Renomitsu

You've got a hell of a rebuilding job to do in Seattle, but late round gems that become stars are waaaaay more interesting than 1st-rounders. Here's to hoping you keep it up with in this league!

I wonder who it could be ? Bunch of guys have zero TPE added, Micheal Rasmussen has +22, and at the time of writing, Thomas Kennedy @Walter Fizz had... +138.

WHERE ARE THE FIGHTS What a disappointing end to this series I was hoping to see at least one more general fight. Ggwp Helsinki.

Sweeps aren't any fun. Vancouver plz win at least once

1. Well, our season is over. But that means it's time for the draft - what position do you think needs the most help? 2. The Davos-Riga curse continues. Why do the Swiss have our number -- is there some secret voodoo they practice? 3. Aside from us, who has the (very early) advantage to win next year's championship? 4. Do we have enough roster space to take on all of our S66 and S67 (called-up) players? 5. Who on our team would you have liked to see in the All-Star Game among those that didn't make it? 6. (regarding #5) What about players not on our team? 7. What would you like to see change about the VHL? 8. What's your unpopular opinion about the VHL (or its players)? 9. Aside from yourself, which of the Riga players has the best career ahead of them? 10. As a (hypothetical?) GM, what's your preference - an old head with seasons and seasons of decent but not elite TPE earning, or a brand-new, unknown guy with 5-6 weeks of maxed-out TPE?

Nobody: Both teams: LET'S FIGHT AGAIN Rough game to lose for Vancouver... here's to hoping they don't hit the dreaded 0-3. Personally I'm hoping for another general fight next game, but this time with 2v2 even strength lines because everyone gets ejected.

Nobody: Both teams: HEY LET'S FIGHT

Part I - Pick em' (Pick the correct winners of all three games for 2 TPE) Game 3 - Helsinki Titans @ Vancouver Wolves Game 4 -Helsinki Titans @ Vancouver Wolves Game 5 - Vancouver Wolves @ Helsinki Titans Part II - Predict the Score (Predict the correct score and winner of this game for 3 TPE)  Game 5 - Vancouver Wolves 2:4 Helsinki Titans Part III - Player Predictions (Predict the correct player for each category, 1 TPE for each correct answer) Series leader in points: Glade Series leader in goals: Borwinn Series leader in assists: Glade

Davos had a heck of a postseason and hopefully they aren't burned too bad by the final result. It's looking an awful lot like destiny for the Titans...

I'm inclined to agree. Our best players went roughly even with Davos's first/second forward lines, but after that HHH is our best player against lines with Dragomir/John Madden. The losses still sting though, that's for sure!

Playoff Media Spot - +6 Uncapped VHL.com Playoff Article - +1 Uncapped Bonus for doing both - +1 Uncapped +8 total

Riga, Latvia - Stunned Latvian viewers watched their beloved Riga Reign get swept by Davos in last week's playoffs. After all of the talk about a great regular-season record against the Dynamo and several predictions of a Riga series win, the Swiss put on three convincing victories in Games 1, 2, and 4, and a close-but-no-cigar Game 3 overtime win. The Reign players seemed similarly distraught. "We had their number in the regular season, that's not a question in my mind," said Reign rookie Apollo Hackett after an overtime loss, "but the lights get a little brighter in the playoffs, and not all of us on Riga have been here before. It takes a little getting used to. We'll just have to come back better next season, and you can bet that we will." The Reign have over a half-dozen rookies on their roster last season, a result of carefully-curated trades. Though this season's team was young, GM Benjamin Zeptenbergs in fact has another player or two likely to be called up next season, to say nothing of Season 67's upcoming draft class. With Preencarnacion, Cast, and Saint all getting older, there seems to be a short- and long-term window for championship aspirations - but with this regular vs. playoff season dichotomy, some fans aren't sure what to expect. One upset fan was heard shouting from the stands at the end of game 4, "Ryuu and Rylan basically dad-dicked us. The hell's up with that?"

How Predictable Were the EU VHL Quarter Finals? Over the last several days, we’ve seen a number of figures thrown out: Davos holds a 12-3 franchise record against Riga; Davos was 1-5-2 against Riga this season, with an overall -7 differential; Riga’s rookie class looked great this season. At the start of the season, Davos looked poised to compete for a title: a young roster composed of star-quality S63-65 players, plus a couple of highly-rated draft picks. Riga’s roster, on the other hand, felt a bit more polarizing: just two S64-65 players in centers Anthony Matthews and Gucci Garrop, a very large rookie class (including 6 immediate call-ups), and several S61 and S63 players. We’ve got a handful of storylines, but the regular season significantly favored Riga. Why did we get a heavy-handed 4-0 sweep in the other direction? Let’s investigate here. Our TL;DR: 1) Riga’s several forward rookies had ice time, but no favorable matchup 2) When together against Davos’s second/third lines, Riga could go roughly even unless all rookies were on at the same time 3) Davos’s superior veteran depth and limited rookie ice time gave them a significant on-ice TPE advantage 4) Davos gave more ice time to veterans Crimson and Peace for the playoffs. The Back Half of the Season: Davos’s 0-3-1 Record vs. Riga In spite of how lopsided the playoff series was, Davos did not win a single game against Riga in the second half of the season. Around the midpoint, they suffered 0-2 and 2-3 losses against the Reign – respectable games in their own right. The first of these two meetings ended with nearly identical shot totals (30 for Davos, 29 for Riga) where the difference was a simple disparity in goalie play – a perfect record for Kriketers (30/30) and an excellent-but-not-perfect outing from Davison (27/29, .931% saves). Riga was riddled with penalties in this first outing (17 PIMs), especially when compared to Davos (9) including a fight where Dynamo star Ryuu Crimson beat up rookie Hunter Hearst Helmsley. Rookie defensemen Nielsen and Hackett received plenty of ice time (26-28 minutes each), while forward minutes were more heavily skewed in favor of veterans. It’s worth noting in both of these matchups (and the next) that Davos’s lineups were identical – shown below with CURRENT TPE totals and percentage of ice time (tactically) at the end: F1 – Ryuu Crimson (878) – Rylan Peace (779) – Veran Dragomir (880) || 40% F2 – Elias Dahlberg (757) – John Madden (670) – Pat Svoboda (752) || 30% F3 – Veran Dragomir (880) – John Madden (670)– Katie Warren (470) || 20% F4 – As F1 || 10% D1 – Shawn Glade (traded) – Smitty Werbenjagermanjensen (624) || 40% D2 - Alvaro Jokinen (499) – Charlie Paddywagon (383) || 30% D3 – Shawn Glade (traded) – Codrick Past (339) || 20% D4 – Smitty Werbenjagermanjensen (624) – Alvaro Jokinen (499) || 10% Frankly, there isn’t much to say about these lineups – they make plenty of logical sense. Davos’s first forward line is incredibly imposing and can compete with virtually every other lineup in the game today. The second would still be competitive with most other teams’ top lines, and the only time a rookie or sophomore can plays at the forward position for Davos is S65’s Katie Warren, who gets 20% of total ice time and doesn’t appear on any powerplay line. Note that Shawn Glade was traded, among other things, for 651 TPE offensive defenseman Marvin Harding towards the end of the season, but their spots in the lineup throughout the year were identical. Defensively, Davos is predictably more diverse: with only two defenders over 500 TPE, they’re really about a line and a half deep, and their only two rookies appear separately on D2 and D3. Past receives no PP or PK time, while Paddywagon receives some second-line PP/PK time. Let’s now take a look at Riga’s lines for each of these victories: F1 – Gucci Garrop (420) – Podrick Cast (934)– Randoms (768) F2 – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – HHH (574) – Chico Smeb (340) F3 –Mikko Aaltonen (410) – Anthony Matthews (390)– Arnor Sigurdsson (374) F4 – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Podrick Cast (934) – Mikko Aaltonen (410) D1 – Ryan Kastelic (980) – Apollo Hackett (366) D2 – Cayden Saint (518) – Aron Nielsen (331) D3 – As D1 D4 – As D2 In the first game, Riga went with a pretty mixed lineup, with their late-career veterans only appearing on forward line 4 and powerplays/penalty kills together. But arguably more importantly, check their depth – while Riga is regarded as an excellent team (and the regular-season record shows it), their defensive pairs each include a rookie, and all of their forward lines have at least one player under 500 TPE – including a S65-66 line of Matthews, Aaltonen, and Sigurdsson. This line played under 15 minutes in the game and didn’t have a great chance to post high numbers – but more importantly, they didn’t lose any of the lead Riga built in the first period. Provided what we’ve seen from both teams, this is well within the realm of possibility. Let’s skip forward a couple of games in this regular season series to the 5-4 Riga shootout victory over Davos. The Dynamo’s lineup was identical to the previous two games’, but Riga’s changed yet again: F1 – Gucci Garrop (420) – HHH (574) – Randoms (768) F2 – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Podrick Cast (934) – Chico Smeb (340) F3 – Mikko Aaltonen (410) – Anthony Matthews (390) – Arnor Sigurdsson (374) F4 – Podrick Cast (934) – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Mikko Aaltonen (410) D1 – Ryan Kastelic (980) – Cayden Saint (518) D2 – Apollo Hackett (366) – Aron Nielsen (331) There are a couple of changes here – namely HHH for Podrick Cast swapped between F1 and F2, and making a veteran line and rookie line on defense. The plus-minuses are a bit more telling this time around – notably, Hackett and Nielsen are at -1 and +0 respectively; on the other hand, Saint and Kastelic were both at a +1 for the game. It’s not terribly difficult to interpret – having two rookie defensemen on a single line may just not do as well as splitting your veterans. When we also consider that Hackett and Sigurdsson are the weaker passers of the four, it may just not be as easy to move the puck out of the defensive zone with them both on the floor at the same time. Certainly, they’re both competent passers (70 and 75, respectively), but Kastelic (99) and Saint (87) give something of a safety cushion to avoid having the puck stay in the home side of the ice so long. What Changed in the Playoffs? No matter what, a factor in any given playoff series is luck – so let’s get that out of the way first. Could it have gone 4-0 for Riga? Sure, but we consider that to be of an exceedingly slim probability – same with a 4-1 or 4-2 in favor of Riga, provided how the series ended. Games 1 & 2 – 3-1, 4-1 Davos Strangely enough, Davos's manager @ShawnGlade kept lineups similar to their regular season tour. Notably, he swapped Dragomir for Svoboda at RW and tacked on more ice time for Peace & Crimson by adding them to the third line with Katie Warren, moves made very late in the regular season. Davos also made a slight adjustment to their ice time (40-40-20-0). The swap makes the first line a little bit more physical (75 checking vs. 60) in exchange for a few points of strength (75 vs. 80) and skating (90 vs. 99), but overall isn’t a terribly significant difference. This doesn’t change the overall playtime of S65 draftee Katie Warren – but it does give a little more time to 757 TPE Elias Dahlberg, 878 TPE Ryuu Crimson, and 779 TPE Rylan Peace. On the other hand, Riga made some significant changes that should be made clear below: F1 – Gucci Garrop (420) – HHH (574) – Randoms (768) F2 – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Podrick Cast (934) – Chico Smeb (340) F3 – Mikko Aaltonen (410) – Anthony Matthews (390) – Arnor Sigurdsson (374) F4 – Podrick Cast (934) – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Mikko Aaltonen (410) D1 – Aron Nielsen (331) – Apollo Hackett (366) D2 – Ryan Kastelic (980) – Cayden Saint (518) D3 – as D1 D4 – as D2 First, we can appreciate that Riga went with a forward lineup identical to their worst back-half performance against Davos (the 5-4 OT/SO win) – a splitting of their veterans to an extent, but with Preencarnacion and Cast on their second line. We can try to interpret this forward lineup in two ways – hoping for Preencarnacion and Cast to abuse a weaker second defensive line with rookie Charlie Paddywagon or perhaps testing the waters to see how HHH and Garrop fare against the cream of the VHL crop. Regardless, we can also point out that the first forward line doesn’t have great passers (80, 60, 85 for Garrop, HHH, and Randoms, respectively). Bringing up what I had mentioned previously about Nielsen and Hackett’s middling passing (again, 75 and 70 respectively), we have a problem. As a result, Nielsen’s, Random’s, Garrop’s, and HHH’s -1 plus-minus are all probably something we could come to expect. Now, don’t get me wrong – this isn’t intended to be a roast of Riga’s players or management. Nielsen and Hackett played reasonably well against one of the VHL’s best first lines, but the result was probably something we could expect, and Riga’s power duo of Preencarnacion and Past didn’t get the edge the coach wanted. Part of that is, frankly, luck – Cast had 4 PIMs and only got one shot off for the game, and Preencarnacion got a few shots off but just didn’t happen to score in our first game. Kriketers even played slightly above his average (29/31, .935 SV%); Davos happened to score on an empty net late in the game, making the first game look a little worse than it actually was. Overall, however, a limited Riga offense in the first game and exploitation of Riga’s many rookies handed them their first loss. A similar skater performance plus an off game from Kriketers gave them their second, even worse 4-1 loss. Game 3 – 3-2 Davos OTW The closest game of the series was game 3, where Riga kept shot-for-shot pace with Davos until overtime, when they were blown out of the water (3 shots vs. 13). F1 – Gucci Garrop (420) – HHH (574) – Randoms (768) F2 – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Podrick Cast (934) – Chico Smeb (340) F3 – Mikko Aaltonen (410) – Anthony Matthews (390) – Arnor Sigurdsson (374) F4 – Podrick Cast (934) – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Mikko Aaltonen (410) D1 – Ryan Kastelic (980) – Cayden Saint (518) D2 – Aron Nielsen (331) – Apollo Hackett (366) D3 – as D1 D4 – as D2 @hedgehog337 made a choice to keep his veteran defenders together as he did in games 1 and 2, but gave more even-strength ice time to them in an attempt to keep the rookies on the ice with lower-TPE forwards – and this strategy seemed to work well. Even against Davos’s top line, Preencarnacion and Cast managed 17 total shots together and had 2 goals and 2 assists between them – making them two of just four players (in addition to Hackett and Nielsen) with positive plus-minuses. Overall, it seems to have been a move in the right direction, but Riga still didn't have any wins. The more troublesome part comes when examining the team’s first and third lines – as Garrop, HHH, Randoms, and our rookie forward line all had -1 plus-minus values. Notably, Riga’s first forward line continued to struggle in generating shots, with #1 pick Hunter Hearst Helmsley managing just 5 across the first three games. His impact was limited when playing against a line with multiple 750+ TPE players on it, but that shouldn’t really be a surprise. Game 4 – 2-0 Davos, Series Clincher The last game of this series looked close, but the shot differential tells a much different story. Davos managed a whopping 45 shots in game 4, while Riga put up just 14 – a sign of a possible larger problem. Davos chose to keep their lines exactly the same as they were, but Riga tried something a little different: F1 – Randoms (768) – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Podrick Cast (934) F2 – Chico Smeb (340) – HHH (574) – Mikko Aaltonen (410) F3 – Anthony Matthews (390) – HHH (574) – Arnor Sigurdsson (374) F4 – Podrick Cast (934) – Edwin Preencarnacion (901) – Gucci Garrop (420) D1 – Ryan Kastelic (980) – Cayden Saint (518) D2 – Aron Nielsen (331) – Apollo Hackett (366) D3 – as D1 D4 – as D2 No defensive changes to this point – and provided their last game’s result, perhaps that was for the better. However, Riga chose to stick their best line out first, while their second and third lines were composed primarily of rookies. This presents a similar set of challenges to what we saw in Game 1, where Nielsen and Hackett were exposed with Garrop/HHH/Randoms against high-TPE players. Ultimately, this is a poor overlap in passing that resulted in zero shots for HHH and Smeb, and just 1 for Sigurdsson and Aaltonen, respectively. Crimson, Svoboda, and Madden ran amok on the mostly-rookie second lines, with 10, 7, and 6 shots, respectively – and while it came out to be a pretty close game goal-wise, Riga’s rookies never stood a chance. In spite of Kriketers’s best efforts in this game (43/45, 0.956 SV%), it’s nigh impossible to overcome a 31 shot deficit. Ultimately, it's not clear if GM Benjamin Zeptenbergs is to blame for the loss. Shawn Glade found a combination that worked his high-TPE veterans harder than in the regular season, and Riga couldn't beat it with their rookies. Regardless, the Reign have an excellent future ahead of them, and a pretty solid second-place finish in the regular season speaks to that. A championship run simply wasn't in the cards for them, but the sheer number of time-worthy rookies they have on their roster spells trouble for the league in the future.

Davison having a harder time dominating this series than the last. I still have some faith in Davos.

Oooh it's a series now. Here's to hoping it goes more than 5!

Well this was a sad series to watch. At least we put up a fight for the last two?

I didn't even have any PIMs this game. @hedgehog337 pls I believe in you

hey no sweep pls

Oof. Was hoping for an OT/SO or something at least a little closer than this ?

Playoffs start tomorrow. Answer some questions! 1) Riga faces Davos in the first round of the European Conference playoffs - if the series hasn't started yet, who do you think wins, and in how many games? If it's started already, is it going/did it go the way you thought it would? 2) Who do you think is most deserving of Rookie of the Year? If you picked someone on our team, who from another team is deserving? 3) Do you still follow the VHLM? If so, who do you think takes the title? 4) You've probably been to a few different countries by virtue of being in the VHLM/VHL. Where's your favorite outdoors spot on the planet? 5) Suppose you were banned from playing the sport of hockey forever. What other sports league do you think you'd excel in? 6) Which teammate hypes you up for games the most? 7) If the VHL were to expand in a few seasons, where would you want to have the next franchise(s)? 8 ) Do you ever get a feeling that maybe Benjamin Zeptenbergs (our GM) is actually a hedgehog? 9) Are you a fist bump or high five kinda guy? 10) Playoffs also mean the offseason is close. What advice would you give S67 draftees?

I agree that forcing roster minimums would be a pretty big ask of VHL GMs, a headache for simmers/whoever audits lines, and nightmarish to figure out the logistics of. In essence, we'd be asking every GM to carry 14 players at a minimum, possibly 16, and likely forcing bigger/desperation contracts on lesser players in order to meet that minimum - there are a lot of problems with making rosters more rigid, and I've sampled only a small portion here. I also agree with you in regards to the public poll - it will be skewed in favor of change just based on the subset of the user base the title attracts. Also, losing ice time sucks, and I know that without having ever played or followed hockey. Losing it disproportionately in unregulated rosters probably stinks too. We don't see many players from Riga or Davos touching the 90+ point mark, and it's a miracle that Reencarnacion has managed 97 points on the thirtieth most minutes of any forward (1884 this season vs. 2000 for all 100+ point forwards), making him the third most-efficient scorer at 1.02 pp20. As a complete aside, Jet Jaguar has been having a monster rookie season with just <1500 minutes played and 90 points scored. At the end of the day, I understand only a small portion of the logistical difficulties in deciding the future of the league. I've never led one or even really stayed around for more than 4-5 seasons at a time, and perhaps it's unfair for me to make an article like this without more qualifications. All I ask, really, is that we continue taking a serious look at what the league will do for an expanding player base (a great problem to have, don't get me wrong) and am thankful that we have admins and commissioners that are willing to meaningfully write us back.

That's absolutely true, and worth considering. The question then becomes, 'how does this change our (hypothetical) course of action?' I'd be interested to see what the balance would be if the choices were something like (1) line changes w/o expansion or (2) expansion w/o line changes, just to see what would be pushed back against the least if done first. I'm not sure if the league can afford to do neither - and I feel like those wanting to remain at two lines would be split between 'no change, period' and 'I'm reluctant, but am alright with expansion.'

Owen May with a heroic effort here - 65 shots against, geez. Matt Thompson putting up a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge stat line too

Yikes. Shane Mars tore us tf up. Didn't even have a huge PP/PK disparity either

Ugh, another rough game. Hope we can turn it around in the post season ?