Does tanking work in the NHL?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- "Tanking", or deliberately weakening your roster so you can lose games, and receive draft picks for it... Does it make sense? Is it a good strategy? Is there any way to stop teams from doing it? That and more in this edition of District 5.
#hockey #nhl - Sport
The truth is the players don’t tank, the head brass and ownership absolutely tank
Precisely this. The players don't tank. The owners will trade anything valuable/productive away though.
lmao obviously. the video never claims this..
@@generaldoof7334players want to win of course and give it their all on the ice, yet as much as they want to win, it becomes impossible when teams’ front offices will assemble rosters specifically to not win.
I love the way that Dallas has built their team with Heiskanen being the only high pick in in the draft. Just crushing it with their late 1sts and 2nd rounders in the last several years.
And with stankoven it’s just getting better. As a neutral fan if they don’t at least get one cup it’s genuinely gonna shock me
And the Stars definitely didn't tank to get Miro Heiskanen, considering they won the Central Division in 2016 and made it all the way to Game 7 of Round 2 before suffering severe regression and finishing well out of a playoff spot, only to get rewarded with the ping pong balls.
Such a great scouting team
Mavrik Bourque just won AHL player of the year too and is on the way. They're going to have to break up that team it's not fair to rest of the league lol.
And they didn’t even tank to get him, they just got insanely lucky and moved up. Dallas, St. Louis, NYR are all so good at drafting. Washington used to be, but they haven’t had a hit in a while.
The Sharks did not tank. They were contenders for about two decades and did their best to keep the team competitive years past their prime (already past it the year they went to the SCF). They've had a lot of injuries and traded bad contracts and players who no longer wished to be part of the team. It was a much deserved lottery win.
On paper, I agree. But with context of how often the Sharks egregiously choked in the playoffs; They don’t deserve shit, Because who’s to say ,that they won’t waste that draft pick’s career on playoff ineptitude, as well?
@@elijahechicagobearsboyd5734 nice bait
Great video, though I do disagree with the idea that all tanking is inherently bad. The NHL is a business and the decision to trade good players to reset the timeline and be in contention for elite talent is simply asset management. As a fan, I'd much rather watch a handful of bad years and become excited for the draft and free agency rather than watch my team spin their tires for a decade and never get over the hump. Even 3 or 4 top picks doesn't guarantee wins, you need competent ownership, management, and leadership to win.
If we're arguing the "integrity of the sport", I think the NHL gets it right the most of any other major sport in NA. The NFL doesn't have a draft lottery at all, the MLB only has a 6-team lottery, and the NBA is a superstar league where one player can transform a team.
Totally agree, I'm sure the Browns spending all of those years as an irrelevant franchise is worse when the NFL picks are guaranteed.
I agree, trading good players to contenders for extra draft picks is a sacrifice for the future and I am fine with that being rewarded. Buffalo and Ottawa show that there are risks to team morale and culture if you take it too far and try to tank for an extended period of time, teams that empty the cupboards too hard get so bad that they get a culture of losing and can't aquire players for years. But if they do it wisely they collect heaps of young players that learn and develop together with maybe a couple older mentors left from previous years while others were moved to contenders. This process also gets a lot of the best players to playoff teams which makes the playoffs even deeper with high end talent. if all the teams were keeping their ageing talent to win 36 games insteasd of 32 that would kind of feel like a wsate
True, the Devils might not win a cup but over the next 10+ years they’ll be competitive as they tanked for like 6+ years to get good players.
Moment of silence for Leafs fans who haven't made it out of the first round of the playoffs for 7/8 years
What a fucking great video. It's a shame the views don't reflect that. Your idea of a Draft pick playoff bracket sounds amazing.
Please don't be discouraged by this videos lack of views, you are one of the only hockey youtubers that makes actually well researched, well produced videos about interesting topics. Not just clickbaity, game-reviewy bullshit like every other hockey youtuber.
Most of his videos that are like this blow up. It will get caught up by the algorithm and recommended to people. Don't worry.
I don't see how players will be motivated to play in a draft pick playoff though. If they play well, their employer gets the benefit of a high pick while they essentially just get nothing. I don't even think a bonus for the whole team if they win will be enough to truly motivate them.
Also, teams that traded away their first overall pick and still didn't make the playoffs will still try to tank in this format.
I always had this idea that the draft order or the lottery odds should be based on the combined records from previous three seasons. That way tanking would not be possible unless it's your long-term plan, and the team rewarded with the first overall pick would always be the worst in the League.
Fantastic argument against tanking can be found with the Senators and Lightning who showed it matters a whole hell of a lot more if you draft smart and have a good scouting department
Great breakdown, would love to see your take on the salary cap era CBAs with lockouts and cap circumvention controversy.
Same
His videos obviously take a long time to make. Idk if he would put in that much work for a niche video that may not get many views.
You notice Gary says players and coaches don't intentionally tank/lose. Yet he fails to mention the front office.
He did that for a reason. He's a lawyer, after all.
In the proposed bottom 16 playoffs, would the players have any motivation to try and get a player who might replace them? Is a bottom 6 guy on the 19th place team going to put any effort in to help a team he’s not personally invested in? Players would 100% rather get the time off, and this proposed system had the danger of trapping a team in last forever. Few teams will win the cup, but top prospects can make a team a contender (ex: Vancouver) which is good for the fans.
But, it enables taking the cowards way out, by intentionally losing; which SHOULD NEVER be rewarded..
The Wild are one of the in-between teams, a team that (due to cap hell because of the buyouts) are inbetween a first round exit and missing the playoffs, despite a lot of tallent on the roster
With a 1st overall pick tournament, teams in the in-between would stand a much better chance of rising out of purgatory with elite young tallent that would have the environment for them to grow and prosper with less chance of busting
Bias speaking from being a Wild fan, but its a great idea
Isles but with talent
First: bettman is an absolute plug.
Second: tanking does happen and it sucks.
Third: well done video. Thanks for the numbers breakdown on players.
As a hockey fan from Washington, DC… tough but fair.
Outstanding analysis. Made me wonder though... How many teams have, or had, first round draft picks? If most teams have a top pick on their roster that would make winning with a top pick even less of a guarantee. Also, some first rounds like Crosby and McDavid came in and were immediately committed to the team, becoming great leaders. Was Daigle? I don't remember it that way.
One thing lost on a lot of people was that the Oilers got Hall after being the most injured team in the previous season with 530 man-games lost to injury compared to 200-300 for the next closest team. It looked like a decision made late in the season for them.
This channel deserves to blow up. These videos are so well made
Last season, I was at the last ANA Ducks game chanting "We want Bedard !", wanting to lose to ensure last spot in the NHL and highest #1 draft odds; this also only occurred because CHI Blackhawks got points in their last 2 games, so you could say Ducks tanked better at the end than the Blackhawks... But we all know what happens next, CHI moves up in the draft and gets Bedard and ANA falls to 2nd. CHI gets another generational talent 1st pick and Ducks still don't have a 1st. Would have been nice if ANA went UP this year but no justice. Will never be able to see Bedard the same after this.
i feel your pain, as a jackets fan it was a very similar situation. i was at the home finale and was pissed we beat the pens because it put us #2, and you guys moved up to #1 in the odds. and of course they leaked columbus fell to #3 before they were supposed to announce it, that was pretty upsetting too
just realise that u have 6k sub, thats an insanly good video for a small youtuber, good job continue like that!
Very well done video. Loved discussing all the built in problems with the draft system like how trading away everything you have for a few teenagers does may always mean success. I understand where you are coming from with the addition of a tournament to win the first overall pick and think that a bottom 8 bracket would be awesome since no other leagues do this. At the end of the day people need to understand that the front office is what puts together these winners. You compare Buffalo to the new regime in Chicago it’s night and day.
Having a tournament at the end of the season to determine who gets 1st overall is a VERY BAD idea. If I was a player on a losing team, why would I compete in order to get a player that would replace me? Also what about players who are upcoming free agents? Why would they want to help a team that they won't be on next season?
I have thought so much about everything you said. Makes me more proud of the fact the Canucks have come as far as they have without tanking. Good drafting and signings and trades. Really hope we finish off the Oilers this round, otherwise it helps reinforce that all you really have to do is sit back, tank and get your McDavid's to win. It's a travesty Bedard went to the Blackhawks.
I mean from 2013 to 2019 we drafted six top ten picks in seven years. And many of those picks are our current core, so...
Also the Oilers needed to basically blow three first overall picks before even they got a McDavid.
Aside from a handful of sure-bit pre-draft bets, drafting is hard and you can never be sure if a player will make it or not.
Shockingly, it really depends WHO the top player in the draft is as to how “worth it” that it is to tank.
The only two “good pieces” of championship teams from the 2010 draft have been Tarasenko and Carlson. Then in 2011 the best player was taken in the 2nd round, and as much as we love Nuge he was never going to be a #1 centre on a contending team. Then 2012 😑 yeah thanks for the first pick that year when none of the top 4 picks even play in the league anymore.
I don’t think that I’m being biased when I say that those were three of arguably the worst three years to get the first pick in a ten year span, and the Oilers got them back to back to back.
And then, even if you do get the first pick, and you do get “that guy”, you NEED to already have pieces in place to succeed.
Penguins already had Letang, Fleury and Malkin before they got Crosby. Chicago already had Kieth, Seabrook and a few other guys before they got Kane and Toews.
Oilers had NOTHING when they started picking first over all. Management still thought they were a finals team in 2009. Sure they got McDavid in 2015, but they needed Klefbom, Nurse, Draisaitl and Nuge ahead of him in order to compete. And even then they still needed one more pick in Bouchard to really round out the group.
All this to say, we’ll go back in time and trade the Canucks 2/3 of our 1st over all picks from those three years for LITERALLY NOTHING, and both teams will be in the exact same place that they are now.
Cool video! Tanking definitely can work for some teams some times, but it's not the cure-all that some fans really seem to think it is, especially for hockey. There's a quote from an NBA exec that IIRC says "you either want to be at the very top or at the very bottom, not in between," but basketball isn't hockey. One player can't change the entire fortunes of your franchise
It gets annoying having to tell my fellow Isles fans this. What the sabres are now, the Islanders used to be. They sucked in the 90s, got rid of a lot of prospects to try to "win now" in the early 2000s (while never winning a playoff series), sucked again, and are now in a period of somewhat sustained success (playoffs in last 5 of 6 years, 2 ECF trips), ironically enough, right after our 1OA left in free agency. Tanking is not a guaranteed ticket to a cup, a lot of time it's just a lot of losing and watching bad hockey, which I sure as hell don't want to do
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, especially the part about being appalled at the prospect of watching my favorite team egregiously lose, just for a mere chance of obtaining a generational talent..
The Pens didn't tank to get Crosby or Fleury because at that time the Pens in fact were struggling at that time from 2002-2003 season until 2005-2006 season financially and as a team the Pens were almost bankrupt until Mario Lemieux saved them by getting a group of people including Lemieux himself purchasing stakes in the team. They almost moved and changed cities.
Pardon this simple country hockey fan, but I do have a few vexing questions I hope someone more learned than I might shed some light on.
What's the difference between tanking, just being bad, or going through a proper rebuild and making smart hockey decisions towards building for the future? It seems to me that it's way too easy to just pigeonhole any team that finishes in last place in a year as being tankers, but someone is always going to finish last whether they're a tanker or not.
How do bad teams improve without building through the draft? Free agents have to want to come play for a team, and with a hard salary cap in place you can't just keep writing more zeroes on the check until you've got a championship roster. Game breaking talent almost never hits the market, teams lock them up for the best part of their career. It's nearly impossible for a bottom place team to trade for top talent, elite players all have NTCs and NMCs.
Very good points. And I've felt there's a difference between a team doing a scorched earth over a team trying to rebuild their foundation.
tanking is pretty much when management fields a team that will give them the best chance to lose, but yeah it’s hard to distinguish tanking from rebuilding
Love your content. Great video, but here are my strong opinions on tanking.
Tanking sucks, it has always sucked. It's a low percentage play.
For every team that makes off with a Lemieux, a Dozen teams end up with a replacement level player that they just wasted a whole fucking season on. The discussion would be different if you always got your guy, but most of the time you don't.
Losing is Rot. When you look at the extremely successful sports franchises, the ones that are always competing for decades on end. They simply do not tank. They spend there lul year competing, and then the they power back up with Drafting, development, free agency, and Trading.
Your an aging vet. Are you ever going to a team that has a history of tanking. One that might just fold one of your last seasons left.
Are you ever waiving a NMC to got a team that tanks?
A young stud that just wasn't a fit with his last team, does he want to go to a team that tanks?
You completely and totally fuck your ability to acquire players YOU ALREADY KNOW ARE GOOD by tanking. That's so important, Your guessing in the draft. For every can't miss prospect like Connor McDavid, you can name a dozen Can't miss prospects like Ryan Leaf, Or Nail Yakapov, or whoever the fuck.
When you look at the most successful team of the 2000s onward, The new England Patriots, the evidence becomes insanely clear. You focus on winning first and foremost. Getting your guy is even more important in football and the patriots have never tanked. Their Secret weapon is a dude they drafted in the 6th round. The Patriots won 6 superbowls in 17 years but what doesn't get talked about is that there was a decade long stretch where they didn't win the big game. A lot of those years they had major holes to fill, and yet they aren't ever tanking in those years, they are cobbling together the best team possible, and reloading with massive free agent picks that they can get, because everyone knows you can win in new england. They eventually reload and win 3 more. The result is a 20 year run that any team in any sport would absolutely kill for.
Mike Tomlin gets his team above .500 like clockwork, and he's got two Superbowl wins. doesn't this guy know that the way to win is losing on purpose.
The Chiefs, have picked 1st overall once in their entire teams history(Admittedly that pick was Eric Fisher, a very good player) Since the 90s they have been consistently winning 5-10 games, they hit a guy at 10 overall, and a tight end in the 3rd round, and suddenly they are off to the races. Superbowls on Superbowls.
Where are all the tanking teams. Where are the Bears, The Cardinals, The Browns, The Commanders, The Jets. They are getting all those high picks. Don't those turn into championships?
Hockey's the same thing. Drafting the right guys is a good part of winning, but ultimately a huge luck factor is involved there. when you tank for a chance at the right guy your hurting your fan base, your free agency power, your trading power, your ability to get good coaches, your ability to get good support staff, you're television time slots, your status withing the league, and a whole lot more. It's not worth it.
Tanking sucks.
mike tomlin is one of the biggest underachievers in sports. 3 playoff wins in 12 years, most of which were with elite talent. other than that good points.
Keep preaching, dude!
Tanking’s for an incompetent cowards!
If tanking worked the sabers would have 7 cups
Im from Buffalo. The running bet is whom between the 2 oldest NHL teams to have never won a Cup, Sabres and Canucks, will win the Cup first. This year, 2024, Vancouver is still in the running. Good grief!
yzerman is showing this video to the whole redwings organization
They already know this. Show this to 971 afternoon show.
@@davidkruse4030that show doesn't know a damn thing about hockey. You would get further arguing with a brick wall.
Would be very interesting to see how the trade markets would change if there was a playoff for the picks
Coming from somewhere whose only recently getting into hockey, but still knows a little bit about the sport’s history, due to watching urinatingtree videos and absolutely despises the premise of tanking; I would absolutely love a postseason for the 1st round pick!
Fans and players look to build a cup winning team, unfortunately many owners just want to build a competitive team that is fighting to get in the playoffs (enough to keep fans in the building). Consistently bad teams are that way by design, finances, or very poor leadership. Always rebuilding means we’re incompetent.
Good video but it isn't that simple. Tanking is more involved than just getting a high draft pick. It has interplay with the cap, drafting, development, injury luck, ect. Here are some of the key things you can't skip over in this discussion.
1st of all you didn't even touch on the reason why the draft exists. The purpose is to maintain parity. The worst teams getting the best players. Anything that disrupts that relationship defeats the purpose.
2nd Drafting isn't the be all end all because drafting is an imperfect skill. You are going to be better or worse at it depending on personnel and even then you're still trying to predict the future. You can't predict injuries or development outcomes.
3rd You have to factor in the cap advantages of ELC's it's a huge reason why having good young players is so valuable. It's the only class of player that is not paid what they are worth. (or more realistically more than what they are worth because of free agent bidding wars).
Fk the current lottery system. The Sens ans Red Wings got shafted so hard that the league decided they had to adjust the rules a few years back.
I agree with the commenter who said the top pick should go to the tean that's been the worst over the past 3 seasons. I don't like this draft playoffs idea, but the system the PWHL uses seems reasonable (at least for a league woth 6 teams).
This video deserves much bigger audience
I just hate the draft lottery system in general. It's just absolutely mad. When pretty much anyone can look at the rankings and predict the draft order by Christmas, of course it's gonna encourage tanking. I understand it's a "weighted lottery", but make it less so. You can still keep it weighted, while adding more randomness and luck into the mix. Right now, it feels like the entire lottery amounts to "Here are the rankings. ONE team MIGHT move up."
It's a LOTTERY. I feel like ANY of the sixteen spots should be up for grabs by ANY of the sixteen teams that didn't make the playoffs. Obviously you should weigh it so that the teams with worse ranking, have a higher chance at drafting early, but it absolutely just begs for more randomness from what it is currently. You should NOT be able to predict it 100%.
This year, I believe, is the first year of the lottery that no team moved position. Last year when Chicago got Bedard they were the 3rd worst team. And ask Detroit fans how they feel in, every draft lottery, they have either stayed in their spot or fallen in the draft.
Sharks & Leafs fan here… it was so obvious Chicago tanked last year, the goalie threw a 🍕 up the middle then whiped out 😮 this year it was painful to lose by football scores to teams… if Logan doesn’t have a mystery injury all year he’s simply too good to make a complete tank, the team turned around for 5-10 games in mid-season when he came back, they had moxy/confidence so we could say “the future is bright” 🎉😊
great video. Expertly edited and informative.
No it doesn't, unless you are Chicago. Signed, Detroit Red Wings fan.
Don't forget Pittsburgh.
Great video man, well done
The final proposal wil have stern resistance from the national teams and the IIHF (the International Ice Hockey Federation). The IIHF World Championship is usually held around the Second Round of the Stanley Cup playoffs. This allows players from already eliminated teams to suit up for their countries and fight for the gold. If the NHL introduce a similar tournament for the bottom 16 will result a much shallower talent pool from which national team coaches can pick. And for Canada and the United States especially they will have to resort to juniors, minor leaguers and whatever journeymen they find playing in Europe. These teams will be oblitterated by the European teams like Sweden, Finland or Czechia who can easilly fill the void with players from their domestic leagues. Russia also would've been at advantage as they can rely on the KHL'ers, but as we all know - they're banned from international competition. And the it's in IIHF's best interest to have NHL players participating in the World Championship's Elite division (the IIHF's World Championship is a bit different from other sports as it employs promotion and relegation system across their 5 divisions for 9 seperate tournaments).
GREAT video! Create a REASON for teams NOT TO WANT TO LOSE. A N D at the same time a REASON for other teams to WANT TO WIN. (stick with me)... The bottom place NHL team gets sent to the AHL. The top team in the AHL gets promoted to the NHL. THERES YOUR REASON..in the AHL to want to win. It (I believe) works that way in European soccer.
That would be impossible since the AHL teams are affiliated with NHL teams and some are even owned by them
Great video, great work... deserves more views
I have a really bad team based on draft numbers. Wow, we must stink! the lousy low picks we've gotten include:
Draft #
#25 David Pastrnak
# 63 David Krejci
#56 Zdeno Chara
#71 Brad Marchand
#45 Patrice Bergeron
#217 Our latest Stanley cup-winning goalie, Tim Thomas was drafted to the Nordics
B's latest Vezina awarded goalie, Ullmark, was drafted #163
Yeah we got to start tanking to get some better players...
🐻
The Bruins know how to develop players, and they got one of the best farm systems in the league
First, a lot of goalies go later because of how long it takes to develop them. Second, and more importantly, teams have to have really good scouts and development team to get players like that late in the draft. There is a reason people make a big deal if a player becomes a star and they were drafted after the 3rd round.
I would LOVE a playoff lottery system. It would be awesome to see the bottom half the league get some post season exposure. It hurts teams like columbus and buffalo when they never get any post season exposure. A playoff lottery breaks the tanking problem and means more hockey.
I don't know about you but I'd love to sign with an NHL team at a generous rate just to get to the draft floor with the expectation of losing for a franchise player that will bring me to the promised land.
As a Sabres fan this was just one gut punch after another. 😂
In the intro, I was thinking “yes of course tanking works, how do you think Chicago got Bedard or Montreal got Slafkovsky?” Then when I saw the video of Nail Yakupov, I thought “oh crap that’s a good point” 💀
Great video! Love this kind of topic
My draft scenario would go like this:
- All 16 non-playoff teams get a flat 5% chance for the number 1 pick,
- All 8 first round playoff losers get a 2.5% chance at the number 1 pick.
- For picks number 2 to number 8, just reroll if you draw a team that has already drafted,
- For Picks number 9 to number 24, you draft normally, as the worst team that hasn't drafted yet gets the 9th and so on.
Tanking for the 9th+ pick isn't so tasty anymore. Making the playoffs while losing in the first round still gives you a chance at a good pick.
The only question I have is : With a weakish playoff hopeful (think Detroit, this year) : Would you rather have a 5% chance at the first overall pick (meaning tanking) or try to make the playoffs and get only a 2.5% chance, but get the extra revenue from that first round? I would try to make the playoffs. How about you?
This scenario would force teams to hire better management so that generational talents like Daigle don't get ruined by bad front offices which would make the game better in the long run. The only caveat is that badly managed teams would probably go on a relocation frenzy to keep raking in the money, to the detriment of the fans.
You missed the Flyers with the first overall pick thing, yes 75 they got to pick first via a trade, but if we are talking strictly natural first overall pick, the Flyers have never had that luxury.
💥💥The playoff for the number one pick is a dumb idea.
Honestly i don't know how you don't have much more views the video is well made and you're very well spoken at first i didn't like the idea of a 16 team first pick tournament because it gives an incentive to a mid table team to lose a couple game and smoke horrible teams to win the first pick but the bottom 8 idea is perfect imo
The Edmonton Oilers organization is definitely guilty of this , what was it 4 of 6 season's they scuttled the regular season to get Taylor Hall , Jordan Eberle and others and they lucked out with Golden boy McDavid drawing number 1 when the NHL started the draft lottery. Edmonton should have been disqualified from that lottery. I look forward to Edmonton's downfall in hell.
Why have a playoff for first overall? The team won't want to win tk have their job taken away.
Soo Chicago already tanked for Bedard but were they tanking again this year or just that’s the best of their ability? 2nd to last in the league with Bedard
I'd like to see the first round completely random and the following rounds last to first.
That's how you gift Crosby to Pittsburgh to extend their dominance after Jagr and Mario. FOH
Tanking is about getting the 1OA, but that's not the goal. The goal is to get THE player.
That significant player(s) is usually found near the top of the draft. But even if you get that gem, you need a team around him to win it all.
It is true that a low percentage of 1OA end up win the cup, it is also true that a low percentage of the teams actually win the cup.
Draft pick playoffs sounds like an amazing idea
I disagree. You're asking players to win a tournament for their team to have the right to draft new players to take their jobs. I would argue the incentive for the players isn't there.
Yea,no. How do free agents factor in? Games will look like all star games because why would any player risk injury,?
Best option to tanking I've heard... Great idea
YES!!! District 5 POSTED TODAY!!!
23:17 There's actually a little more to this - plenty of teams who weren't contenders in 2004 sold a lot of their best players not (solely) because they were tanking, but also because it was widely accepted that whenever the new CBA would be implemented, a salary cap would be as well.
Jagr was the highest-paid player in 2004 ($11M), and the four you mentioned commanded a combined payroll of $24.1M, which is over 60% of what would be the $39M cap. So it made sense to get returns on elite players when they might hamstring your franchise otherwise.
Great video, you definitely deserve more subs! :)
For real, I really hate the fact that I have to somewhat cheer for my team to lose to get better odds at the lottery. It feels very wrong and they should definitely try to find better solutions.
Personnally, I feel like the odds are too much in the last team favor. 25,5% odd feels like it's still high enough to be worth tanking. And it goes down all the way to 13,5% for the 2nd last team, almost half the odd. I'd say lower the last team odd to around 17% and make it so it only drop 1% for every other position. This way since the odds would be so similar from a position to another, it really wouldn't be worth it to tank. But, keep the team can't drop 2 or 3 positions rule so the very bad teams can't fall too much. And let's get rid of the teams can't move up more than 10 pick rule, to make it more exciting and random
Technically the last place team has an 18.5% chance to win the lottery, it's just that with the restriction that a team can move a maximum of 10 spots up the last place team gets the combined 7% chance that a team between 12 and 16 wins the lottery in which case that team wins the lottery and the last place team remains first.
@@jonmendelson1104 true, if they remove the can't move more than 10 spots rule it will drop them to a better overall odd I think. 18,5% seems more fair. I just think the biggest issue here is that there's too much separation between the very last team and the other bottom teams odds
@@rocky_hockey6447 Considering they just made the rule change restricting things to prevent teams from moving up more than ten spots a couple years ago, I don't see it changing any time soon.
Honestly I don't think there's anything wrong with the current system. At 25.5% it's more likely than not that the last place team is going to fall down. Aside from last year with Bedard I don't think any team was actively trying to tank, though there are teams that are bad because they're rebuilding. Of course rebuilding teams trade away players who are either on expiring deals or who won't be there/good by the time the team is looking to fight for the playoffs again, but that doesn't mean they're tanking.
I mentioned in another post here, the Sharks were always going to be bad this year and in the running for Celebrini, but they either led the league or were second in man games lost (depends if you count Lehner in Vegas missing 82 games). Their strength was supposed to be their centers and they had zero games this season with all four of their expected centers playing...Couture played six games, Hertl played 48 for them before getting injured (he played another six with Vegas after being traded but likely doesn't play in those games if he's still in SJ), so a significant chunk of the season was spent with Granlund (who they expected to be their 3C) as their 1C. All of those injuries elevated it from a bad season to a historically bad season.
Fascinating video
Tanking helps if you are friends with Bettman, like pens and chicago...
The sabres tanked on purpose got the #2 pick twice then they tanked by accident due to malpractice and got the #1 pick twice. Haven’t made the playoffs still
We don’t talk enough about how they were legitimately trying to win when they ended up with dahlin and power. Probably 2 of the worst coach’s in NHL history
Only if you do it for 10 years, get 4 first overalls and a third overall, and one of them happens to be mcdavid
Development over drafting. Very few young athletes have the skill set to be competitive in the National league at 18/19. Generally that’s what the first 3 picks guarantee. Beyond that what teams are drafting is POTENTIAL and it’s up to the organization to provide the coaching and training necessary to maximize that potential. Razor thin margins for success.
You can put an end to tanking by abolishing the draft but that will never happen
Its wierd that in amerikan sports u get rewarded for loosing when in almost all other business it will not give u anything for being bad.
It shouldn’t be too surprising.
We’re AMERICA; LAND OF THE FREE…
PARTICIPATION TROPHIES!
Most recent/blatant case was Toronto drafting Marner in 2015, they "decided" to send him back to the OHL's London Knights for another frivolous year. Yet Marner was not able to earn a spot on Toronto's bad roster for the 2015-16 season?
This ensured they were bad enough and in line for Matthews the next draft.
No wonder non Leaf fans detest this franchise.
This is a good video, but I think it does not acknowledge a harsh reality. You will never eliminate some form of tanking--if we understand it as strategic losing--completely, and I am not sure we should want to eliminate strategic losing. Tanking, or at least losing some margin of games strategically, is always going to be incentivized on some margin in any system where worse teams are given some advantage in drafting. And it is not a bad thing to give worse teams some advantage in drafting to maintain long-term competitive parity. Nobody wants to see a league where, like it was prior to the Salary Cap, only a select few teams every decade have a shot at it, or where it's like college football where the rich just always get richer. So I am fine with accepting that some level of tanking is going to occur in any system if it means better parity. There is an inherent tradeoff between draft systems that improve parity and those that eliminate incentives for tanking.
That does not mean there is not room for improvement over the status quo, but I do not think a competitive playoff for draft picks would ever be introduced for one reason: the players union would view it as a non-starter. I also am not sure it would be a good idea. Sometimes, teams legitimately do become quite bad through the natural process of their core aging. This system would likely create a trap for such teams. Whereas now the worst place to be is the mushy middle, in that system it would incentivize teams to go for the mushy middle. While that is an imporvement on the status quo, it seems unrealitstic and might be too far in the respecting established talent direction.
I think the Gold plan the PWHA has probably strikes the balance between parity and anti-tanking the best. Yes, it would incentivize losing early in the season, but it would make the trade deadline market far more strategically interesting (no more trading away everyone with a pulse if you are a seller), and would provide incentive not to fall below a certain floor of mediocrity else it would make winning late in the season far too hard. Also, it has the bonus of being something the PA could actually get on board with.
Promotion and relegation is the only true fix to tanking. Finish last? Guess what you just like 70% of your income and you're in the second league now
The biggest issue with me in regards to the bracket is that tanking is entirely an organizational decision, not a player decision.
Good luck telling your players, "Hey, I know we didn't make the playoffs but DONT worry, if we play hard enough we'll be able to get a guy who will most likely replace you!"
No one would buy into it. An athletes ultimate goal is to win, they dont step out on the ice every night saying "alright boys, lets phone this one in, our GM wants the pick!"
Theres an argument to be made that teams that are genuinely bad despite their best efforts deserve some help more than teams that were 🤏 this close to making the playoffs. Relegation is a good idea but its not viable right now.
Well, something needs to be done to prevent tanking! It’s a black eye on EVERY sport, as it kills the integrity and honor of any sport.
Why does Pronger have a ? next to his name @2:59?
Don't think he had been drafted yet, so they did know what team he was going to.
@@csolivais1979 But the other players do... I guess that's what's more confusing
@@EmulBegel I don't remember that draft well, but if I do, think that they were drafted ahead of him.
Okay,
I believe the Senators weren't tanking that first year, we were legitimately the shittiest team ever assembled.
Yea, saying any expansion team before Vegas was tanking in their first 5 years is being disingenuous.
Bad teams should get good picks. Bad organizations should get new ownership. At least one did recently…
Just do what the Ottawa Senators or Charlotte Hornets do. Just lose all the time and nobody will accuse you of tanking. Pretty easy, I think they've got it figured out.
I think the NFL is the only major North American sports league where tanking doesn't really happen. Of course there are teams that are bad and know they're bad, but coaches generally do their best to win. There are several notable examples where teams throw away the first overall pick with late week 17 (now week 18) wins
The texas Rangers didnt make the playoffs for 24 years. The first time they were to make the playoffs, 1995, the players decided to go on strike, so the playoffs got canceled. The rangers wouldnt qualify for the playoffs again until after the turn of the century.
So, Buffalo is not the worst team in history when it comes to playoff droughts.
I understand the point you're making, and I am a Sharks fan so I might be speaking from a biased POV, however I really think you are looking at this too black and white. True, it has been frustrating living the past 5 years knowing that my hockey team sucks and I shouldn't expect anything from this year, but I know that realistically, this is the best thing we can do to win in the future. Your praise of the '19 Blues, '23 Knights and '07 Ducks is based on the fact that they made incredibly savvy roster moves that got them over the hump, but circumstances such as those are extraordinarily rare and cannot be relied on. Plus, in my opinion, I don't think it's admirable at all to win because you traded for star players, then sports would become a competition of "who is able to make this one trade". You talk about all the teams who have attempted tanking to have it not work, but don't mention the fact that there are far, far more teams that tried to make do with what they had and ended up in a constant state of mediocrity with little to no identity (the Coyotes are a prime example), or that had maybe one or two shots at a cup and came up short, and then had no aspirations for years after because they traded their assets away going all in.
As for tanking itself being bad, I don't love it, but it's undeniably the best path for a franchise when done right. A lot of failed rebuilds that are due to poor management would still be so without tanking, the tanking mentality isn't the problem, management is. But even with tanking rebuilds that fail due to mismanagement, it's still by far the best way to build a winner. There's a reason that the Penguins, Lightning, and Blackhawks have not only been consistently winning cups, but being a mainstay in the playoffs: They built a strong foundation through their draft that keeps them/kept them competitive for over a decade. They won as many cups as they did because they had many, many opportunities. Of course tanking doesn't reliably lead to cups, inherently only 1/32 teams win the cup every year, just because you don't win the cup doesn't mean you failed. Building a team, in my eyes, should be about maximizing your teams odds at winning a championship. Sure, the Blues won in 2019, but they've only had one other fair chance of winning it again since then (2022). The Knights won it last year, but they were a few games away from missing the playoffs the very next year, and it seems like that downward trend is going to continue over the next few years. I think the Blackhawks, Ducks or Sharks are far more likely to win a cup in the next 10 years than the Blues or Knights. As a Sharks fan, I know for a fact that winning now is basically impossible, whether we tank or not, so I'm fine with not paying as much attention and waiting for homegrown players for me to become attached to.
And it does make for bad hockey, but think about the alternatives. The 2nd playoffs, generally speaking would be won by the teams who just barely missed the playoffs, they'd draft good players, and return to the playoffs, knocking down new teams, and the cycle repeats. The teams who are at the bottom (no matter if they're tanking or not, there will be teams that are the worst in the league), have to just hope they hit on picks later in the draft. The same few teams will be in that 11-16th pick range every year, and do not have the resources, present or future, to compete with the teams that are getting the top picks, and no lure for any free agents looking to win a cup. Now THAT would make for disinterested fans. I actually like the gold standard, because it gives us a reason to keep watching and still rooting for our team. I've been rooting for the Sharks to lose any games not against the Knights for years, and of course I'd like to have some time rooting for my team. It's better than the 2nd playoffs because it creates equity for those bottom teams by giving them more time to rack up points.
Sorry for the word bomb, great video, the fact that I had the passion to write a response like this is rare, and you have intrigued me like few others have in the past. Keep up the great work :D
Well said. Your point about a loser cup resulting in the same weak teams getting weaker while the ones who barely missed the wildcard get back into the mix faster is exactly the problem I have with such a solution. A "pity" system of some kind, where teams who have been repeatedly denied 1OA picks or have been constantly leapfrogged have their odds slowly increased would make things a bit more even I think, but wouldn't solve the tanking issue. Not sure what the solution is :/
Dude...if i had Gary Bettmans phone number, I'd give it to you!!!!! He needs to hear your wisdom. (not that he would listen). If you have Garys number, can I get it?
I like the idea of a bottom-16 playoffs, but I worry about attendance at a lot of these games, especially in markets with less enthusiastic fanbases. maybe it'd work if they shortened the regular season a little, by like 4-8 games or so? we've seen that teams who go deep in the playoffs multiple times in a row have fatigue and injury issues down the line. also, I feel like the series in these playoffs could just be best of 5 instead of 7.
My resolution:
NO MORE DRAFTING! Let the free market dictate where star players play.
Teams won't tank when they make the effort to be more successful, make more money, and offer these teenagers the most money to play for their teams.
Then everyone would just go to the team that offered them the most money. The draft is a good thing
@@SaveznaRepublikaJugoslavija Duh.
That's the point.
Want a star player? Make the effort to win and pay him more money.
Haven't you heard of the free market?
We have an imperfect situation and you're proposing a solution that is honestly slightly further from ideal, especially given it takes attention away from the true playoffs. I'm not even saying I'd hate it because I think the dynamic of 17-20th grinding it out to receive 1st instead of 13th or something is high-stakes, but the whole criticism comes down to bad incentives and the idea that you're doing anything but shifting those bad incentives elsewhere is something I struggle to get behind. The positives are there but you just kind of glossed over the undeniable fact that several teams a year would rather be in that sweepstakes than the true playoffs. Hell, the bottom 8 playoff is still worse because it takes a midseason decent team and destroys it (or god forbid, more than 1 team) abruptly rather than having designated tank jobs like we have right now. I'd much rather see the Wild, Kraken, and Sabres still trucking along while we still have the Sharks, Ducks, and Hawks hanging out at the bottom, especially since a game against the Wild isn't exactly a freebie ordinarily. Better teams tanking also makes it so that if team A plays the decent Kraken 3/4 times early in the year, they get screwed when their rival plays the now suddenly tanking Kraken team 4/4 times in the latter half. If the Sharks are worse post-deadline, it's far less of an issue.
Also not entirely sure how to work through a situation where the Hurricanes had the Flyers pick or something. I'm sure there are plenty of other issues here once we really get into it. I think it's overwhelmingly obvious that there's a problem and you're right for pointing it out, but the proposed solutions seem impractical wherever I look. Seeing how the "market" reacts and what kind of Ducks or Sharks team we get when they have more incentive to compete is something that interests me, and changing culture among franchises is not something I want to ignore as a great positive, but I'm not sure everything will line up the way you'd expect, and overhauling the status quo seems like quite the adventure.
Either way, good video on something that does deserve exploration, but exploration of solutions needs to be thorough before we can really say they're truly wrong for going the route they're taking right now, you know?
Yeah I didn't love the video on the whole. The first half was grounded in objectivity and analyzing/highlighting that high draft picks are still as much of an uncertain as anything else in sports so why bother. But the back half blatantly shits on the concepts of league parity and opens the door for large market teams to strong arm smaller ones for decades on end. There are PLENTY of stories of smaller market teams going through short span slumps for a few years to eventually right the ship through drafting and developing well and becoming competitive. If you divorce being bad from higher draft odds, you lose your negative feedback loop that is intended to self correct.
@@mousev1093 It is worth noting that this is just a proposal for the 1st overall pick but even in that case, San Jose still wants to finish below Anaheim even if they're getting the shit kicked out of them in the playoff because you're still playing for top odds minus 1. It doesn't solve things effectively and brings about new issues, but at least it means there's still a way out for the smaller market teams because uh...well because you can still tank. Huh...
The San Jose Sharks never really wanted to tank but were forced to do it because former GM Doug Wilson ran the franchise into the ground.
He "ran it into the ground" because the owner told him he was to do his best to make the playoffs every year. It wasn't until Greer got hired that he said "rebuild" and that was only once at his 1st press conference. But they are going to suffer in their rebuilding because they don't have the high end talent to trade away to get good draft picks and prospects.
Tanking isn’t a fix all solution. The Sabres tanked got Eichel and then sucked anyways. A team needs to draft well in the first and the other rounds as well. Some of the best teams have core players from later in the draft. Tampa Bay is a notable example of a team drafting well in the later rounds and getting good players.
Sure that First overall or top three pick can set up the franchise and gain its new leader but how many teams have torn it down only to be stuck in the Lower half for nearly a decade.
That situation was a LOT more complicated than that as the GM at the time legit traded all decent prospects, our AHL team was just sucking so we had no people coming in when needed nor those extra pieces we could use for a trade to keep the roster similar.
To top it off, Eichel, while still an amazing player, wasn’t that great of a captain and wasn’t ready for the letter when he got it, with the team doing better when he was not on the ice vs when he was.
**Edit** To add on, there was just a lot of shit that was going on at the time, Adam’s goal since 2021-2022 was rebuilding the AHL farm team so that the Sabres could have a decent stream of players coming in, and giving the players some experience before making that jump. This gives them prospects to trade to teams looking to rebuild or gives them options for players when someone is injured to take over a role. It’s still more complicated than this, but the lack of an AHL system really killed the rebuild process for the Sabres.
Yes and No. Tanking works in that you are guaranteed to get blue chip prospects and higher odds of getting that generational talent that every cup winning team has. But it doesn’t work if you don’t have a good organization and culture to surround them with as well as making smart trades, free agent signings, and draft picks in the latter rounds. Buffalo is a prime example of tanking not working while the Bruins are an example of team not really tanking but have great drafting and prospect development in the later rounds. I mean all of their stars aren’t even top 10 picks. They drafted Patrice Bergeron in the 2nd round lol.
I think its time for Bettman to step down.
He's the owners best friend. He ain't going anywhere. And when he finally does, the next person we might as well call Bettman Jr. because nothing is going to change. Otherwise it would of happened already.
There's a difference between the gm doing his job (by trying to get the best players in the draft) and the players not trying. Nobody tanks.
Shut up, Gary…
@elijahechicagobearsboyd5734 you're funny!
Here's my lottery idea, feel free to poke holes in it (I'm sure there are plenty)
The up to 16 teams who don't make the playoffs and are eligible (see below) all enter the lottery
Lottery for top 5 picks, the next 11 reverse order from regular season standings
Every franchise has a Lottery Success Rating (LSR), these are points that determine lottery odds
If a franchise makes the playoffs, their LSR stays exactly the same
Picks can be traded (obviously), however their effect on LSR only applies to the original team
For every year a franchise finishes but does not receive any lottery picks - They gain 1 LSR
If they finish in the bottom 12 in the league - They gain an additional 1 LSR (2 total)
If they finish in the bottom 8 in the league - They gain an additional 1 LSR (3 total)
If they finish in the bottom 4 in the league - They gain an additional 1 LSR (4 total)
If a franchise wins the 5th pick - Their LSR resets to just the LSR they would have gained this year alone had they not won the lottery
If a franchise wins the 4th pick - Their LSR resets to 0
If a franchise wins the 3rd pick - Their LSR resets to 0 and they ineligible to enter the lottery or receive LSR the following year
If a franchise wins the 2nd pick - Their LSR resets to 0 and they ineligible to enter the lottery or receive LSR the following 2 years
If a franchise wins the 1st pick - Their LSR resets to 0 and they ineligible to enter the lottery or receive LSR the following 3 years
Similar odds to the current system could be used except teams with the highest LSR has the highest odds as opposed to reverse regular season standings
The tiebreaker for teams on the same LSR is lower position in this years regular season standings
Basically the whole idea is that there's no point in tanking because if you're bad one year, being bad the next year is useless to you
So how would this work? Example LSR values pre-2024 draft lottery, even though picks 4 and 5 (and sometimes 3) weren't lottery picks in the past I'm pretending they were:
1. Rangers 0 LSR - PO
2. Dallas 1 LSR - PO
3. Carolina 0 LSR - PO
4. Winnipeg 2 LSR - PO
5. Florida 3 LSR - PO
6. Vancouver 7 LSR - PO
7. Boston 7 LSR - PO
8. Colorado 0 LSR - PO
9. Edmonton 6 LSR - PO
10. Toronto 1 LSR - PO
11. Nashville 3 LSR - PO
12. Los Angeles 0 LSR - PO
13. Tampa 1 LSR - PO
14. Vegas 1 LSR - PO
15. Islanders 7 LSR - PO
16. Washington *because they made the playoffs 7 LSR - PO
17. St. Louis 6 LSR
18. Detroit 9 LSR
19. Pittsburgh 3 LSR
20. Minnesota 13 LSR
21. Philadelphia 11 LSR
22. Buffalo 0 LSR - INELLIGIBLE FOR 2024
23. New Jersey 0 LSR - INELLIGIBLE FOR 2024
24. Calgary 8 LSR
25. Seattle 3 LSR
26. Ottawa 8 LSR
27. Arizona/Utah 3 LSR
28. Montreal 6 LSR
29. Columbus 0 LSR - INELLIGIBLE FOR 2024
30. Anaheim 0 LSR - INELLIGIBLE FOR 2024 AND 2025
31. Chicago 0 LSR - INELLIGIBLE FOR 2024, 2025 AND 2026
32. San Jose 7 LSR
So Lottery odds would be roughly (very rough, but you get the idea):
Minnesota 24%
Philadelphia 14%
Detroit 12%
Ottawa 10%
Calgary 9%
Montreal 8%
St. Louis 7%
San Jose 6%
Arizona/Utah 5%
Seattle 4%
Pittsburgh 3%
If you want to see my likely error-filled math, here's a spreadsheet:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E58NQSydD4YIilvNFzZpiP7MbPVYrkB0CiFNIbovlYE/edit?usp=sharing
eh im mixed on the other hand i do see the argument against tanking but on the other hand, some teams just need to tear everything down in order to be successful. Detroit is a good example and is an example you used for getting success without high picks but in the 2010s after their Stanley Cup win in 2008 their drafting in later rounds dried up and they started to give away draft picks and prospects for players from other teams to replace their aging core and it didn't work. They also started to give aging free agents bloated contracts and by the time Yzerman came back in 2019 Detroit had a terrible prospect pool and aging players on bloated contracts. They needed to tear it all down and start over and rebuild and there are other teams as well like Detroit such as san jose and chicago that needed to do full teardowns.
It's worth noting that, while the Sharks were historically bad, they came into this season with the highlight of their roster being a great group of centers with Hertl on the top line, Couture on the second line, Granlund on the third line, and Sturm on the fourth line. They had zero games with all four of those centers playing. Couture played six games and Hertl played 48 games before going down with an injury and eventually being traded (he came back with 6 games remaining for Vegas, though I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't play those last 6 games if he were in San Jose since maybe he wasn't quite 100% but the games had meaning in Vegas). For a lot of the season the guy they pegged to be their 3C was playing as their 1C and Luke Kunin ended up centering the second line a decent chunk of the season.
Our fans referred to the defense corps as the defense corpse because it was so bad, and that was before Matt Benning who would've been in the discussion for best d-man on the team missed all but 14 games due to injury.
Essentially the team was built to be a bad team and was going to be competing for last place in the league, but then they had the most or second most man games lost to injury in the league (depending on if you count Lehner missing 82 games for Vegas). This led to the historically bad numbers.
The Sharks in 92 did NOT tank lmao they were just one of the worst expansion teams in history EVER
It's impossible to know. The NHL has changed it's lottery format so many times now that each generation of rebuilding teams faces different rules. The Red Wings, for example, bottomed out at the worst time as far as rules were concerned.. and they paid for it. I think teams tank.. sure. But the reality is that teams go through natural cycles. A long stretch of being competitive and spending assets at the deadline and trading picks for players.. it slowly eats a hole in an organization's depth. That team's core ages, and when they retire.. said team stinks. It's not tanking when that happens.. it's the result of trying to win for a long period of time. So teams like Chicago.. they tanked. But the Sharks?? They aren't tanking, they just stink. That's why I prefer a standard draft. No gimmicks. No lottery.
The issue with the tournament/playoffs for the first pick is that while it would prevent the tanking incentive, and middle of the road teams would benefit greatly, the really bad teams would get beaten down and get worse year over year, no?
Well, what would you propose to diminish tanking?
Gotta just give every team that missed the playoffs equal odds at the first pick. Tanking becomes pointless then and the lottery itself become more of a spectacle. Really not a hard fix at all imo
I think it should be like in European football where there is no such thing as a "draft lottery" and instead restricting prospects solely to good or bad scouting and keeping only the trade deadline to allow for player movement. That way, deliberately "tanking" to get the number 1 pick doesn't do shit because why would a bright young college prospect want to play for a shitty team?
What about small markets who’s gonna want to play in those cities?
@@kadenbland1333 do what the Prem does and increase the cap but only for transfers that way they can attract more players
such an easy solution to this. pwhl has already figured it out. start accumulating draft points when team is eliminated
T
Amazing video honestly. But I don’t agree with you idea on what to do with the draft lottery.
so this was actually why i became a detroit fan ( a part of it at least), that even today its the classiest team, even to today :)