Tank Nation: Matthews Edition

[Kin]

I'm with Peter. This really makes little sense from a player's perspective. i understand that a little bit of extra revenue is good, but otherwise the whole premise of players competing for a draft position is ridiculous.

Yeah I've heard this idea before and I really don't see it. I've seen suggestions that there should be a $2mil prize at the end or something, but I just can't see players who just had their Stanley Cup dreams for the season officially end care about this one bit. Most would probably rather just get their offseasons started.

It's not a particularly serious suggestion. But, that said, the point of it isn't that it would generate an unbelievably exciting tournament that was deeply meaningful for all involved. Just that it would effectively eliminate the need to tank.

Also, I think you're underestimating the level of professionalism most players have. This isn't like the All-Star game, where it's a distraction from what their employers are trying to accomplish. This would be a game the Toronto Maple Leafs were playing. Where they very much wanted to win. Where the fans very much wanted to win. And the Players would be under contract to the Toronto Maple Leafs. Heck, ignore any aspect of individual professionalism or pride or a desire to improve the club do you think Brad Boyes or Nazem Kadri or Jonathan Bernier, all of whom are going to be looking for new contracts in the near future, want the reputations of being guys who don't give 100% when their teams have games? You think Mike Babcock would say next year "Yeah, well, Kapanen really dogged it in that end of year tournament because he wanted to be in the Bahamas but whatevs, I'll still cut him a ton of slack next year"?

Call me naive but I think that players under contract to a team will, by and large, play hard in games for that team.

 

[Kin]

It has all the basis in the world.  There's only one metric by which a team's performance can be quantitatively judged, and that's the amount of points it's earned.

That's just not true. It was never true but it's especially not true now. Certainly not when so many points are won and lost with the shootout and when we have better metrics for distinguishing luck from skill on a team basis. 

Beyond that you're making my point for me. Auston Matthews going to the Oilers, even if the Oilers finished last, would not achieve the stated desire of evenly distributing talent throughout the league. Or, if it does, than it doesn't achieve that goal in any meaningful way in which Matthews going to the Leafs or Jets or Flames wouldn't. In order to argue that it does, you have to make the case that the difference of a point here or there represents a significant and clearly measurable difference in fortunes. The difference between a 63 point team and a 64 point team doesn't represent that. Rewarding the 63 team doesn't ensure a more equal distribution of talent. The only thing it does is incentivize failure.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Interesting discussion, to those "that's a silly idea" responses, did you actually read the rest of the article?

The author makes almost exactly that point, I posted only the intro.

Some great discussion going so far though.

 

[Kin]

The other thing that bears some mentioning, and this is sort of related to what Frank said earlier, is that it's important to remember the differance in environment between now and when the draft came into being. This isn't Quebec needing a first overall pick and team control because they can't possibly afford to spend with the Rangers. This isn't the Kansas City Scouts needing a draft because otherwise every good French Canadian player will sign with the Habs. It's not a bankrupt Penguins team needing some possible light at the end of a tunnel.

Right now the worst team in the NHL, or at least one of the worst, is also its richest. The Leafs being as bad as they are only represents their choosing to be terrible precisely because the league has set up a system where it's better to be dead last than fifth last. The Leafs are "worse" than other teams as a function of a strategy. So the idea that you need a reverse order draft to ensure a "fair" distribution of talent doesn't just incentivize failure, it punishes even attempting moderate success.

Think about it this way. If the Oilers become a dynamo in a few years, with Matthews and McDavid, is that good for the league? Is that model of success one the league should be encouraging? The system as is, and what some people apparently want to not only keep but double-down on,  is one where smart but talent-poor teams are trying to duplicate through effort the results the stupid teams achieve via incompetence. In what way is that sporting? How does that qualify as competition? 

People forget it because the Blackhawks have been so successful but the cap and contract limit are perfectly effective means of ensuring a measure of competitive balance. Chicago has had to trade away multiple all-stars and even still they're only as good as they are because the outdated Keith/Hossa contracts let them keep players they otherwise couldn't and the cap kept rising. A team like the Stars have effectively built themselves in large part because of the cap and the way it forces teams to move talent. You don't need the draft for parity when the salary structure basically guarantees it.

In the past when I've argued for the tank it wasn't because the tank guaranteed success or because other methods ensured failure. It was because trying to be the very worst team in the league represented the highest possible odds of building the sort of success we'd like to see. All a breakaway from the current system would be is a remixing of those odds. It's not re-inventing the wheel. Teams should have a path to getting better but it doesn't need to be an idiot-proof one.

 

[TML fan]

So who are we picking at 4th?

 

[Zee]

So who are we picking at 4th?

I'm OK with it. At least the Leafs tanked properly this time. Picking 4th cause the lottery screwed them, there's nothing you can do about that. Winning games down the stretch and lowering your odds though, that sucks.

 

[TML fan]

So who are we picking at 4th?

I'm OK with it. At least the Leafs tanked properly this time. Picking 4th cause the lottery screwed them, there's nothing you can do about that. Winning games down the stretch and lowering your odds though, that sucks.

No, I was actually asking. I don't know any of the players.

 

[Bender]

Matthew Tkachuk maybe? London Knights/Marner connection.

 

[Jolly good show chaps]

Good night for the tank last night with Calgary and Winnipeg winning and Buffalo getting a point.

 

[L K]

Rank		Team		GP		PTS		PT%		ROW		H2H		L10
30		Toronto		64		52		0.812		16		N/A		1-8-1
29		Edmonton		67		57		0.851		21		1-1-0		3-6-1
28		Calgary		65		58		0.892		25		1-0-0 (1)		2-7-1
27		Winnipeg		64		59		0.922		25		2-0-0		3-5-2
26		Buffalo		66		61		0.924		25		1-0-0 (3)		4-3-3
25		Columbus		66		62		0.939		22		1-1-0 (1)		5-3-2
24		Arizona		65		62		0.954		27		2-0-0		3-7-0
23		Vancouver		64		62		0.967		21		0-2-0		3-7-0

18 Games Left in the year, 4 games left against teams within 10 points (3 against Buffalo)
12 Games Left Against teams in  the playoffs/playoff race potentially
Hold the tiebreaker  for H2H matchup against all teams except Buffalo (pending) and Vancouver
30th in Wins, 30th in Regulation Wins, 30th in Points 30th in PT%

20% draft odds don't give you a massive shot at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd but this still do give you the best odds.

 

[Deebo]

The games played gap between the Oilers and Leafs won't start to close until that last couple weeks of the season. Between March 29th and the and April 9th, the Leafs play 7 games in 12 nights compared to the Oilers 3.

GP won't be equal until the Leafs play game 81 of their season.

 

[L K]

Rank		Team		GP		PTS		PT%		ROW		H2H		L10
30		Toronto		64		52		0.812		16		N/A		1-8-1
29		Calgary		65		58		0.892		25		1-0-0 (1)		2-7-1
28		Edmonton		68		59		0.868		22		1-1-0		4-5-1
27		Winnipeg		65		59		0.908		25		2-0-0		2-6-2
26		Buffalo		66		61		0.924		25		1-0-0 (3)		4-3-3
25		Columbus		66		62		0.939		22		1-1-0 (1)		5-3-2
24		Arizona		65		62		0.954		27		2-0-0		3-7-0
23		Vancouver		64		62		0.967		21		0-2-0		3-7-0

Edmonton beat Winnipeg 2-1
At this point Winnipeg might be the biggest concern to find a way to fall behind the Leafs.

 

[KGB]

It has all the basis in the world.  There's only one metric by which a team's performance can be quantitatively judged, and that's the amount of points it's earned.

That's just not true. It was never true but it's especially not true now. Certainly not when so many points are won and lost with the shootout and when we have better metrics for distinguishing luck from skill on a team basis. 

Beyond that you're making my point for me. Auston Matthews going to the Oilers, even if the Oilers finished last, would not achieve the stated desire of evenly distributing talent throughout the league. Or, if it does, than it doesn't achieve that goal in any meaningful way in which Matthews going to the Leafs or Jets or Flames wouldn't. In order to argue that it does, you have to make the case that the difference of a point here or there represents a significant and clearly measurable difference in fortunes. The difference between a 63 point team and a 64 point team doesn't represent that. Rewarding the 63 team doesn't ensure a more equal distribution of talent. The only thing it does is incentivize failure.

I agree that the points system is distorted by the various iterations of OT and the SO.  Given my druthers, I'd drop all of them.  Games are 60 minutes long and if it's tied at the end, it's tied.  The goal is to win the Stanley Cup, each game along the way is only an incremental step to that end.  Unlike the post-season, there's no need for a definitive winner -- especially one determined via gimmicks and skills competitions. 

With that out of the way, I'm puzzled by the argument you're trying to make.  It sounds like you're saying that because the draft does not and never has resulted in an orderly path to improvement, basing draft position on points is, well, pointless.  But if that's the case, I don't see how you determine draft position at all.  As I posited in an earlier post, one could argue the position that just about any team in the league is deserving of a high(er) draft pick.  But that's obviously not tenable, unless you want to abandon the draft altogether and go to a soccer system, where teams simply recruit and purchase young talent.  If you're going to do the draft, you have to have a metric for seeding and in the NHL's case it's the number of points earned.  This is how it should be as there's simply no other objective measurement of a team's overall performance. 

Drafting higher does not automatically equate to incentivizing failure, as you implied.  As is quite obvious in the Leafs case, stripping a team down is a fairly necessary step in trying to rebuild, and one which more often than not leads to a poor position in the standings.  Now, if the Leafs blow that by drafting poorly and overspending on ineffective free agents then that's their fault, but it in no way indicts the system of allowing the poorest teams first crack at emerging talent. 

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

5 straight and 7 of the last 9 games have been one goal losses.

 

[Bullfrog]

 

[Redleaf]

I like the fact that management is finally putting their noses to the grindstone and tanking for the cause.  My only question is, where the hell was this approach last year when the reward was a guarantee of either McDavid or Eichel?

With only a 20% chance of securing the top pick and only a 50% chance of landing a top 3 pick, I don't like the odds of having so many Leaf fans being crushed on lottery night. How many people really believe that when the lottery balls start to drop that luck will be on our side?

 

[herman]

I like the fact that management is finally putting their noses to the grindstone and tanking for the cause.  My only question is, where the hell was this approach last year when the reward was a guarantee of either McDavid or Eichel?

Why do you think Carlyle was retained?

 

[Kin]

Why would you not like the odds of something if the odds are the best they can possibly be?

 

[Redleaf]

Why would you not like the odds of something if the odds are the best they can possibly be?

That's my point. The odds have diminished to the point where management would have to seriously question whether or not tanking is a viable enough approach. I mean, a team could purposely tank for 5 straight years, finish dead last and still end up with mediocre results. At what point do you say it isn't worth it? The sure thing was last year. This year, not so much.

 

[Zee]

I like the fact that management is finally putting their noses to the grindstone and tanking for the cause.  My only question is, where the hell was this approach last year when the reward was a guarantee of either McDavid or Eichel?

With only a 20% chance of securing the top pick and only a 50% chance of landing a top 3 pick, I don't like the odds of having so many Leaf fans being crushed on lottery night. How many people really believe that when the lottery balls start to drop that luck will be on our side?

Who knows, Leafs have the best chance at the #1 pick if they finish 30th, but then you look at it and there's 80% chance someone else gets the top pick.  Of course I would fully expect that if the Oilers were 30th they'd win that first pick hands down despite the 80% chance of some other team winning.  Really hope Leafs are top 3, #1 would be ideal of course but not getting my hopes up.