately, any debate that occurs now for changing the lottery will be for next year.
So here are some thoughts to get this debate rolling;
Currently we use a weighted formula to give the last place team 12 ballots, followed by the 1st place team with 11, and the 2nd with 10 and so on.
This has two effects that are potentially objectionable;
- Teams finishing last have an incentive to finish last as it increases their chances of landing a better lottery pick
- Teams finishing high in the standings will be rewarded for doing so, while teams (aside from the one in last place) that finish low will be punished.
The fact is that these two objections are actually mutually exclusive!
If we are weighting the lottery to reward teams it will presumably be to reward either low finishers (creating an incentive to have your team suck down the stretch) or high finishers (giving to the 'haves' and punishing the 'have-nots').
The only way I can see out of this quandry is to cut the Gordian Knot all together, and go to an unweighted lottery, where everybody has an equal chance to win, and where you finish plays no role in how many ballots you have.
Some will argue that having no punishment for finishing low will encourage teams to 'tank'. I reply; that is what the Herbivore Award was specifically meant to deter.
Some may argue that teams that suck deserve to have some love at the Entry Draft or they risk having horrible FPs forever, and being stuck in a perpetuity of mediocrity as better finishing teams continue to get the better part of the deal.
To which I reply; finishing last will give you an advantage in the one area it should - prospects, but the one place it absolutely shouldn't give you an advantage at the draft table - that would be to reward failure, and punish excellence.
Thoughts?
6/20/2007
The inherent fairness and unfairness of the FUNHL Lottery
NOTE: Given the amount of commentary this post has generated I have moved it back to the top of the Blog. Also, given that Dan's post of the draft order was a repeat of the lengthier one I posted, I have deleted the duplication (sorry Dan). To get the full value of this post, click the header link so you can review the comments section where all the action is taking place. Send your hate-mail to me directly.
A couple of GMs have noted that the lottery isn't an equitable affair, and they make some decent points (see the comments from Rob and Chris).
The fact is we deliberately built the system to discourage teams from tanking in order to improve their lot for next year, so part of what they are experiencing is the short end of that stick. That said, we have created a situation where if you finish low year after year, your chances of having an elite pick are slim - making it that much harder for you to finish any higher.
In an effort to ensure that the worst teams weren't perpetual losers, we eventually built an exception in for the league's Herbivore winner, giving them the highest chance of finishing first so they wouldn't be perpetually left at the bottom of the pool.
(Before we feel too terrible for the Scourge, keep in mind that the previous management of the team had three years in a row with picks in the top three and managed to screw the pooch each and every time. I know that will be cold comfort to current mgt, but when the Wolves GM complains about never getting an elite pick, one of the teams that always had one was the Dogs/Scourge.)
Anyway - here are some thoughts;
Option 1: We move the lottery back to a straight 1 in 12 chance for all teams. That way, no incentive to tank, and everyone has an equal shot at the top spot. The more I think about this, the more I like it.
Option 2: We make the lottery slightly more weighted in favour of non-playoff teams (i.e. non Challenge Cup playoff teams). In this we have two other sub options;
A - weight the draft slightly to favour non-playoff teams by rank - ie. the better your team did the better the chances of getting a top pick (so long as you aren't in the top 4), or;
B - weight the draft to favour the losers by rank - ie. the worse you did the better your chances of getting a top pick.
Option 3: something else.
The problem with option 2.B. is that tanking to improve your lot for the following season is back in play - at least as much as it is in the NBA where the Celtics flushed their season down the toilet trying to get a top 2 pick (only to get handed #5 - sweet justice).
That all said, there are more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to replacing an FP, and we should consider them before we go so far as to change the current lottery rules, because as much as I feel for the Scourge (and Wolves) in landing a late pick there are several options to consider:
- Trading for an FP
This is the route that the Lost Boys went when they dealt Sakic for Richards. They got roughly the same caliber of offense but with an additional 10 years or service.
- Trading for an RFA who is FP worthy
If you can't trade for an FP my preferred methodology is to draft an FP from ones own roster when that player is still under a protected contract. I did this with RFA Heatley (after trading to get him), and I plan to do so again with RFA Malkin. If you are a full blown genius at the prospect draft (ala the Edge) you draft a prospect, slowly mature him on your roster and then Franchise him when the time is right. I, however, am not such a genius, so I am forced to deal for someone elses' prospects before I give them a franchise player contract (and in the case of Heatley, I had to deal for him with a DUI and possible vehicular homicide charge pending as well as trade several top prospects to get him). Bob's recent trade with Brian is another example - the aquisition of Eric Staal gives the Shadowmen a top tier pivot to build around (not that he will).
- Rolling the dice with pick 9.
Here's a shortlist of possible FPs from this years draft: Lecavalier, Spezza, Kiprusoff, Gonchar, Zetterberg, Alfreddson, Giguere, Gaborik, Datsyuk, Jokinen, and if you are a gambling man who enjoys 'fear my wingspan' power forwards like I do, I'd be gunning for Rick Nash.
Personally, I'd be way more comfortable with any of these guys than I would be with the aging Sundin. Is it worthwhile ditching Sundin to take one of them? That's your call. Let me add, that some GMS (ok, just Bob) have rolled the dice with picks from the third round or worse on Franchise players, so it is not only not impossible to do well at the nine spot, you could end up doing VERY well.
A couple of GMs have noted that the lottery isn't an equitable affair, and they make some decent points (see the comments from Rob and Chris).
The fact is we deliberately built the system to discourage teams from tanking in order to improve their lot for next year, so part of what they are experiencing is the short end of that stick. That said, we have created a situation where if you finish low year after year, your chances of having an elite pick are slim - making it that much harder for you to finish any higher.
In an effort to ensure that the worst teams weren't perpetual losers, we eventually built an exception in for the league's Herbivore winner, giving them the highest chance of finishing first so they wouldn't be perpetually left at the bottom of the pool.
(Before we feel too terrible for the Scourge, keep in mind that the previous management of the team had three years in a row with picks in the top three and managed to screw the pooch each and every time. I know that will be cold comfort to current mgt, but when the Wolves GM complains about never getting an elite pick, one of the teams that always had one was the Dogs/Scourge.)
Anyway - here are some thoughts;
Option 1: We move the lottery back to a straight 1 in 12 chance for all teams. That way, no incentive to tank, and everyone has an equal shot at the top spot. The more I think about this, the more I like it.
Option 2: We make the lottery slightly more weighted in favour of non-playoff teams (i.e. non Challenge Cup playoff teams). In this we have two other sub options;
A - weight the draft slightly to favour non-playoff teams by rank - ie. the better your team did the better the chances of getting a top pick (so long as you aren't in the top 4), or;
B - weight the draft to favour the losers by rank - ie. the worse you did the better your chances of getting a top pick.
Option 3: something else.
The problem with option 2.B. is that tanking to improve your lot for the following season is back in play - at least as much as it is in the NBA where the Celtics flushed their season down the toilet trying to get a top 2 pick (only to get handed #5 - sweet justice).
That all said, there are more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to replacing an FP, and we should consider them before we go so far as to change the current lottery rules, because as much as I feel for the Scourge (and Wolves) in landing a late pick there are several options to consider:
- Trading for an FP
This is the route that the Lost Boys went when they dealt Sakic for Richards. They got roughly the same caliber of offense but with an additional 10 years or service.
- Trading for an RFA who is FP worthy
If you can't trade for an FP my preferred methodology is to draft an FP from ones own roster when that player is still under a protected contract. I did this with RFA Heatley (after trading to get him), and I plan to do so again with RFA Malkin. If you are a full blown genius at the prospect draft (ala the Edge) you draft a prospect, slowly mature him on your roster and then Franchise him when the time is right. I, however, am not such a genius, so I am forced to deal for someone elses' prospects before I give them a franchise player contract (and in the case of Heatley, I had to deal for him with a DUI and possible vehicular homicide charge pending as well as trade several top prospects to get him). Bob's recent trade with Brian is another example - the aquisition of Eric Staal gives the Shadowmen a top tier pivot to build around (not that he will).
- Rolling the dice with pick 9.
Here's a shortlist of possible FPs from this years draft: Lecavalier, Spezza, Kiprusoff, Gonchar, Zetterberg, Alfreddson, Giguere, Gaborik, Datsyuk, Jokinen, and if you are a gambling man who enjoys 'fear my wingspan' power forwards like I do, I'd be gunning for Rick Nash.
Personally, I'd be way more comfortable with any of these guys than I would be with the aging Sundin. Is it worthwhile ditching Sundin to take one of them? That's your call. Let me add, that some GMS (ok, just Bob) have rolled the dice with picks from the third round or worse on Franchise players, so it is not only not impossible to do well at the nine spot, you could end up doing VERY well.
6/18/2007
FUNHL Lottery Results
Another year of unfortunate circumstances has the FUNHL unable to get together for a celebratory party and the awards ceremony with its drunken bachanalia will have to wait for another day - however an on-line gathering to determine the lottery has occurred and the results are in!
The draft order for 2007-08 is as follows:
1 - Knights Templar
2 - Highlanders
3 - Bladerunners
4 - Edge
5 - Personal Vendetta
6 - Shadowmen
7 - Ramapithicines
8 - Lost Boys
9 - Scourge
10 - Wolves
11 - Severed Heads
12 - Great Whites
Note: The Knights Templar and Ramapithicines were unable to be reached for the selection choices, and both were awarded the highest possible slot available when their names were drawn. In the case of the KT, that just happened to be first overall.
Note 2: A slightly modified version of the 'Royal Crown Bag of Fate' was used in the process this year, and while the original process was missed (especially the pre-marked 'poker chips of doom') , it was in the end, not missed all that much.
Note 3: I'd like to thank the GMs of; the Edge, Great Whites, Shadowmen, Scourge, and Personal Vendetta for helping to pull of the lottery on-line. Thanks to you all.
The draft order for 2007-08 is as follows:
1 - Knights Templar
2 - Highlanders
3 - Bladerunners
4 - Edge
5 - Personal Vendetta
6 - Shadowmen
7 - Ramapithicines
8 - Lost Boys
9 - Scourge
10 - Wolves
11 - Severed Heads
12 - Great Whites
Note: The Knights Templar and Ramapithicines were unable to be reached for the selection choices, and both were awarded the highest possible slot available when their names were drawn. In the case of the KT, that just happened to be first overall.
Note 2: A slightly modified version of the 'Royal Crown Bag of Fate' was used in the process this year, and while the original process was missed (especially the pre-marked 'poker chips of doom') , it was in the end, not missed all that much.
Note 3: I'd like to thank the GMs of; the Edge, Great Whites, Shadowmen, Scourge, and Personal Vendetta for helping to pull of the lottery on-line. Thanks to you all.
6/04/2007
FUNHL Lottery-Awards Ceremony
We have reached that time again, where we fete the winner of the Predator Cup, pull numbered chits from a hat to determine where people draft, and otherwise open the trade flood-gates for the off-season.
I am now officially ensconced into my new digs in Lethbridge (and those of you wishing to question the wisdom of moving with a newborn are free to do so - it was a completely insane decision, but one that we nevertheless made and followed through on), so depending on when it is held, I should be able to attend.
That said, I do have trips to Sk this week (likely Tue/Wed/Thur), and I believe the Highlander's GM is in similar straits to attend any potential dates this week.
So, might we bend the rules a little and hold the ceremony some time next weekend, or next week? If someone who has had more than 4 hours sleep in a row for the last month could e-mail out this discussion and round up opinions it would be much appreciated by Severed Heads Mgt.
Thoughts?
I am now officially ensconced into my new digs in Lethbridge (and those of you wishing to question the wisdom of moving with a newborn are free to do so - it was a completely insane decision, but one that we nevertheless made and followed through on), so depending on when it is held, I should be able to attend.
That said, I do have trips to Sk this week (likely Tue/Wed/Thur), and I believe the Highlander's GM is in similar straits to attend any potential dates this week.
So, might we bend the rules a little and hold the ceremony some time next weekend, or next week? If someone who has had more than 4 hours sleep in a row for the last month could e-mail out this discussion and round up opinions it would be much appreciated by Severed Heads Mgt.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)