Why the VHL needs the VHLE.

[Alex 3,198]

 

So there has been some discussion lately regarding the VHLE , primarily it's purpose, activity, and it's role in the VHL. As someone who typically pays a lot of attention to the number of players in the league I believe I can shine a bit of light on the situation. For the purposes of being transparent I am in the BOG and did play a significant role in the salary cap raising this season, and presented @bigAL with the stats that led to Yukon and Oslo being relocated into the VHLE. I also have yet to play on a VHLE team myself so I will be reserving my opinion on VHLE LR activity as I have not been in a VHLE LR as a player yet. Without further to do let's jump into roster sizes in the VHL and VHLE. 

 

One thing you will notice immediately is the number of IA players in the VHL is just over 1 per team and only 13.6% of players in the VHL are IA while most VHL teams are at or near the salary cap and 10 teams are at or over the previous salary cap (FYI, Salary cap values ignore bonuses, shout out to @Dil for breaking a rule regarding bonuses this week). Meanwhile in the VHLE 44.6% of the league is IA including all of Istanbul. This is cause for some concern and the reason why we are seeing this is because when the VHLE expanded to 8 teams it was prior to the S81, S82, and S83 draft classes. The expansion was done to accommodate for the influx of players as these 3 draft classes contained a number of active players that was well above the normal amount which in turn is also one of the reasons (hybrid attributes being the other) VHL teams have a higher cap hit than ever before (to my knowledge). Since then recruitment has decreased which has led to there being less players in the VHLE, hence the increased number of IA players as those players make it to the VHL. With that being said in today's VHL the VHLE is needed and here's why;

 

1. Allows players that are not quite VHL ready to play in a top 6 role on a team keeping the member more engaged.

2. Relieves cap issues that would be caused by VHL teams needing to have rosters that are well over 6-4-2.

3. Provides more opportunities for members to be a GM or AGM (we do potentially have more jobs than members that want them given the number of people that have applied for the Helsinki/Cologne openings).

4. Lastly, if recruitment plummets it would be inherently easier to contract a league than a team(s).

 

Introduction of the VHLE has led to some inadvertent effects primarily in the VHLM;

 

1. Decreased TPE cap has led to a potentially accelerated boom/bust cycle.

2. Less teams in the VHLM means that new players get a less significant role.

3. Early in the VHLE's existence farm teams nearly had to be used to accommodate for new players which could have a negative effect on recruitment (after the 2 teams were removed).

 

 Without the VHLE several things would have to happen to accommodate for the current number of players (assuming the old VHLM TPE cap);

 

1. Either expansion of the VHL by 2-4 teams or a massive salary cap increase (to around $50mil) to allow teams to have competitive 9-6-2 rosters (would need rules so that a team couldn't run a 6-4-2 of near 900 TPE players).

2. Likely expansion of the VHLM as well.

 

This would lead to less opportunities for players to get minutes which would hurt retention and a lot less GM jobs for members.

 

With that being said I have always believed that the VHL/E/M is better off prepared for a massive influx of members and thus having 8 teams in the VHLE and the VHLE as a whole is needed in today's league for there to be success as a whole. While the VHLE may not be the most active league (looking at IA%) and we could theoretically get away without it, it does allow players to play a significant role that would be in a depth VHL role and as long as GMs continue to engage their teams the VHLE should be a good thing for retention.

[Grape 676]

In my opinion, it's better for retention to have a player in a depth role on an active VHL team, with a very engaging LR, than be in a top six role on a team full of IAs and a very low activity LR, especially when it comes to clickers who need that interaction and motivation to influence them to move towards PTs.

[diacope 1,696]

Weren't you the one who wanted to bring down the E hahahahahahahahhahahah times changes eh

[jacobcarson877 2,527]

It seems as though right now, the stretch from 200 to 400TPE is destroying member activity at an astronomical rate. I think it will be very important to figure out why people are disappearing in this transition. Why isn't the VHLE driving activity? My VHLE experience was amazing, and that Istanbul team pushed some of the top S83 talent. VHLM teams are almost always mostly empty by the offseason (either waivers being drafted to the VHLM, or players graduating to the E), so where are those graduates going? I just went through and looked at VHLE rosters today, and so many of the most active VHLM players and even legendary returning members are now suddenly IA.

I think the E should be an essential part of the process (I think I've made my thoughts on the E in theory quite clear by now), but I can agree that something is inherently wrong, and I have no idea what it is.

[rory 1,915]

damn having a guy who doesn't know the rule regarding minors salary cap hit advising the BoG on salary cap is a great idea

[N0HBDY 1,116]

Inactivity chart for the M?

[Alex 3,198]

5 minutes ago, N0HBDY said:

Inactivity chart for the M?

Everyone is active that is on a roster

[Enorama 2,038]

2 hours ago, N0HBDY said:

Inactivity chart for the M?

 

Only relevant for the GMs!

[Alex 3,198]

6 hours ago, jacobcarson877 said:

It seems as though right now, the stretch from 200 to 400TPE is destroying member activity at an astronomical rate. I think it will be very important to figure out why people are disappearing in this transition. Why isn't the VHLE driving activity? My VHLE experience was amazing, and that Istanbul team pushed some of the top S83 talent. VHLM teams are almost always mostly empty by the offseason (either waivers being drafted to the VHLM, or players graduating to the E), so where are those graduates going? I just went through and looked at VHLE rosters today, and so many of the most active VHLM players and even legendary returning members are now suddenly IA.

I think the E should be an essential part of the process (I think I've made my thoughts on the E in theory quite clear by now), but I can agree that something is inherently wrong, and I have no idea what it is.

After reading this and looking at some the players that randomly went IA just before or during the E it almost seems like the 1-2 weeks between the end of your M season and the E draft is where most the drop off is. The easiest potential solution I can think of would be to either move the E draft up in the offseason so that it happens right after or maybe even during the playoffs (MLB model?) as then players don’t have that period of time where they are without a team.
 

5 hours ago, rory said:

damn having a guy who doesn't know the rule regarding minors salary cap hit advising the BoG on salary cap is a great idea

huh?

[Beketov 9,022]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

The easiest potential solution I can think of would be to either move the E draft up in the offseason so that it happens right after or maybe even during the playoffs

You could argue it’s the lack of games more than the lack of team mind you and if so that wouldn’t change anything aside from rushing the GM’s into a decision and making the GM’s in the playoffs focus on scouting while they also are trying to win.

[Gustav 6,405]

8 hours ago, Alex said:

Meanwhile in the VHLE 44.6% of the league is IA including all of Istanbul.

 

lmao

 

I think it's possible to a) understand that the E does its thing to cut down on roster sizes and deal with the sudden growth we had (and continue to deal with) in the S70s, and b) not like what it is beyond that and generally believe that a two-league system would be preferable if numbers went back down to a point where that would be realistic. Those aren't mutually exclusive viewpoints, and it's what I've been saying forever.

[Devise 4,475]

Also important to remember that some users are actually interested in creating a career E lifer, so they can also look/seem more inactive and actually be where they want to be. 

[Garsh 1,189]

8 hours ago, jacobcarson877 said:

It seems as though right now, the stretch from 200 to 400TPE is destroying member activity at an astronomical rate. I think it will be very important to figure out why people are disappearing in this transition. Why isn't the VHLE driving activity? My VHLE experience was amazing, and that Istanbul team pushed some of the top S83 talent. VHLM teams are almost always mostly empty by the offseason (either waivers being drafted to the VHLM, or players graduating to the E), so where are those graduates going? I just went through and looked at VHLE rosters today, and so many of the most active VHLM players and even legendary returning members are now suddenly IA.

I think the E should be an essential part of the process (I think I've made my thoughts on the E in theory quite clear by now), but I can agree that something is inherently wrong, and I have no idea what it is.

 

People talk about the VHLE specifically being a problem but I haven't seen anyone do any analysis on if we have a higher percentage of players dropping off since the E compared to before the E.  People have always have to go from 200-400 TPE.  Have we always had a falloff at that point?  Would kind of make sense if we had, people try out this new thing might get to this point and decide they don't like it.  I don't know one way or another but would be interesting to see.

[jacobcarson877 2,527]

6 minutes ago, Garsh said:

People talk about the VHLE specifically being a problem but I haven't seen anyone do any analysis on if we have a higher percentage of players dropping off since the E compared to before the E.  People have always have to go from 200-400 TPE.  Have we always had a falloff at that point?  Would kind of make sense if we had, people try out this new thing might get to this point and decide they don't like it.  I don't know one way or another but would be interesting to see.

Absolutely! I would assume people would drop off earlier than that but you're right I really wasn't paying attention to it pre-VHLE. It could simply feel like people are dropping off faster now? Regardless it is always sad to see someone who was so passionate and contributing so much in the VHLM disappear on us, regardless of frequency.

[Enorama 2,038]

30 minutes ago, Garsh said:

Have we always had a falloff at that point?

 

We have. It's been fairly well known that the first post-VHL draft season is the first major speed bump after the first couple weeks.

[Beketov 9,022]

6 hours ago, Gustav said:

 

lmao

 

I think it's possible to a) understand that the E does its thing to cut down on roster sizes and deal with the sudden growth we had (and continue to deal with) in the S70s, and b) not like what it is beyond that and generally believe that a two-league system would be preferable if numbers went back down to a point where that would be realistic. Those aren't mutually exclusive viewpoints, and it's what I've been saying forever.

It’s true that something can be simultaneously the best solution right now and potentially not needed later.

 

While it would hardly be the CLEANEST thing I have always stood by the fact that removing the VHLE would actually be easier than removing teams. Removing teams, as we have done before, involves having to distribute their players around to the other teams and is inherently messy. However with all VHLE players being also drafted to VHLM and VHL teams it would just be a matter of setting the TPE limits and pushing people to where they belong.
 

But yes, right now I stand by the fact that the VHLE is still our best course of action.

[Victor 10,937]

7 hours ago, Garsh said:

 

People talk about the VHLE specifically being a problem but I haven't seen anyone do any analysis on if we have a higher percentage of players dropping off since the E compared to before the E.  People have always have to go from 200-400 TPE.  Have we always had a falloff at that point?  Would kind of make sense if we had, people try out this new thing might get to this point and decide they don't like it.  I don't know one way or another but would be interesting to see.

Yes, since the dawn of time. Always difficult to maintain motivation post draft as Eno said, especially if you're not hyper active and putting up very little points in the VHL. The idea for the E was to give those players a more enjoyable experience rather than being buried on a VHL depth chart (whilst also giving the VHL breathing room and letting the high end members reach their full potential). If that didn't work then that's a shame but just means that the reason for the falloff is less about in-sim production and more about 4-6 months being a long time to get any tangible benefit out of the league. In any case, the league ecosystem relies on some players stalling earlier, the model wouldn't work if every single draftee got to 1,000 TPE.

 

And whilst the reality of the E having more inactive players than the rest seems bad at face value, the whole point of it was to be the KHL-esque league where the less good players go to die (whilst still being a short stop in a successful career for those who go on further). We don't want those players in the VHLM and there are way too many of them for the VHL. So in my eyes the E is doing exactly what it was designed to do and those that don't think so either 1) didn't understand that was the intention or 2) believe in the sustainability of infinite VHL expansion so will never be convinced otherwise because it's the polar opposite of the view that the majority took and that's just life in a free speech society.