Eleven Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 And mostly from guys on the back end. I'm sensing a pattern. Chart it...
Eleven Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Columbus is now assured of a top-5 draft pick.
rickshaw Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 I agree with this. Thoughts? The NFL has different levels of penalties depending on the severity (ie 5 yard facemask vs 15 yard facemask) http://www.theprovince.com/touch/sports/Canuck+Henrik+Sedin+calls+tougher+game+penatlies+hard+hits/6355231/story.html?rel=894638
wjag Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 I agree with this. Thoughts? The NFL has different levels of penalties depending on the severity (ie 5 yard facemask vs 15 yard facemask) http://www.theprovin...html?rel=894638 Didn't Sedin throw a high elbow to start this whole thing? If I recall, he wasn't penalized. His brother is advocating he should be if I read this right. Or am I confusing things?
TrueBlueGED Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 I agree with this. Thoughts? The NFL has different levels of penalties depending on the severity (ie 5 yard facemask vs 15 yard facemask) http://www.theprovin...html?rel=894638 The NFL actually did away with that, and all facemasks are 15 yards now. I'm personally not a fan of penalty levels, as I want as little discretion as possible for refs. I think the best way to get consistent officiating is to make things as simple and clear as possible from a rules perspective.
bunomatic Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Didn't Sedin throw a high elbow to start this whole thing? If I recall, he wasn't penalized. His brother is advocating he should be if I read this right. Or am I confusing things? Sedin threw a hit where his shoulder came up off the body and drove into Keiths head. No elbow and the head was not the principle target but was hit nonetheless. He received a 2 minute penalty for roughing.
Randall Flagg Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Sedin threw a hit where his shoulder came up off the body and drove into Keiths head. No elbow and the head was not the principle target but was hit nonetheless. He received a 2 minute penalty for roughing. I wonder what made his shoulder decide to come up off the body just to hit Keith? :P
neverenough Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 I wonder what made his shoulder decide to come up off the body just to hit Keith? :P Sean Payton
LastPommerFan Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Columbus is now assured of a top-52 draft pick. Max points now 69, clinched last place, can only move down 1 spot max in the lottery.
Eleven Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Max points now 69, clinched last place, can only move down 1 spot max in the lottery. I thought a team could move up or down a max of 4 spots. If it's only a possibility of moving one spot, they should just get rid of the lottery.
Taro T Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 I thought a team could move up or down a max of 4 spots. If it's only a possibility of moving one spot, they should just get rid of the lottery. A team can move up 4 slots. A team can only move down 1 slot behind the team that now moved up 4 slots.
Eleven Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 A team can move up 4 slots. A team can only move down 1 slot behind the team that now moved up 4 slots. So there is very little, albeit some, reason not to tank games now, which is the whole point of a lottery. Sure, a team in fifth-to-last place might grab that top pick, but there still is a very good reason for a last-place team to make sure it stays in last place. How unsurprisingly stupid.
carpandean Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 The net result is somewhere around a 48% (25% of winning lottery + 23% chance that 6-30 win lottery) chance that the lowest team gets the top pick, then it drops to 19%, 14%, 11%, 8% for 2-5. Any team from 6-30 can win the lottery and move up four spots, but they can't reach the top. I guess 48% (basically 50/50) is less incentive to tank than 100%, but 48% chance of #1 and 52% chance of #2 is far better than any other spot (e.g., #2 has 19% chance of #1, 42% chance of #2, and 39% chance of #3.)
Taro T Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 So there is very little, albeit some, reason not to tank games now, which is the whole point of a lottery. Sure, a team in fifth-to-last place might grab that top pick, but there still is a very good reason for a last-place team to make sure it stays in last place. How unsurprisingly stupid. You are correct, not much chance for last place team to keep from tanking. It was put in place primarily to keep pace w/ the NBA and secondarily to keep a rerun of the Pens-Devils race for Lemieux from happening again. Each team that misses the playoffs gets entered into the lottery. The worst team overall has a 25% chance of winning outright and the best non-playoff team has a 0.5% chance of winning the lottery. Since any team not ranked to draft 2-5 winning the lottery ends up a win for the worst team, that team has a defacto 48.5% 48.2% chance of winning.
darksabre Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Rootin for Winnipeg tonight. As long as Ottawa loses, we can jump them with a win tomorrow.
Eleven Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 You are correct, not much chance for last place team to keep from tanking. It was put in place primarily to keep pace w/ the NBA and secondarily to keep a rerun of the Pens-Devils race for Lemieux from happening again. Each team that misses the playoffs gets entered into the lottery. The worst team overall has a 25% chance of winning outright and the best non-playoff team has a 0.5% chance of winning the lottery. Since any team not ranked to draft 2-5 winning the lottery ends up a win for the worst team, that team has a defacto 48.5% chance of winning. Inane. Either have a draft lottery or don't. This "team A can move up four spots; team B can move down only one" limitation is what makes it pretty stupid. If the worst team, even with a <1% chance of doing so, gets the 10th pick in the draft in some given year, well, that's the way it happens that year.
Weave Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 You are correct, not much chance for last place team to keep from tanking. It was put in place primarily to keep pace w/ the NBA and secondarily to keep a rerun of the Pens-Devils race for Lemieux from happening again. Each team that misses the playoffs gets entered into the lottery. The worst team overall has a 25% chance of winning outright and the best non-playoff team has a 0.5% chance of winning the lottery. Since any team not ranked to draft 2-5 winning the lottery ends up a win for the worst team, that team has a defacto 48.5% chance of winning. For some reason I thouhgt the NHL draft lottery was implemented because of some Ottawa tank years.
Taro T Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 For some reason I thouhgt the NHL draft lottery was implemented because of some Ottawa tank years. That's when it ended up starting, but Pittsburgh and NJ pulling up as many AHL'ers as they could to win the race is what put a draft lottery on the NHL's radar.
Weave Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 That's when it ended up starting, but Pittsburgh and NJ pulling up as many AHL'ers as they could to win the race is what put a draft lottery on the NHL's radar. That doesn't make sense to me. The lottery started in '95 right? Lemieux was drafted in like '84. I would expect that there were alot more recent transgressions of teams tanking that spurred on the decision to create a draft lottery. Quebec tanking for a 3rd year in a row to draft Lindros immediately comes to mind.
Eleven Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 That doesn't make sense to me. The lottery started in '95 right? Lemieux was drafted in like '84. I would expect that there were alot more recent transgressions of teams tanking that spurred on the decision to create a draft lottery. Quebec tanking for a 3rd year in a row to draft Lindros immediately comes to mind. Or the Sabres tanking to get Turgeon. I kid.
Taro T Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 That doesn't make sense to me. The lottery started in '95 right? Lemieux was drafted in like '84. I would expect that there were alot more recent transgressions of teams tanking that spurred on the decision to create a draft lottery. Quebec tanking for a 3rd year in a row to draft Lindros immediately comes to mind. You only had one other 'race' to the bottom of the league with anything close to that level of 2 bad teams being lapped by the entire rest of the league - that was in '93 when the expansion Otters tied an injury depleted 2nd year Snarks. But the Snarks had traded away that pick, so there was no race to the bottom that year either. A lot of GM's were upset that the Pens and Devils had so blatently pushed to the bottom of the standings to get the next Gretzky. As I had stated originally, the primary driving force to bring in the draft lottery was a desire to be like the NBA. (Now what would have happened around that time to make the league want to do something like that?) The 2ndary driving force was to make sure that now that there were oodles of expansion teams that no one saw fit to throw a season like had been done back in '84 when for all intents and purposes the Devils and Pens had been eliminated from playoff contention by Christmas.
Weave Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 You only had one other 'race' to the bottom of the league with anything close to that level of 2 bad teams being lapped by the entire rest of the league - that was in '93 when the expansion Otters tied an injury depleted 2nd year Snarks. But the Snarks had traded away that pick, so there was no race to the bottom that year either. A lot of GM's were upset that the Pens and Devils had so blatently pushed to the bottom of the standings to get the next Gretzky. As I had stated originally, the primary driving force to bring in the draft lottery was a desire to be like the NBA. (Now what would have happened around that time to make the league want to do something like that?) The 2ndary driving force was to make sure that now that there were oodles of expansion teams that no one saw fit to throw a season like had been done back in '84 when for all intents and purposes the Devils and Pens had been eliminated from playoff contention by Christmas. I went looking for something around the interwebs that discussed this very topic and couldn't find anything. For whetever it is worth (which I freely admit is damned near nothing) my recollection is that the Lindros draft was prime motivator. I remember The Hockey News openly suggesting that Quebec had tanked at least two of the 3 most recent years in order to build up talent. And IIRC, the Quebec situation was used as a justification, not the Lemieux draft. Then again, I could def see Lemieux still being discussed to so............
Punch Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Robin Lehner called up from Bing.--- looks like the Sens playoff chances die rest with Craig Anderson: Bruce Garrioch @SunGarrioch Bishop out 2 weeks #Sens Retweeted by Mike Harrington
apuszczalowski Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Isn't there something in Bishops contract that says he ahs to play a certain amount of games to be a RFA, if not he becomes a UFA this offseason? This could affect teh Sens offseason too
shrader Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Isn't there something in Bishops contract that says he ahs to play a certain amount of games to be a RFA, if not he becomes a UFA this offseason? This could affect teh Sens offseason too It was a clause in the CBA, yes. But Bishop got a new contract with the trade, so he's theirs next year.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.