Parity Sucks: An Argument

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

 

This is going to be a big wall of text. Here's a kitten as a palette cleanser.

 

The Case for Ignoring Parity in the VHL

 

Something’s been bugging me for a few days. I’ve seen a lot of arguments about the cap, but they largely revolve around one idea from VHL management side: We’re going to do everything in our power to protect parity. Every single argument revolves around the fact that there are teams who haven’t signed free agents, and as long as there are openings then parity hasn’t been achieved.

 

To which I posit: Parity sucks for a sports league, sim league or real life. Parity shouldn’t be the goal if you’re trying to maximize enjoyment, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as maximizing immediate competition.

 

Using an old trope, the dictionary defines parity as “the quality or state of being equal or equivalent,” with an example of “Women have fought for parity with men in the workplace.” In that context, of course, parity is a good thing - it helps the overall workplace if all employees are equal. But in the VHL context, does it actually help to have parity?

 

I think you’re seeing something close to it right now: 13 teams are within $3M of the cap by signing only minimum contracts. Look at Hedgehog’s season preview: There’s actually very little separating the top six or so teams in each conference. To have something to write about, he’s needing to get into the minutia of player builds, or whether there is slightly more TPE at one position group than another. It’s largely a coin flip. And frankly even if GMs and players do everything perfectly, the guiding light of parity means that it doesn’t really matter - everybody’s going to be equal anyway, because restrictive salary caps will force everybody to have full rosters anyway.

 

Rather than parity, I believe the goal should be modified: There should be a reasonable path to winning titles for every team and maximizing their chances of winning, if they take care of their business. Take a look at every salary cap-centric sports league. The NBA isn’t forcing mid-level exception guys onto the Pistons; they’re letting those teams play young players and tank if they choose, because that’s what’s in the best interest of the squad. The NHL has a $21 million disparity in team salaries, with a whole third of the league $8 million or more away from the cap. Even the NFL, which probably has the most restrictive cap of the three, has a thriving free agency market because teams have the flexibility and wherewithal to make moves.

 

Each of those leagues has a cycle by which teams operate: they start rebuilding, they begin to grow their young players and get better, they have a golden period, then as that golden age declines they can either try and extend it for as long as possible or blow it up and begin again. But that path exists, and teams are cognizant of where they are in that cycle. Some will be in the golden period, others will be rebuilding, not everybody is equal. But the latter knows they have a chance to get there, assuming they make correct decisions on their players. And in doing so, the players remain engaged, knowing they have something to fight for, either now or in the future.

 

I don’t think that path exists in the VHL. Hell, I could argue that each individual team has less of a chance to win a title, because once a team is on top, really only mismanagement kicks them down. The cycle for the VHL is this: The teams at the top just need to sell their old players for spare parts, let young players who have been germinating step in their place, and everybody’s equal anyway so they’ll always have a chance. Moscow has been a top team for literally 10+ seasons now, partially because of good management, but as much for me because for the past five seasons any potential contenders have needed to sell off their homegrown players before overtaking them because of a restrictive cap. In an actually competitive scenario, top teams would necessitate a period of rebuilding, giving others below them a chance.

 

@Beketov has written in the league’s cap relief statement: “Before the VHL GM’s get too excited: no we are not increasing the cap. League leadership has already discussed our reasons for this, top of which is that there’s little proof it would do anything but make the teams continue to stack their top end, as it usually does.” To which I would answer: “Who the fuck cares?” Because that inherently comes with trade-offs if teams choose to go the top end route.

 

Say Vancouver is a title contender and exchanges a S86 500 TPA forward for a S83 1000 TPA forward from Toronto, a rising team looking to rebuild, who then uses the extra cap to bring on a S84 600 TPA clicker. Does Vancouver instantly get a lot better than Toronto? Of course! But that will look a lot different in three seasons, when that S86 forward is now a top player, and Vancouver needs a rebuild after accelerating their timeline. And it’s a lot better than the current version of that scenario: Vancouver can’t afford a high-level player, keeping their S86 guy, and has less of a chance to win now (because everyone’s equal) but also will not age out so will never truly be knocked down. Toronto competes more this season, sure, but that’s not really what they’d prefer with rising top talent, and they won't have a higher chance when their new draft picks are in their own primes. And who really gets fucked is the extra player, who now doesn’t have a home because Toronto has no space by keeping their older player they don't need.

 

I liked @JCarson’s philosophy post, but I disagree that it’s a binary. More flexibility would not necessarily mean that players wouldn’t have homes. Every dollar you’re giving a older top player you’re not giving to a young player, who can find their way to a team on a different part of that cycle. And because the number of players in the VHL is finite, high-TPE players moving from middle of the pack teams to top teams will create more interesting and fun openings for the mid-TPE players replacing them, rather than forcing those players onto rebuilding teams and inevitably increasing the chance that they leave entirely before a rebuild is completed.

 

(Aside: Teams that want to compete will always spend on players rather than bonuses, that would make zero sense to do otherwise. It’s a bad argument to keep the cap as is.)

 

TL;DR: Parity is boring. Every team being equal is boring. The system as constructed is more random number generator, partially constrained by a random person’s software whims (STHS), than it is a reflection of the work of GMs and players. If some teams are better than others with a higher cap, that’s fine. With the rotating nature of players and career spans, that would likely change in a few seasons anyway. And If the admins and BOG don’t want to raise the cap, that’s their prerogative. (I haven’t been in a decision-making capacity for a while because I don’t want to.) But I do hope they would come to that decision not with every team being equal as a goal, but with the ultimate enjoyment of all players in mind.
 

Edited January 22, 2023 by CowboyinAmerica

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

For the next two weeks (ending 1/29 and 2/5), I guess. Originally was going to write this as a VHL.com, but kept going. And will claim the first tomorrow since I already did an article this week, but wanted to get it out since it was timely.

[Spartan 4,531]

14 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

@Beketov has written in the league’s cap relief statement: “Before the VHL GM’s get too excited: no we are not increasing the cap. League leadership has already discussed our reasons for this, top of which is that there’s little proof it would do anything but make the teams continue to stack their top end, as it usually does.” To which I would answer: “Who the fuck cares?”

Well we'd think the active free agents without a home would care, since any immediate rule change was geared towards them. But genuinely speaking, let's say we raise the cap by a nice happy 45 million from 42 million. Moscow would basically retain Harkat Mulds, an IA defenseman, instead of allowing him to go to IA FA. We'd also call up Ilya Bryzgalov (whose cap hit I definitely didn't miscalculate as 2.5 instead of 2 before trading him away) and he'd serve as our backup goalie. So we basically just get an extra 441 TPA defenseman to finish up our 6-4-2 vs our current 6-3-1, and the actives in FA looking for a home get nothing. Especially since almost all the actives in FA were forwards.

 

Also regarding parity, personally I don't care if there's more of a gap between competing teams and rebuilding teams. As you mentioned in your post, Moscow has been competitive for like 8 seasons in a row due to decent management. I'd say it's because of my focus on constant replenishment of our team and drafting replacements to aging players. Wallace for Seabasstard, AK92 for Markinson, Murdock for Papa, Sogaard for Idaho, etc. Even adding in Voss and Pearce via trade helped. Us moving folks like Idaho, Atreides, Moreau was because we overloaded our team the way you're asking for. We had what, 6-7 5.5 million players on the team?

 

If we do follow your suggestion and gave Moscow an extra 5-6 million in cap space, I'd happily go and keep adding 5.5 players in FA or via trade. I doubt we'd have an issue with running into cap hell since I'd just keep managing it as I have been with a 42 million cap. But because I know that it's very easy to overload teams and also maintain those teams, it makes no sense to change our cap situation to enable it. It feels like teams like Davos, New York, Helsinki and Los Angeles haven't even sniffed a significant playoff run since I've joined the league. I really don't think enabling those teams to ruin their futures by selling their assets for 1-2 seasons of mismanaged competitiveness is worth it. 

 

And as a final thought without oversharing too much of other people's work - I've seen some folks' analysis over the seasons of how teams should be rated/ranked using various STHS attributes and weighting of what people consider important. Even with a 40 and 42 million cap, there are very clear rebuilding teams, very clear competing teams, and very clear "stuck in the mid" teams. STHS can be a bitch sometimes and make some absurd results, but teams also remain active during the season. We saw around 9-10 mid-season trades last season to shake up the competitive field, and one of those active teams (Vancouver) went on to win the cup. I think parity exists in the league to the degree there aren't superteams that can dominate for seasons in a row, and that's about it. But maybe I'm biased from being one of the constantly competitive GM's, dunno.

 

Good article and I love discussion-provoking stuff like this. 10/10.

[Daniel Janser 2,216]

Well, I do not think it is fair to compare a real life league to a sim league and here is why:

 

The respective ACTIVE FA who do not get a spot will likely get the impression (and apparently two of them already raised this question) that they are not welcome and that the respective GM's rather cling to IA OG members then sack the IA players and give people who at least update on a regular basis a chance/place to play. And we have nothing to dispell this concerns.

 

I am sure I do not need to spell out what this means in regards to retention of new players, if they did what they could/are able to do to be considered an asset and feel dumped and nobody gives a shit.

 

If the BOG was to raise the cap by say 3 million as Spartan took as an example, what do you think is more likely to happen? That a GM says: 'I have a 6-4-1 squad already I will hire now with that extra cash a depth player and throw my lines tops turvy' or would it rather be something along the lines: 'OOOh nice more cash to deal with. I sack an active depth player and get a high TPE player I could previously not afford.'

 

Not that I blame a GM for either approach, I just do not see it helping the active homeless FAs.

[Nykonax 1,566]

just a quick response to this:

 

is less parity actually a good thing? I think people would be kinda upset if the same teams are winning every season. Like in SHL for a long time it was just Hamilton and Buffalo winning, along with Chicago a few times. I don't think the people not on those teams had fun, especially after like the 10th season in a row of it being the exact same. And you can argue that they deserve to win because of good management, which I think is fair, but it still ruins enjoyment for people.

 

could say the same thing about VHL, people were PISSED that Vancouver three-peated (obviously in large due to meta, but I think people would've been much less pissed if Vancouver only won 1/3 of the finals). I think the same would go for Moscow, they just keep losing so no one cares. If they won 5 straight people probably wouldn't like it.

 

is upping the cap and giving teams longer contention windows and more obvious contenders a good idea? I personally like the balance in the VHL and the idea that like a few teams in the playoffs can win it every year, rather than just the one or two obvious stronger teams.