2016 NHL Draft Lottery

[ZBBM]

The odds adjust by virtue of there being one less team in the pool per lottery. Each team's ball count stays the same, but the total number of balls is reduced as the lottery winner's balls are removed.

OK, thanks for that herman, and thanks HS for the chart.  I thought there was some other kind of weighting going on.

 

[Jolly good show chaps]

The odds adjust by virtue of there being one less team in the pool per lottery. Each team's ball count stays the same, but the total number of balls is reduced as the lottery winner's balls are removed.

So really this lottery is just a load of balls.

 

[herman]

The odds adjust by virtue of there being one less team in the pool per lottery. Each team's ball count stays the same, but the total number of balls is reduced as the lottery winner's balls are removed.

OK, thanks for that herman, and thanks HS for the chart.  I thought there was some other kind of weighting going on.

My explanation is an oversimplification of the process. The NHL doesn't use balls with team logos on them, seeded in inverse proportion to their final point standings -- that would make it rather easy to cheat by secretly adding or removing balls.

Instead, they have 14 balls numbered 1-14. Each team is assigned a list of 4# combinations (e.g. 1-3-9-14); the 30th place team has the most Bingo cards to work with, so to speak (~200 combinations, out of a total 1001). The ball tumbler spits out 1 ball every ten seconds until 4 balls are picked. In the next round of the lottery, the lottery winner's proportion of combinations is removed, so everyone else's is adjusted accordingly to account for the new pool size. I don't know the exact procedure for the adjustment, but I'd guess they'd redistribute new combinations per team (it's all software anyway).

 

[Bullfrog]

Wouldn't they just simply remove all the combinations from the winning team(s)? That's why the 29th place team has only a 13.5% chance in the first round, but then up to 20% or so in the second round (if the 30th place wins the first).

 

[herman]

Wouldn't they just simply remove all the combinations from the winning team(s)? That's why the 29th place team has only a 13.5% chance in the first round, but then up to 20% or so in the second round (if the 30th place wins the first).

That's kind of what I'd expect, but then you get increasing chances to draw one of the removed numbers. So is it faster to draw again (40 seconds) or spit out new combos per team totalling their new probability (theoretically 1-3 seconds)? I don't know.

 

[Boston Leaf]

Sorry if this was answered but didn't see it. So in round two. do the Leafs get the first pick in round 2? Or do they go to where they landed in lottery. Ie. if we pick 4th do we then pick 34th?

 

[Bullfrog]

Only the first round is affected by the lottery. So if the Edmonton wins the lottery, they pick 1st overall, but their 2nd and 3rd round picks remain at 32 and 62.

If Toronto drops all the way to 4th, they still retain 31st and 61st, etc.

 

[herman]

Sorry if this was answered but didn't see it. So in round two. do the Leafs get the first pick in round 2? Or do they go to where they landed in lottery. Ie. if we pick 4th do we then pick 34th?

Rounds after the first are not subject to the lottery results, and go by the expected order based on regular season points/playoff results.

 

[bustaheims]

Okay, so, using the charts, and what I remember from one of the math classes I took in high school, best case scenario puts the odds of the Leafs winning one of the lotteries at ~55%, while worst case has them at ~49%. Not terrible odds, all things considered.

 

[Boston Leaf]

Sorry if this was answered but didn't see it. So in round two. do the Leafs get the first pick in round 2? Or do they go to where they landed in lottery. Ie. if we pick 4th do we then pick 34th?

Rounds after the first are not subject to the lottery results, and go by the expected order based on regular season points/playoff results.

Ok great thanks

 

[Arn]

Did it used to be if you picked 1st in Round 1 then in Round 2 it went reverse order, so 30th in round 1 picked 1st in round 2, 29th in round one picked second in round 2?

 

[bustaheims]

Did it used to be if you picked 1st in Round 1 then in Round 2 it went reverse order, so 30th in round 1 picked 1st in round 2, 29th in round one picked second in round 2?

That was only for the draft after the season-long lockout.

 

[Al14]

Did it used to be if you picked 1st in Round 1 then in Round 2 it went reverse order, so 30th in round 1 picked 1st in round 2, 29th in round one picked second in round 2?

That was only for the draft after the season-long lockout.

Didn't they use the standings from the previous season, prior to the lockout year, to set the draft order for the 1st round?  Because it was a stale one year old result, they then went in reverse order in the following rounds.

 

[bustaheims]

Didn't they use the standings from the previous season, prior to the lockout year, to set the draft order for the 1st round?  Because it was a stale one year old result, they then went in reverse order in the following rounds.

No, they did a lottery for the whole league that was based on a number of factors. Teams had one, two, or three balls in the draw.

 

[Al14]

Didn't they use the standings from the previous season, prior to the lockout year, to set the draft order for the 1st round?  Because it was a stale one year old result, they then went in reverse order in the following rounds.

No, they did a lottery for the whole league that was based on a number of factors. Teams had one, two, or three balls in the draw.

Oh, okay.  Where did we end up again?  Was it 21st overall?

 

[Zee]

Didn't they use the standings from the previous season, prior to the lockout year, to set the draft order for the 1st round?  Because it was a stale one year old result, they then went in reverse order in the following rounds.

No, they did a lottery for the whole league that was based on a number of factors. Teams had one, two, or three balls in the draw.

Oh, okay.  Where did we end up again?  Was it 21st overall?

Yep, and Leafs took some unknown goalie named Tuukka Rask.

 

[Kaberle15]

Didn't they use the standings from the previous season, prior to the lockout year, to set the draft order for the 1st round?  Because it was a stale one year old result, they then went in reverse order in the following rounds.

No, they did a lottery for the whole league that was based on a number of factors. Teams had one, two, or three balls in the draw.

Oh, okay.  Where did we end up again?  Was it 21st overall?

Yep, and Leafs took some unknown goalie named Tuukka Rask.

Oh man, how in hell they opted for Pogge insted ?

 

[Al14]

Didn't they use the standings from the previous season, prior to the lockout year, to set the draft order for the 1st round?  Because it was a stale one year old result, they then went in reverse order in the following rounds.

No, they did a lottery for the whole league that was based on a number of factors. Teams had one, two, or three balls in the draw.

Oh, okay.  Where did we end up again?  Was it 21st overall?

Yep, and Leafs took some unknown goalie named Tuukka Rask.

Oh man, how in hell they opted for Pogge insted ?

They made the mistake of thinking the Canadian kid was more of a sure thing.  It bit them in the ass!

I'd like to know if Boston would have taken Pogge instead.  I'd highly doubt it though, they knew something about Rask that our scouts must have missed, or ignored.

 

[herman]

They picked Pogge because of recency bias. He just won with the WJ team.

 

[bustaheims]

They picked Pogge because of recency bias. He just won with the WJ team.

Rask was named top goalie at that very same tournament, so, really, there should not have been any recency bias. They "picked" Pogge because the scouts and other members of the front office couldn't talk JFJ out of making the trade. The story is that pretty much everyone was against it, and they knew Rask was the better prospect, but JFJ had made up his mind about the deal, and, well, here we are.