Gustav

Damn right, we have no shame. We like and respect AJ, and we appreciate that he was real with us in this situation. On his end, that's the way second chances should work. Someone screws up, admits it, faces the consequences, and moves on. We're not happy that this happened the way it did, but we are proud that our GMs feel that they can communicate with us honestly. And by the way, we do like the way this went--we've seen teams get docked draft picks for this kind of thing, followed immediately by the GM quitting and the new GM having to deal with it. We generally feel that if you screw up, you own the responsibility. AJ will be the only one affected by this. The Achilles/Dack situation is not how second chances should work, and I like to think we all know that. Hopefully we're all good at forgiving, moving on, and doing better.

I'm not 100% sure where this sentence comes from because I don't know what in here disagrees with it. There's a difference between "GMs should talk with their players and if they have to be moved it should at least be communicated well" and "I don't want the VHL to be competitive." I'll also point out that I agree with this: ...and I don't think that anyone here is saying that players being traded is inherently bad. I do think it's fair to point out that there are likely cases where due respect isn't fully given to a player, and it isn't a good look to just dump your reasonably developed former MVP without giving him much direction (at least, that's what it looks like from the outside). I remember back when Vancouver some team or another would let some people know they'd been traded by just trading them and waiting for them to notice the forum notification...it was mildly funny to watch sometimes but I wouldn't have considered it that had I been the player being traded. On the flip side of the whole "GMs should work to create a community of fun people who support each other" thing (which I think is entirely valid), I'll also point out that there are many more people in the league than the average person thinks who will get frustrated if a GM isn't doing enough to win--and what do you do to accommodate those players and people? I had players in my time as a GM getting pissed off at me because we weren't winning enough or I wasn't buying enough or I bought player A and player B doesn't like player A. It's really, really hard to make everyone on your team happy about what you're doing all the time. I think on the player end, you should look at the fact that you have 16 different teams to choose from and you have the opportunity to pick up and move at some point if you don't like where you are. It is primarily on your GM to give you the best experience, but if you aren't finding it there...go to a fun team if you want fun. Go to a winning team if you want to win. That part also isn't complicated and it's something the player can do to take a little bit of that power back.

I agree with you and I do think we'd be a better place if people were just less competitive. I've never personally understood the mindset of going to FA/asking for trades specifically to chase cups and I've always hated watching people tell other people they have to build in hyper-specific ways. I don't know how possible it is to change that culture, though--I've always advocated against it but we'll always have people who want to build an all-time great (player or team) and will stop at nothing to accomplish that. And when that happens, it almost becomes necessary to do some of the same stuff if you're in a group that I'd suspect includes lots of people in the league: "I'm mostly just here to have fun but I also want to keep up." I think it was a good thing that my first player was absolute dogshit because that probably made me more able to put what I was actually enjoying in perspective. It certainly wasn't player performance, and I'm OK with thinking it shouldn't be.

I'm curious what you mean here more specifically regarding your situation because I'm not familiar with it. I think it does suck for anyone's player to be a piece of property that can be moved into/out of different groups by someone who never created that player...but it's also next to impossible to "optimize" your team if you're only doing what everyone wants all the time (not that that's even possible). I'm fine with GMs and players at least reaching a mutual understanding before a big move, but I do lose some level of respect when that has not at least been met. I'd imagine that basically anything that isn't "hi, I'm not feeling it anymore and you can look for someone else" in this case would fall under the category of Wilson + Seattle having different ideas and one party having the power to act on theirs. In any case, the league needs more hard-hitting journalism and I definitely appreciate this thread. Always hoping those who need a team they like can find one.

I can lobby to have this counted as a write-in vote if you'd like

SIR

Heck I was mostly worried about the middle part. I forgot the great rule of "I before E except when it's not." Next season is going to be interesting though. I think these articles have brought up a whole lot that I didn't know myself about some players from just looking at career totals and stuff--so maybe we'll actually be able to resolve Boeser one way or another.

Welcome back to Hall of Not Bad, the series in which I take a good look at a player who is not in the VHL Hall of Fame, give an overview of their career and achievements and whatnot, and compare that player's performance against a list of other players, both in and out of the HoF, to answer as fairly as possible whether that player deserved to have made it in. One of the things that's always thrown a wrench into HoF voting is what happens when a player has lower career total numbers, not due to worse production but due to a shorter career. It's something that I've generally considered a bit less of a disadvantage than some others have seemed to (at the very least, I'd never rule anyone out entirely on that basis), but it's an interesting dilemma when you've got to ask yourself whether a given player should be in both because of and despite 7-ish seasons of good play. I don't think there's an objective answer to those questions...and those are certainly questions that lead to some doubt over the status of the subject of today's article, Bo Boeser. (credit to Frank) I'd likely have zero idea Boeser ever existed if it weren't for @Victor bringing up his name in the BoG's Hall of Fame voting thread way back in S76, and a quick search of Boeser in forum history shows a Victor post in that same BoG subforum ranking Boeser above eventual HoFer Jasper Canmore (we'll get to that later!) in terms of worthiness. For whatever weird/stupid reason, the name has been in the back of my head ever since we didn't really talk about him and never added him to the ballot 10+ seasons ago, so this article will satisfy some curiosity in that regard as well for me. Beginning his VHL career in S55, Boeser was the GM player of @DollarAndADream , and as such automatically assigned to Toronto. He would make an impact right out of the gate with a Stolzschwieger (I spelled that right without looking!) win in his rookie year, and led Toronto to a Victory Cup in S59. Sadly, due to the rules surrounding GM players, his career would be cut short after a trade to New York (followed by forced retirement) in S60. Though Boeser's career only lasted six VHL seasons and he would never lead the league in scoring or win an award beyond Top Rookie, he averaged over 100 points and almost 50 goals per season and was consistently one of the best players the league had to offer during his time up. And while that lack of hardware does represent a negative point, let's quantify that "one of the best in the league" bit with our first of three separate comparisons... ...that's right, I said three separate comparisons. Generally, I look for 2-3 HoF players and 1-2 non-HoF players who played during the time of my article's focus, but with the S50s being the member-dead era it was and with Victor's old suggestion drawing a direct comparison to an older player (see Part 3), I'll have to split things up a bit. We'll jump right back in and take a look at... Part 1: One of the Best How do we argue that Boeser was one of the best? There's no better way to do that than to look at some of the best: Fredinamijs Krigars: a Hall of Fame player. In the VHL from S54-S60, Krigars was inducted in S62 after a seven-season career in which he would lead the league in points twice and win two Cups with Riga in S57 and S58. At the time, Krigars was the first player since S33 to make it in without having been drafted in the first round--that's a drought longer than I've been in the league. Gabriel McAllister: a Hall of Fame player. Here's a name I've known since my rookie season when I was checking the portal's TPE leaderboards--at the time of his retirement, I believe McAllister was #1 all-time. Apart from that, he was one of the defining forwards of his era, putting up more award wins than I even care to list here and winning three championships between his time on Seattle and (!) Davos. Playing between S56 and S63, McAllister's point production curiously did not spike with that of the rest of the league in S62. John Locke: a Hall of Fame player. Yet another seven-season player, Locke would spend most of his time on Quebec after an incredible VHLM run and total almost 700 points over his career between S54 and S60. He would win four Cups and lead the league in goals twice, and, like McAllister and Boeser, was the league's top rookie in his first season. Since I have mildly interesting facts for our other two--John Locke the Enlightenment thinker had a lot of capitalist ideas, but John Locke the player is listed as a "left wing". Curious. So, yes, Boeser didn't stick around as long as any of these, and didn't win the same awards, but: While I'm not saying that Boeser was a better player than any of the others--clearly, based on overall body of work, I'd vote for the other three above him--I will say that this is at least evidence that he was just as good an offensive player as any of the others here while still in the league, and I believe that he would have made it in easily with 2 more seasons of the same (or even 1 more). There's no visible difference in career trajectory between Boeser and anyone else in these charts, and that includes McAllister (offense-wise, at least; McAllister was a great two-way player and we aren't looking at that because most others covered here, Boeser included, weren't built that way). Also clear, though, is the fact that this isn't enough. A couple questions that I asked myself along the way of putting this chart together were: What's the next-best player to Boeser in his time, and can we establish that he was better than anyone else spending most of their time between S54-60 and not in the Hall of Fame? Can I find a Hall of Fame player with some amount of overlap with Boeser's career who is arguably worse? And luckily, I can answer both. Part 2: It's Complicated Remember how I mentioned up top that Victor had ranked Boeser above Jasper Canmore in some discussion thread? It's time to dig a bit deeper and establish that, while he was playing, Bo Boeser was not only playing at an elite level but playing above some others who were considered pretty darn good. Here, we'll take a look at: Mattias Forsberg: NOT a Hall of Fame player. Forsberg makes an appearance here for scoring the most points per game out of anyone whose career mostly overlaps Boeser's and is not in the Hall. Exactly like Boeser, coincidentally, Forsberg was a GM player whose career lasted 6 seasons (56-61) due to an early trade. If there is a drop-off between Boeser and the next-best, this is the comparison to make. Jasper Canmore: a Hall of Fame player. The player Victor ranked below Boeser, and who did make it in, is worth a look. Canmore would exceed 700 points, but played 8 seasons, and with a Funk, a Cup, and a Beketov, doesn't do as much better than Boeser in the awards department than the players we looked at in Part 1. In my opinion, a sufficient difference in per-season production could be enough to make up for this. Here's how that looks: I'll note that Canmore should be expected to have somewhat lower career totals than our Part 1 players as his career (S58-65) extended more into the start of the VHL's dead puck era--you can even see that taking effect where the red line levels off a bit near the end. But even looking at the seasons they had in common, it's next to impossible to say that Canmore was a better offensive producer than Boeser, and I think Boeser did better overall in that department (even with two extra seasons, Boeser still has more goals in total). Also, there's no debate whatsoever that he's better entirely than the next-best in Forsberg. This does raise a couple of interesting points and questions: Yes, the players that we looked at in Part 1 clearly had better careers overall than Boeser. But, Boeser clearly had a better career than anyone else who didn't make it. Seeing as there's space on either side of this one player, which side do we draw the line on? I think the difference between Boeser and Canmore is subjective for multiple reasons, but we now have a case where we can't say "this Hall of Fame player was clearly better in every way overall." If Canmore is in, what makes the difference? Does a 6-season career do more harm than better production does good? And, another question--if a 6-season career really is enough to keep someone out under these conditions, then why is Bismarck Koenig in? Part 3: The Other 6-Season Mr. B. Yep, here's that "direct comparison to an older player" I referred to earlier. Let's hit hard right away. And now let's explain where this comparison comes in. I don't think comparing career totals of players across different eras (Koenig was S42-47) does much for us, so we shouldn't take those totals too seriously even though they're pretty graphs that do illustrate that our subjects had similar careers. That's going to be the last time you see Boeser in a chart, though--our best course of action here is to try to contextualize Koenig within his era and try to compare him to the context of Boeser in the late S50s. If we can say that Koenig was exactly to the 40s as Boeser was to the 50s, and one is in while the other is out, that might be a case. The aforementioned Bismarck Koenig: a Hall of Fame player. Not a GM player, Koenig nonetheless played 6 seasons in the VHL. Following pretty much the same scoring path as Boeser, Koenig would also never win a Cup but did manage to put together a few awards, notably a S47 in which he would lead in points and win MVP. We'll be comparing Koenig to... Jody 3 Moons: NOT a Hall of Fame player. 3 Moons was to Koenig what Forsberg was to Boeser--just the next-highest offensive production out of players who haven't made it. Playing between S41 and S47, 3 Moons curiously saw declining production throughout a 7-season career spent mostly in Stockholm. Edwin Reencarnacion: a Hall of Fame player. One of the great two-way forwards of his time (a characteristic only shown by Koenig for a few seasons, so we'll drop that for the sake of analysis but keep it at the back of our minds), Reencarnacion would spend all but 22 games playing for New York, leading the league in goals twice and winning MVP in S48. He's got the lowest point-per-game rate out of Hall of Fame forwards in this era. The sake of this one is to try to establish a connection between Koenig and Part 2 of this article, where we established that: Boeser is the better player than the next-best, without question, and: There is at least room for fair debate between Boeser and an existing Hall of Fame player in Jasper Canmore. If we can say that Koenig is easily better than 3 Moons, and we can debate between Koenig and Reencarnacion, then that could give us some fair context to our comparison across two eras. Interestingly... I think the first point here--that Koenig is better than 3 Moons--is correct. "Fair debate between Koenig and Reencarnacion" is less so--Reencarnacion did have fewer points per game than Koenig, but played one more season at about the same pace and was much more of a two-way player. This actually gives us a little bit more support for Boeser--I don't see Koenig beating anyone else in the HoF from his era, something that's supported a little by searching up "Koenig" in BoG and seeing more than one instance of "well, if Koenig is in then why isn't this other player?"--which was a supporting argument for the late induction of Mathias Chouinard (who also played 6 seasons!) in S68. So, I think it's fair to say that we have something that's at worst comparable to our Part 2. What about Part 1? Can we say that Koenig produced on par with HoF players from the late S40s in general? The best I can find in this regard* are: Lord Karnage: a Hall of Fame player. Starting on defense in S42 and switching to forward immediately after for the next seven seasons, Karnage, like Reencarnacion, was a hard, physical player (winning four consecutive Boulets between S44 and S47) with the ability to score. Interestingly enough, also like Reencarnacion, Karnage would spend all but exactly 22 games with one team (Stockholm). And if you're wondering if that's the same because those situations were related, they weren't--Karnage moved one season earlier. Thomas O'Malley: a Hall of Fame player. Only twice dipping below 100 points in a single season, O'Malley was one of the best of both the S40s and of all time. Described as "definitely the greatest of his generation" in his HoF article, he won MVP three times--and the "career awards" section of said article takes up my entire screen. **see below** Aksel Thomassen: a Hall of Fame player. Leading the league in points twice, Thomassen played seven seasons, including five in Quebec. He wouldn't win a Cup, but did very well in his time and certainly qualified for Hall status. *There is a number of players whose careers started around S45 and who have greater point production rates than Koenig. I haven't included them because I think there was a bit of an uptick in numbers in the early S50s--and there were just enough good players with more overlap to make it work. **I've crossed out O'Malley because I consider him an exception--"definitely the greatest of his generation" shouldn't be the measuring stick; "typical Hall of Fame player from this era" should be. It's also for this reason that I left out Franchise Cornerstone in our analysis related to Boeser, so I figure it's best to keep it fair. And here's our other Part 1: I think it's fair to say that we can draw about the same conclusions about Koenig from these charts as we can about Boeser in Part 1 of this article. He didn't play as long as the others, but did produce at around the same level in the time that he had to do it. So, in summary: Boeser and Koenig both played about as well as their respective eras' average Hall of Fame forward; just over 6 seasons instead of 7 or 8. There's a visible gap between both Boeser and Koenig and the "next-best not in" of their respective eras. Koenig is in; Boeser isn't--why is this? I think it's fair to back away from the charts and take the time to think critically a bit. The Case For Boeser Yes, Boeser has 6 seasons of Hall of Fame-level production. And while the 6-season part can hurt a player, it isn't automatically something that can keep a player out. I think the strongest case for Boeser does lie in the comparison to Koenig--they've got very similar career arcs, and they put up very similar numbers in what look like very similar eras with respect to the numbers put up by the league's best. In each, there's one clear "best" (Cornerstone/O'Malley) with a handful of others still near enough to the top to be all-time greats. And looking at old BoG posts, there was more or less a consensus that Koenig wasn't worthy of the first ballot, but no one ever really doubted that he was worthy of the Hall of Fame in general. Boeser, on the other hand, doesn't seem to make it too far past Victor suggesting the name a couple times--and no one ever said he shouldn't be on the ballot; the topic really just died out. Plus, he's got Canmore kinda sorta in his era, who he clearly beats in those in-the-era seasons. All-time, too, only two non-HoF players with at least 6 seasons have recorded more points per game than Boeser's 1.43, and both played in the league's first decade where scoring numbers were through the roof. Even counting weird little outlier careers where someone popped off for 2 or 3 seasons and then retired, no one at all who isn't inducted has even made it to that mark since S20 (Matthew Gunnarson with a 4-season career equalling Boeser's pace--no non-HoFer outside of the league's first decade has ever exceeded it). The Case Against First and foremost, we do have to state the obvious: the Hall of Fame players we've compared Boeser to deserve to be in the Hall of Fame more than Boeser does (with the possible exception of Canmore, who we can't fully rule out due to some era differences). Each recorded more total points, many had an additional physical dimension to their game that Boeser didn't, and all have a more impressive award cabinet. And while this is entirely true for Koenig, he at least had the one MVP campaign Boeser didn't. To quote myself from over 2 years ago at this point: S47 was cited way back in the day as a big reason to recognize Koenig--and Boeser doesn't have that S47. I'm not at all convinced Koenig would have gotten in had he finished second in goals and/or points and not won much of anything. Even though that would have led to similar enough career totals, that reason would have been gone and we'd probably be looking at Koenig (and, for that matter, Chouinard!) for Hall of Not Bad in some future edition. I don't think just one MVP campaign entirely removes Boeser from contention, though--what I think might do that is a bit of a shift in focus. What if, instead of saying "the line was drawn at this point for Koenig, so let's also draw it at this point for Boeser" (which I do still think is valid), we say "the line shouldn't have been drawn here for Koenig in the first place"? In much the same way that we can argue that, since Koenig is a HoFer, Boeser should be too, we can argue that Koenig shouldn't be a HoFer, and neither should Boeser. The rest of the Hall of Fame crop for both eras is clearly better, and we've seen Koenig brought up more than once as a relatively weak HoF pick and a justification for bringing in others as relatively weak selections. What if the BoG made a mistake, and that's not a justification after all? I think I certainly would have concluded that Boeser doesn't quite make it if it weren't for the comparison to Koenig. So: is Bo Boeser a Hall of Fame player? Much like in HoNB, Volume 3, my verdict is that it's complicated. If we interpret Koenig's induction as a valid precedent (and one which was used to--rightfully--induct Mathias Chouinard decades after his career ended!), then I think there's enough similarity to make a valid case for Boeser. If, instead, we disagree with Koenig's induction, I think the entire thing falls apart. I think Koenig was ever so slightly the better player because of awards, but the difference is so small that I have a hard time justifying drawing the line within that smallest possible margin and saying that our standards should be exactly at that point. Either we like both, or we don't like either. I do think Boeser should be on the ballot, and I might even be inclined to vote for him in a season when we don't have a particularly strong group. I don't outright think that he belongs, but I do think it's next to say that (as the league currently does from the official standpoint of who's in and who isn't) he doesn't and that Koenig does. I hope you've enjoyed this one--it's the most in-depth Hall of Not Bad I've written up so far, and after finishing it I think we do have a borderline-worthy, up-for-debate player that one could reasonably argue both for and against. And so ends my spring break. Until next time! Others mentioned: @hedgehog337 @CowboyinAmerica @Will @Banackock @Bushito @BOOM @MubbleFubbles @gorlab @Frank @boubabi @OrbitingDeath Previous Hall of Not Bad articles: Alexander Pepper Shawn Glade Jakab Holik 3,483 words | see you in a month

Howdy! With the offseason being what it is, @Spartan and I often find ourselves the victim of Big Sim League in that the people who work for us find us utterly repulsive often look for opportunities on higher levels. While this was the case with our recent hiring in San Diego, we now find a second reason to move people around as we have recently been informed that @a_Ferk has chosen to step away from his position as GM of Mississauga. Of course, we'd like to thank Ferk for the work he put in to turn around the team--as the Hounds' first-ever GM, I've always wanted to see them do well and it was nice to watch Ferk build a zero-win team into a reasonably competitive one. But life moves on, and now it's time for someone else to take the wheel and hopefully make the next chapter in Mississauga even more special. So, please join me in welcoming someone we know and love back to the world of GMing as the new GM of the Hounds...

Gee, I wonder why. That 100-26 game is nuts and I can only imagine what it was like to be part of it. I'm curious what led to the shots per period in the E matchup being fairly low (especially in each OT). Maybe even the automatic 99 stamina starts wearing off after a while.

Going to Week 2 this before I forget

VHLM! It's lit! You've seen that, you've heard that, but do you believe it? Could you tell me without looking that both teams competing for the Founder's Cup were decided today in a Game 7? Could you tell me that the finals will be between the VHLM's top 2 regular-season teams? If you don't play in the VHLM, could you name me a player on either team? And would you have guessed that both GMs will be going for their first-ever championships as GM? Heck, I haven't even gotten to that last part myself, so you should know that's an achievement. I truly have no bias for one team or another here, and I think all of those things make the finals an appealing matchup for anyone who wants to tune into our community for some good, old-fashioned simulation hockey. Who's ready for a breakdown? Mexico City Kings 7 forwards | Avg. TPA: 159 4 defense | Avg. TPA: 110 2 goalers | Avg. TPA: 93; Starter TPA: 150 Capped Players: 3F The Kings head into the finals after finishing on top of the regular-season standings with 105 points and presenting remarkable dominance over the stat sheet. With a league redesigned to be more competitive, both of these things are impressive in their own right and would have been less obvious predictions at the start of the season than in many others. And with GM @badcolethetitan being notoriously blamed for sim luck, stock prices, and Team USA getting absolutely whipped by Team Mexico in the World Baseball Classic as I write this, I like to think that he's got a bit of a chip on his shoulder as he aims to take home (I think) Mexico's first-ever Cup. Let's take a look at the roster! Forwards: Ranked #2 and #3 in points in the VHLM this season are none other than Mexico's captain nugget (131) and Tim Riggins (127, including a league-leading 65 goals), while one needs not look much farther down the list to find Grizz Tazzo (in 6th with 116) to find that the Kings can make a full line of forwards out of the league's top 6 scorers. That's super impressive, and shows that TPE works--these are Mexico's three capped players, and the main thing that Ottawa will have to look out for. Defense: Not all that far down the points list in the M is Colton Heffelfinger at #13, who's also second in points among defensemen and comes into this game with over 200 hits and 150 blocked shots. Arguably, the reason why this team is so hard to defend is that shutting down one part of the game will leave another more open to chances--and that could end up being the secret to success. Goalers: Coming into his third season in the VHLM is Ross Glagau, a familiar name in some VHLM circles. While not capped, he's tied for first in wins and, as a recreate of a once-max-earning member, can open up some possibilities for the team in terms of locker room presence and experience. It will be interesting to see whether that extra 50 TPE might make a difference, but if regular-season performance is an indicator of success, the Kings should be fully confident in their starter. Ottawa Lynx 7 forwards | Avg. TPA: 160 3 defense | Avg. TPA: 138 1 goaler | TPA: 200 Capped Players: 3F/1D/1G Based on regular-season standings and presence of players among the statistical leaders of the league this season, it might seem fair to suggest that the Kings are more likely to take home a championship. That said, though, we shouldn't forget something else--Ottawa has just as much of a chance to succeed if we're just comparing rosters, and even has advantages in some spots. GM @Grape is a relatively experienced member (having joined the VHL the same season I did), but is mostly just starting off as a GM and so far has done a great job getting his team up to speed. The Lynx finished on top of the Eastern Conference with 101 points and should present a formidable opponent for the Kings, with a victory potentially signaling a turnaround from a recent GM firing and team restructuring. Forwards: Just like the Kings, Ottawa has three capped forwards. And while this isn't the three-in-the-top-six that we just saw, a look at the points leaderboard shows us that we've got Gregger McKegger (5th; 124), Jagger Bomb (9th, 106), and recreate FISTED ANALLY BY A CIRCUS MONKEY Analyst (14th; 100). So, even though the Kings might end up stealing the show, there's still quite a bit to deal with on the other end and a good amount of players that could end up hanging with the headliners. Defense: Here's the main disadvantage Ottawa has: they've got three players on defense, as compared to a full lineup for Mexico. That said, though, the players they do have are often enough. We've got to go down to #43 on the points list (Winston Dixon jr with 64) to find someone in this category, but TPE-wise, both almost-capped Dixon and capped Greg Hickman will end up making a difference. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this team, and whether this is a hole that the Kings could exploit, but the surprising lack of regular-season production in this group is also a place where they could explode in the final series. Goalers: If there's one thing that could make up the lack of a fourth player on defense, it's capped Matthew McCagg in net. Finishing the regular season second in SV% and first in GAA, with 7 shutouts, McCagg has done his share of stealing games for the team and could end up making that happen in this final series. We'll have to find out whether 50 extra TPE in net will make up for the difference in regular-season stats--especially when it comes down to a situation where the teams are arguably pretty well-matched on paper otherwise--and McCagg could very well end up being the key to winning it all. So yes--follow the VHLM! Track our championship! You'll get to see the best of the league's next generation going up against each other, and you'll have fun with what's going to be an entertaining series. Here's to a lot of awesome moments over the next handful of days! To the great players mentioned here: @xslapxshotsx @Captain nugget @Jayhawk @heffcolton @Zetterberg @Jaggerbomb @TheNeonShaman @STZ @Greg Hickman @Rjdixon01 @Jack kidd 1,073 words | 2 weeks

Art Vandelay

Going to Week 4 this one now so I don't forget until Saturday again

On one hand I know for a fact (don't ask) that Smitty was 16 when drafted and is now listed as 25. So whoever was rolling things over a while ago was apparently doing it pretty consistently. On the other hand I'm almost 100% positive that Vandelay has always been 33.

Week 3; claimed around theme week.

I'm also going to point out that you set your player's age once, when you create, and that never changes. I also googled this because I knew this allegedly happened to someone at some point and apparently John Smoltz says this didn't happen...but I still think it's funny to believe it.

Awesome to see you back, coming from someone who's probably considered a vet by most who already-very-much-established you helped out as a noob. That should provide some context to any noobier noobs who happen to come across this thread. Active you is one of my favorite people here, so I certainly look forward to seeing what's to come!

Awesome as always!

I like it--and you have a lot of good stuff going on that you should definitely keep up as you improve. -The stock images in the background are working well. If you layer some of that sort of thing over parts of your render (picture of the player), that will help it blend in with your background and also contribute somewhat to... -...lighting on your render. You might notice that the player sticks out quite a bit and doesn't look naturally "illuminated" by the rest of the picture--the reds are a noticeably different shade than the background, and there are some parts (like the white stripes on the jersey, or the cage of the helmet) that draw some focus for being the brightest parts when we should be primarily drawn to things like the player's face or the text. Using things like large, soft brushes set to Soft Light on various shades of white/black/gray (at reduced opacity) will help, and so will the above tip on integrating layers of stock images in front of and behind the render. Awesome job though, and far better than my second graphic! Keep it up.

Art Vandelay

I did some poking around VHL rosters today, because when I'm not under some sort of pressure to work I just get irredeemably bored. The reason for this mostly had to do with--finally!--being on a team with reasonable sim success (seriously, it might have been S68 when I was last on a team that was 2nd in the conference this late in the season) after I'd come into the season feeling fairly pessimistic about things. You see, last season was horrible, and we got hit hard with retirements and the like. On top of that, I'd talked to multiple people who expressed sentiments along the lines of "you're never going to win anything; you only have two players on defense." Which is a fair point. I took a look at our last sim and saw about 57 minutes in total of ice time from our defensive bots, and that sort of thing should in theory be a liability. That is, until you take a look at the standings and come to terms with the following: Ten teams are eligible for the playoffs. Somehow, currently one is New York. Out of these ten, three have at least 4 players on defense. None have more than that, and the other seven teams (including first and second place in both conferences) have less. Six have 3; LA has 2. Out of the six teams ineligible for the playoffs, all have at least 4 defensemen, and three have more than that. The teams who haven't filled their defensive lines are still right up against the cap, meaning that they likely have more invested in their forwards (and goalers) than other teams and have somewhat maximized this (intentionally or not) by giving up a rostered player on defense. Now, if I liked to draw my conclusions homeopathy-style, I'd stop here with "defense = bad" and tell you that the less defense your team has, the better. And since this is the Internet, a lot of people would probably believe it if I framed it well enough and I'd see someone repeating said opinion at some point. But I do enough science stuff to know that this doesn't necessarily mean anything, so let me make some counterpoints. Generally, non-competitive teams have larger rosters because they take cap dumps and deal with larger pools of draft picks coming up. They've got room for people with lower TPE, and most are happy to take those people when they come around. Because of this, we can pretty much ignore teams whose rosters don't quite pass the eye test for "is in a position to be competitive"--in my opinion, removing at least three and arguably four of the teams not eligible for the playoffs. They're going to be worse whether there's anything in this or not. We already had a small and inconclusive sample size before considering the above point, and that only makes it more so. Nothing I'm saying here should be taken as "this is what will definitely happen when you build your team in this specific way." There's no doubting that bots aren't good for the team when they're on the ice. Anecdotally, in LA's last sim, all bots in total (amounting to about 2 full games of a normal player's ice time) put up a total of 0 points, with a -2 and 4 penalty minutes. Also--none recorded a shot on goal. My main point here is that maybe, it's a viable strategy to spend all your money up front and place defense as a second priority. I don't think anyone's ever purposely built defense first, and I also don't think that idea in general is new. It's just that missing some players in some places might not be as big a deal as many of us think, and if we aren't seeing it already it's reasonable to think that we'll see teams purposely going for stacked forward lines at the expense of some bot time. It's also important for me to point out that I don't like this. I don't want teams discouraging members from creating on defense in much the same way I don't like it when teams try to tell players to build in exact, "optimal" ways. I'm hopeful that this won't be the case, because, obviously, there remains some need for defensive players, but I am a bit concerned that this will be enough of a trend that some of the meta micromanage-y stuff might start happening. We'll see what happens--I do hope Vandelay is all the added defense LA needs to win a championship, but I'm also a bit too much of a purist to enjoy the current distribution.

Art Vandelay