Beketov

Definitely. Hopefully one more like game 1 than this though. Not gonna go well getting shot totals like this.

Not that I like the option but to be honest I would do that before I cut the teams down to 4.

I’m with @Kendrick. I’m okay with it if we have the members to sustain the lines but we aren’t going to drop more teams just for the sake of having more lines.

S30 I believe? I don’t fully remember but I believe it was around that landmark. People had honestly been asking for Expansion since like Season 10.

You have to recognize that people at the time had been asking to expand for many seasons already. The blue team made the call they thought was best. Ultimately most of us now disagree with that move. We will do what’s best for the league. At this point I cannot really say what that right move will be. I’m leaning towards larger teams but we’re talking a future that isn’t set in stone. What moves the league makes ultimately depend on how the league looks member wise when those decisions need to be made. That’s why we can’t make an official statement on the matter. The VHL is a fluid entity; we can’t simply state “this is what’s going to happen in 4 seasons” when we don’t know what the league makeup will be in 4 seasons.

Our objective is to add members. We do not have an end goal regarding the amount of lines in the league; we just want active members. Theorhetically but we don’t intend on dropping any more teams at this time.

Well we have 2 like teams now so it’s a safe bet to assume that we’d need to knock half the teams out in order to achieve 4 lines. Personally I do not see that as being the direction the league will want to take.

I’m not saying it isn’t the playoffs, I’m saying that I don’t really look at them as playoff teams. I look at the winner as a playoff team.

We discussed it a few days ago. We did 7 games this year to match everything else but that could make the wildcard series last 5 days which is way too much. I agree that it should be best of 5. We’ll look into changing it next season.

Don’t look at them as a playoff team then. Honestly though it is considered the playoffs I haven’t been looking at the wildcard game as being playoffs. I’m more or less deeming playoffs as the next two rounds. We just need to sim the wildcard as playoffs for stats purposes.

This was in the original announcement, I think your complaints are coming a season late. The lottery has always consisted of 4 teams and will remain 4 teams.

It has nothing to do with being in the playoffs or not. The lottery has always been 4 teams and will remain 4 teams. We’ve said from the moment of contraction that the losing team from the wildcard would be in the lottery.

Do you really need an official note on that matter? Obviously if we have 10 extra players coming into every team they need to go somewhere so the cap would be adjusted for more lines. Honestly it’s what should have happened instead of expansion years ago. I don’t think you need an official statement for that though. As it stands @Trifecta is right; it’s an issue with members. Personally you think dropping teams to have 4 lines looks better but I disagree. That would mean dropping half our teams which I think makes the league look far weaker than having bots (that never play anyway) filling the rosters. If we get more members, we can look at filling out the lines more. You seem to have it in your head that 2 lines is some kind of league philosophy and it isn’t. It’s just that with the amount of active players we have combined with the amount of teams we have it makes the most sense. Personally I do think if we had enough members that actually active guys were rotting away on the 4th line it would be better to expand but I have no issues at all with welfare or depth players playing 4th like minutes as long as they aren’t leaving because they never play. It isn’t a philosophy, it’s just the reality of how many active players the league tends to have.

Not to diminish @boubabi but, to be fair, any page that gets @jRuutu going will generate a bunch of replies haha. Still though, can’t deny the man knows how to make a hot topic. From my skimming theory gg it also appears to have stayed relatively civil

Until things get changed (changes are coming in the off-season) Welfare will remain the same. When the changes come in it won’t be drastically different though.

Congrats NY! And good luck, you’re definitely gonna need it.

Got my vote.

ROTY and MVP aren’t the same thing and don’t have the same criteria though. Keller was valuable to his team but that doesn’t mean he was a better rookie. “Value” is important for MVP. It isn’t for RPTY where straight stats matter more.

Ultimately I’ll likely end up starting some discussion for others when the ballots go up (just for the sake of covering bases) but yeah; that is kinda hard to overlook. A player being involved in a third of their team’s total points doesn’t happen every season.

Don’t try in turn this into another one of your arguments about having more depth players that few people want to really be. The fact is, the league has run for 58 seasons as a primarily 2 line league. So the awards have always been voted on with that logic in mind. The league hasn’t changed so suddenly deciding that we want to vote on awards based on depth that doesn’t exist makes no sense.

And that argument gets made on occasion; all depends on the season really. An ideal MVP candidate really is a player who does amazing, helps their team win, and has barely any help. However that is rarely the case most seasons. Cornerstone has a case because of how little help was on Helsinki. Personally I would think Boeser would as well but some points were made in here against that. I’m not here to discuss every option really. I’m just saying that MVP, like most awards, doesn’t have a check list of criteria in order to win it. The discussion changes per year depending how things went during the season.

Most Outstanding is an award as well and 100% I think Skye should be up for it because he had great numbers playing on a very weak team. Ultimately though he wasn’t stealing enough games for them to be considered that “valuable”.

Because ultimately his save percentage changed nothing. I’m not saying Skye didn’t have a great save percentage. I’m saying that if he had a shit one it wouldn’t have made a difference; it was a loss either way. Ultimately that makes him not as valuable of a player to the team because his presence more or less changed nothing result wise. Meanwhile when you look at Moon, sure his S% was lower but if you take him out Helsinki doesn’t win those games; period. Therefore he is more valuable to that team. I’ll put it a different way and work from the opposite side. Riga was dominant this season so King had a lot of wins. Does that mean he deserves MVP? Not necessarily because the team likely could have gotten those wins with basically anyone in net. It’s a balancing act with MVP performances by goalies.

Fair enough, that didn’t come off. Your wording made it sound more like discussing anyone but the top 2 was a waste of time because only 1 would win anyway. You’re saying that, at best, Skye would be 4th (if even that) and the others above him are far and away better options so no point bringing him into the fold. Carry On.