|
|
Post by jimmy on Apr 5, 2017 10:16:52 GMT -4
The drum can be manipulated too ... by making some balls slightly different in size/weight than the others ... Would be cool if they brought in either ALC or Lotto-Quebec as a sponsor and had them conduct the draw. The other thing they could do is bring in one of the major accounting firms to audit the draw - again, make it a sponsorship thing ... they get some visibility, fans and teams get some assurance that everything is being done on the up and up. Moncton would have no issue with Lotto-Quebec pulling a Rimouski ball out of a drum? I like the NHL's number combo system. But see no issue with this computer generated one. Presumably Loto-Quebec's reputation is worth far more to them than whatever benefit they would obtain from rigging a junior hockey draw, so they would act in good faith ... Now we are talking about a Quebec organization, so who knows with the rampant corruption in that province. Better to go with an international audit firm  ... I think if I am Irving, I offer to pay to have auditors present |
|
|
|
Post by Doublesnipers on Apr 5, 2017 11:00:47 GMT -4
Odds of top 2 must be around 75-80% then, right? We have 9 of 21 balls in the drum ... my guess is after the draw for #1, whoever wins, all of their balls are removed, and they draw again for #2. So, say the Cats don't come out first ... if the winner was a real longshot who only had one ball in the drum, Wildcats would then have 9 of 20 balls in the draw for #2 - but if the 2nd worst team won the draw for #1, they would have had six balls in the drum - all of which would be removed, meaning the Cats would then have 9 of 15 remaining balls in the drum in the draw for #2 ... Can anyone confirm if this is how it works? That is right Jimmy, the team picked has its draft balls, or generated numbers removed and odds increase like that. My other question, centers around the history of the draft lottery. How many years has it been around? Of those years, how many did the last seed win 1st overall, or how many years has the longshot been awarded the first pick. Does the scale lean heavily in our favour or is it like 50% 50% in previosu years of #14,15,16,17 getting first overall?? I know in long run it means nothing, what will happen will happen, but having never been in this situation (the draft lottery) I'd be curious to know the results of previous years based on where teams finished. |
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Apr 5, 2017 11:14:31 GMT -4
We have 9 of 21 balls in the drum ... my guess is after the draw for #1, whoever wins, all of their balls are removed, and they draw again for #2. So, say the Cats don't come out first ... if the winner was a real longshot who only had one ball in the drum, Wildcats would then have 9 of 20 balls in the draw for #2 - but if the 2nd worst team won the draw for #1, they would have had six balls in the drum - all of which would be removed, meaning the Cats would then have 9 of 15 remaining balls in the drum in the draw for #2 ... Can anyone confirm if this is how it works? That is right Jimmy, the team picked has its draft balls, or generated numbers removed and odds increase like that. My other question, centers around the history of the draft lottery. How many years has it been around? Of those years, how many did the last seed win 1st overall, or how many years has the longshot been awarded the first pick. Does the scale lean heavily in our favour or is it like 50% 50% in previosu years of #14,15,16,17 getting first overall?? I know in long run it means nothing, what will happen will happen, but having never been in this situation (the draft lottery) I'd be curious to know the results of previous years based on where teams finished. It's the first year that the lottery involves 5 teams. Since the lottery was instilled in 2004 (year after the Rimouski Crosby tanking), the lottery only involved 2 teams at 50-50. |
|
|
|
Post by Doublesnipers on Apr 5, 2017 11:19:06 GMT -4
That is right Jimmy, the team picked has its draft balls, or generated numbers removed and odds increase like that. My other question, centers around the history of the draft lottery. How many years has it been around? Of those years, how many did the last seed win 1st overall, or how many years has the longshot been awarded the first pick. Does the scale lean heavily in our favour or is it like 50% 50% in previosu years of #14,15,16,17 getting first overall?? I know in long run it means nothing, what will happen will happen, but having never been in this situation (the draft lottery) I'd be curious to know the results of previous years based on where teams finished. It's the first year that the lottery involves 5 teams. Since the lottery was instilled in 2004 (year after the Rimouski Crosby tanking), the lottery only involved 2 teams at 50-50. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by elementz on Apr 5, 2017 11:25:45 GMT -4
We have 9 of 21 balls in the drum ... my guess is after the draw for #1, whoever wins, all of their balls are removed, and they draw again for #2. So, say the Cats don't come out first ... if the winner was a real longshot who only had one ball in the drum, Wildcats would then have 9 of 20 balls in the draw for #2 - but if the 2nd worst team won the draw for #1, they would have had six balls in the drum - all of which would be removed, meaning the Cats would then have 9 of 15 remaining balls in the drum in the draw for #2 ... Can anyone confirm if this is how it works? That is right Jimmy, the team picked has its draft balls, or generated numbers removed and odds increase like that. My other question, centers around the history of the draft lottery. How many years has it been around? Of those years, how many did the last seed win 1st overall, or how many years has the longshot been awarded the first pick. Does the scale lean heavily in our favour or is it like 50% 50% in previosu years of #14,15,16,17 getting first overall?? I know in long run it means nothing, what will happen will happen, but having never been in this situation (the draft lottery) I'd be curious to know the results of previous years based on where teams finished. This is the first year that the Q is doing a lottery...It has always been a coin flip between 17th/18th place teams. |
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 5, 2017 11:36:04 GMT -4
You claim you won't trust anything anyway so no method will please you. Fact is that a computer program removes the human element that so many question when it comes to this league. You can question the results all you like. The fact that we have a process is the important thing. This arguing over a big drum or a computer program is nonsense. They're both accomplishing the same thing but 1 completely removes any human interaction outside of the guy who probably coded it months ago when they came up with the system. You can take all the programmers with you to watch the program spit out the winner but it won't change the results if you don't like them. The drum can be manipulated too ... by making some balls slightly different in size/weight than the others ... Would be cool if they brought in either ALC or Lotto-Quebec as a sponsor and had them conduct the draw. The other thing they could do is bring in one of the major accounting firms to audit the draw - again, make it a sponsorship thing ... they get some visibility, fans and teams get some assurance that everything is being done on the up and up. Sure it can be manipulated but if you do it the way I described... new box of ping pong balls ... write Mon on 9 ... Sher on 6 ... and so on ... in front of everybody involved. Everything is done in front of interested parties ... then there is far less chance for it to be disputed. |
|
|
|
Post by chootoi on Apr 5, 2017 12:16:38 GMT -4
When they were doing the coin toss, by my research only 3 times out of 13 did the last place team get first overall. Granted there were a couple of expansions in there to throw that off, but that's actually pretty low. So low that it's almost strange IMO. You'd think a coin flip would be more even than that. This new system could actually be in the Cats favour if you're a believer in trends. 23% of the time the last place team lost the coin toss. Take out the 2 expansions and it's still only 27%.
But in reality a coin flip is just a coin flip, so in that moment you still have a 50% chance which is better than the 43% chance they have right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 5, 2017 12:28:24 GMT -4
I had to look up that reference ... not a basketball fan at all so sorry I can't comment on that. I'm not suggesting the Q will fix the draft ... I'm saying that moving to a computer generated selection process is not an open and visible process that will do them any good. They open themselves to ridicule if say a team like Rimouski (a Q darling) gets first overall ... 14% chance for them. What is wrong with the simple bingo type drum where we see the balls go in and can count them, and one ball falls out ... nobody reaches in to grab it. Everything is visible and random. I don't understand the rationale that brings them to need to move to a computer generated pick process ... nothing is visible ... a number is generated by some code that somebody wrote and everybody is supposed to just trust that. I don't trust anything done in Quebec ... there is so much corruption in Quebec business that I don't do business there at all. They say that five Governors will be there, from teams not involved in the draft lottery. What the hell are they going to witness ? "Yup ... that's the number that the computer spit out ... it must be right". You claim you won't trust anything anyway so no method will please you. Fact is that a computer program removes the human element that so many question when it comes to this league. You can question the results all you like. The fact that we have a process is the important thing. This arguing over a big drum or a computer program is nonsense. They're both accomplishing the same thing but 1 completely removes any human interaction outside of the guy who probably coded it months ago when they came up with the system. You can take all the programmers with you to watch the program spit out the winner but it won't change the results if you don't like them. How does a computer program remove the human element ... it is programmed by somebody. It might have been coded months ago ... but the coding can be changed today just as easily. I already stated that it should be a drum where everybody can see what is happening. I support that approach. I don't want to watch the computer spit out numbers ... I want to see the code that is used to generate numbers and want to ensure that is the code that is used. But again ... I'm not saying that the Q will be corrupt ... I'm saying why change to a method that is hidden from view and allows people to question the validity. Maybe I am over thinking it though ... the press release says "The league will use an electronic lottery machine in order to conduct the draw." Yesterday we got onto a discussion about computer generated numbers which isn't really what this suggests. This suggests the big glass drum with 21 balls in it ... lots of flashing lights (the electronic part I guess) constantly rotating by electric power. If it is a Lotto machine run by Lotto Quebec, I am okay with that even though that Quebec element is still in there. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Apr 5, 2017 12:40:06 GMT -4
You claim you won't trust anything anyway so no method will please you. Fact is that a computer program removes the human element that so many question when it comes to this league. You can question the results all you like. The fact that we have a process is the important thing. This arguing over a big drum or a computer program is nonsense. They're both accomplishing the same thing but 1 completely removes any human interaction outside of the guy who probably coded it months ago when they came up with the system. You can take all the programmers with you to watch the program spit out the winner but it won't change the results if you don't like them. How does a computer program remove the human element ... it is programmed by somebody. It might have been coded months ago ... but the coding can be changed today just as easily. I already stated that it should be a drum where everybody can see what is happening. I support that approach. I don't want to watch the computer spit out numbers ... I want to see the code that is used to generate numbers and want to ensure that is the code that is used. But again ... I'm not saying that the Q will be corrupt ... I'm saying why change to a method that is hidden from view and allows people to question the validity. Maybe I am over thinking it though ... the press release says "The league will use an electronic lottery machine in order to conduct the draw." Yesterday we got onto a discussion about computer generated numbers which isn't really what this suggests. This suggests the big glass drum with 21 balls in it ... lots of flashing lights (the electronic part I guess) constantly rotating by electric power. If it is a Lotto machine run by Lotto Quebec, I am okay with that even though that Quebec element is still in there. There are several third party websites that would allow you to do the type of draw the league is proposing. I would assume the league is using one of them, and not writing their own one-off code, which would be asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 6, 2017 6:59:23 GMT -4
the Cats have been hyping today's draft lottery like crazy, if they end up 3rd, it will be a huge letdown. Still some good players there but none are at Lafreniere or even Poulin's level.
|
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 6, 2017 8:09:45 GMT -4
the Cats have been hyping today's draft lottery like crazy, if they end up 3rd, it will be a huge letdown. Still some good players there but none are at Lafreniere or even Poulin's level. I am expecting us to get third ... things aren't going our way since about 2010 and I expect that to continue. I'll be very happy to be wrong. If we get 1st overall ... I may buy my season tickets again instead of waiting one more year for the new building. But I'll wait to see what Shannon does with the pick. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 6, 2017 8:37:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 6, 2017 9:13:31 GMT -4
By my calculations...Cats have 43% chance at #1...and at worst, 45% chance at #2 if Val d'or was to win the draw and get #1(9 of 20 balls)
Say Sherbrooke was to get #1...the odds to get #2 would increase to 60%(9 of 15 balls).
If Rimouski gets #1...the odds of #2 are 50% for #2(9 of 18 balls).
|
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Apr 6, 2017 10:55:24 GMT -4
Looks like it's balls and not a computer generated lottery.
/photo/1
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 6, 2017 11:52:09 GMT -4
Does anybody have the link to see it live on Facebook?
|
|
... I think if I am Irving, I offer to pay to have auditors present 
