I thought I’d move this out of the giant discussion below.
Proposed Rule Change for Draft Lottery.
Our current draft lottery system gives 12 chips to last place, 11 chips to first place and one less chip to each team in descending order (so 11th place gets 1 chip.) These all go into the bag. As each team is selected from the bag, the GM gets to select when they draft.
I believe the system tries to reward GMs for putting effort into their teams, even when the Predator cup is out of view, since more chips in the bag means better odds of getting a choice draft position. The high reward for last place means that the herbivore winner is unlikely to be a repeat ‘winner’ year after year: with almost 1/6 chips in the bag, they should get a good draft position. But, the system is ham-fisted: last place aside, it rewards how a GM placed, rather than how well they did compared to other teams scores, no matter if the difference is 0.4 or 400 points.
For example, there is a point-spread of more than 200 points between first and fourth places this year, compared to a point-spread of a little less than 30 points between 11th and eighth. The current system rewards, in both cases, the higher placing team with only three more chips. This becomes particularly distressing in the bottom half of the pool, where eighth place has four times as many chips in the bag as 11th.
My proposed “25-points” formula (to distinguish from Cameron’s “Crown-Royal” formula) is this:
The total score of the last place team at the end of the season is assigned a value of 1 chip. For every 25 points of difference between a teams final score and this value, an extra chip is added to the bag for that team (remainder points are discarded). The last place team is given a number of chips in the bags equal to the top team’s plus 1.
Then, all these chips go into the bag. As each team is selected from the bag, the GM gets to select when they draft.
This past year would have generated the following results, and the percentage they represent of being chosen first (in brackets what the old formula provided instead.)
Highlanders: 12 Chips (11 Chips)
Bladerunners: 8 (10)
Great Whites: 5 (9)
Shadowmen: 4 (8)
Knights Templar: 3 (7)
Wolves: 3 (6)
Personal Vendetta: 3 (5)
Ramapithicenes: 2 (4)
Severed Heads: 2 (3)
Lost Boys: 2 (2)
Scourge: 2 (1)
Edge: 13 (12)
12 comments:
Its nice to see some life in this blog again
Intersting, but consider the following; there is no difference recognized between the Ramapithicines (7th) and the Scourge (11th), nor for any of the teams in between as under this new formula all of these teams receive the same number of ballots (2). If we are to avoid tanking, shouldn't we reward teams who fight to stay in 7th instead of 11th?
The Ramapithicenes are in 8th, and are less than 25 points from 11th place. So, no, no distinction for them. I'd question how hard Corey fought to stay in "7th" if he got so close to last.
I think it's wrong to reward effort instead of result. We could honour his battle by reducing the number of points needed to generate a chip. But 25 appeals to me for its roundness, and because it doesn't generate a whole lot of chips (any system needing more than 80 is more bureaucratic than the current method)
What my system might have done is encouraged you and Dan away from making big costly trades post WD2, when you both tanked your teams in exchange for prospects and prospect picks (As I recall anyway). The current system has relatively little penalty for tanking your team if there's a wide spread in points.
Richard
I guess the facts are that there is a difference between 8th and 11th - and while it may not have been a huge difference, its one that is still worth recognizing, no?
As for my 'tanking it', please. I made a trade of significant short term assets (Lecavalier, Stastny, etc.) to get a long term asset in Malkin. Hardly the same thing as 'tanking'.
Did my team do worse afterwards? Without a doubt, but I avoided last place, and beat several other teams - including yours.
Cameron, what if there is no tangible difference between 11th and 8th? What if it's less than a point? What if the distance between first and second is more than a hundred points?
I think it's important to reward based off overall result, not where you happened to fall in a series of slots. Thus the proposed change.
As far as I'm concerned there are only two positions worth noting: first, and last. Everything else is nice, but how far you are from each of those two stakes is what should determine the relative value of your team.
There should be a bonus for standings although not as heavily weighed as current system. I also would like to see something to Richards point system implemented in addition to this to maybe smooth out the disparities slightly.
With the weighting of the current lotto not being a deterent of mass selling i only see the chip method as increasing this... Maybe an Oilers trophy fasioned after the Herbie for the team that does the worst post all star break or post trade deadline (although that is a short term)....
How about this instead of your suggestion;
The top 4 finishing teams are automatically assigned slots as follows;
12 (Predator Cup winner)
11 (2nd place)
10 (3rd place)
9 (4th place)
Slots 1-8 go to the lottery
Last place = 25 chits
11th = 18
10th = 15
9th = 12
8th = 10
7th = 8
6th = 7
5th = 5
So, we 'reward' the top finishing team with a wrap-around draft at the 12 spot, and the runner-up gets the 11 spot - which on the surface seems fair - as the previous years winner is no longer likely to be picking early the following season, but nevertheless is guaranteed a good draft slot.
The remaining 8 teams go to the lottery where their fates are determined by draw.
Since nobody is guaranteed anything significant, it shouldn't reward teams who tank (you could get the Herbivore and then on top of that have a 75% chance of not getting the top pick).
However, by reserving the top 8 picks for 8 worst teams, we ensure that those teams that suck the most have the best chance to replace an FP at the upcoming ED.
Lastly, since the bottom end of the wrap-around is gone, teams will intrinsically prefer to take the highest available slot remaining - and hence we avoid having to do that whole 'what's your preference for slot' dance.
Thoughts?
How about this as a solution.
Between the period of slot selection and the ED draft start two GMs can exchange picks inside of a round. IE first for first or second for a second. And only for the first two rounds. This trade has to be done prior to the ED draft starting so that it does not interfere with the draft itself.
League credibility is protected by everybody still having a pick in each round.
This does allow those wanting to maximize the chances on getting a solid FP by being able to trade up from the mid rounds or move up in the second round if doing a Double FP Swap.
EG Do to the unexpected possibility of Neidermeyers retirement my late first round pick would not garnish me a significant FP. While I am pursuing some FP trades it would be somewhat easier to provide some additional asset to be able to move up half a dozen places
I for one do not think that any body should be assigned a slot. Depending on the draft year I often select the later round. I know Dan does as well.
Rob, I doubt you would have picked a different slot than 10th given then Neidermeyer ret. rumours are recent and most likely spurious after Scott gives it a month to think about.
But, more to the group, why should we change the lottery balance? For changes sake? Then I vote for the status quo considering the huge interest in the lottery [note sarcasm] prior to the lottery. People are upset afterwards...we had most lists, 6 online, double encryption code that matched [cam and me]and we waited -> sorry...or not sorry, that's the way probability works ->no guarantees that probability would have given us a different outcome.
And once we start on discussing the possibility with FP trading watch out!
Regarding Cameron's suggested system:
If Dan or Bob would like to trade me their over all position for the highly desirable 9th slot, it's available. Actually, if anyone higher than me (or in 12th) wants to trade me for the highly desirable 9th slot, it's available.
It seems to me you've made it more desirable to tank if you're risking third spot, and I don't see to the advantage to rewarding teams that finish poorly.
I'd also like to clarify that my suggested change is to help make the system better at doing what we want it to do (i.e. reward achieving teams with better odds of a high placement in the draft.) I think as other suggestions come forward, they should at least suggest what they're trying to achieve with the change.
Post a Comment