Victor

Maybe he combined that with the Brovy/Frank team later on which people actually disliked more than yours (but didn't build through FA).

@.sniffuM

It's 2019 fuuuuuuuuuck

Distracted boyfriend #1

Good goalie battle this.

Carison the best goalie in Toronto.

Tbf I think many of the comebacks are the result of the weaker team having the 3-1 lead.

Moral support.

We had coaches back in ancient times circa S20. Not as member managed entities but the key point is that I don't think they impact anything in our version of the sim.

Imagine peaking in S10.

So the max you can earn in your first 3 seasons is $12mil (3 of $4mil). Then assume the player earns max $5.5mil for 5 seasons is $27.5mil. So that's an unrealistic maximum of less than $40mil. So maybe I should change my estimate to 10-11 seasons, but either way that's not more options as much as it's extending everyone's careers by 1-2 seasons which I'm not sure offers the diversity you want.

I'm not, hence I said you're only realistically extending careers by 1-2 seasons, not more. For two reasons - the effects of depreciation as you said and also because who the hell has $30+mil to spend? My point was that people will pick extending their career over 8 seasons instead of fighting depreciation in s8, simply for the novelty factor and because banking TPE is enough to remain a good/elite player in s8 even without purchasing anything. As for the impact of brands, this goes back to the "who has the money" point above. Well, the most money will be had by the people with the best deals, so inherent disadvantage for everyone else.

Clearly the weirdest left winger if Leph Twinger.

Well isn't that good timing.... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U3I1r37v31YCPR93x6JovKUaKaW8yVUY9VLpXkVPsHA/edit?usp=sharing (got to PerG tab)

I think it's a pretty easy choice for most people though - you can bank enough TPE to have enough to fight off depreciation. Or maybe not fight off but retain the same build. Guaranteed more people would go for extending their careers if given the choice in which case everyone gets to extend their careers and..... ehhh. Then you have an advantage to people who got better brand deals and and that's not really a meritocracy and either way more than 9-10 seasons is unrealistic because you'd need a lot of money, so really all you're doing here is extending careers from 8 to 9/10 for no real reason? That's not really enough time to really make unique new records, but enough to muddy the waters and write off the 8-season records (despite most of them being quite attainable).

My argument against extending careers has always been that you lose out on recreates for future drafts first and foremost, above other considerations like impact on records. This in particular just seems like a cheap way to earn more career points to benefit the 1%. Apart from points, there's no unattainable records given hits belongs to Parechkin, shutouts belongs to Clegane (who retired in S53 and S52), etc etc. And if you ignore the VHL's first 10 seasons then the scoring records are also perfectly attainable and have been achieved fairly recently (O'Malley, Rafter, Molholt, etc.). Hard no from me.

To my knowledge, also no. I was informed someone forced a Game 7 in my absence in the 50s but no further - prior to that the only one I knew of was the S9 final where the index died or something and they had to sim on preseason mode. It's happened in the VHLM I'm pretty sure though.

You might have heard about the '3-1 curse'. If you haven't, you just haven't gone into a playoff thread with @Green's team being up 3-1. Or down 3-1. Or just Green pointing out that there's a 3-1 curse. The 3-1 curse talk kind of goes up and down depending on how recently a team's come back from a 3-1 deficit. Back at some point in the 30s, I did a little dive into the stats from S27 to that day, then updated it in the 40s, and now again. Please see results below: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lwIl-6TR2AERJuQIA-be8ourJIWxEs4RGLKKjL7ca2g/edit?usp=sharing Why S27? That was the first instance of a high profile comeback after a 3-1 lead (although the team that won games 5 and 6 still lost the series) that really got people going. Now without the S1-S17 records, there's also little point going back another 10 seasons as there's nothing interesting there. Anyway, Green is wrong. Less than a third of 3-1 leads has gone to Game 7 - and just about half of those was then won by the team making the comeback. The real issue here is that 3-1 comebacks seem to happen in spurts, like when every 3-1 lead from the S32 finals through S33 was overturned, meaning the public conscience becomes aware of the "curse". More recently, every 3-1 lead in S61 and S62 resulted in a Game 7, although only one was lost by the leading team. Fittingly, Green was involved in 3 of those series, including being on both sides of the Helsinki (Peter Quill) and Davos (Adam Warlock) series in S61. Which brings us nicely to... why Green? Well, it appears the "3-1 curse" is actually the "Green curse". Nearly half of series involving Green and a 3-1 lead have gone to Game 7. Seven of them resulted in a successful comeback, which is nearly half of all successful 3-1 comebacks since S27! Green has also been on the wrong side of the some high profile comebacks, like the finals in S36 and S43, and Stockholm's shock loss to Davos in S55. So when you next hear someone talk of the 3-1 curse, it's not actually factual, it's just based in personal trauma.

Come one, come all to the 2nd week of the new trivia! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf3Rhhgo8fIoqHe9LyM4PWO7zUd975MLLjRGeCQDFzoj-GaAw/viewform?usp=sf_link Up to 2 capped TPE up for grabs, will close and pay out on Sunday.

He also didn't update the index for his sim I think? Or the portal?

This year the target is to win with a sub .800 save %.

Dunno mate my PH is at like 70 and I'm doing alright.

Why is the index seven levels of fucked now.

RIP Liz the Lizard ?