S90 Spirit of Competition Punishments

[McLovin 466]

15 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I trust you can see my perspective that even if Calgary won all three of the surplus bot games, it would not have mattered standing-wise and therefore the effective violation of the rule was miniscule

  

This is why I'm kinda pissed on Warsaw's behalf because according to team stats, the bot for the Preds won 5 games, which actually meant Warsaw was more competitive with the bot goalie if we're going off win/loss ratio. That plus the starting goalie for Warsaw has been inactive for over a year now, I don't really see how the Preds playing better on average with a bot goalie over a one year+ IA goalie who has similar stats anyways means they should be knocked down FIVE draft spots in the lottery, that's horrendously overkill. 

EDIT: Here's the stats of the two goalies from the regular season just for reference

Edited October 12, 2023 by McLovin
Goalie Stats

[Beketov 9,022]

6 minutes ago, McLovin said:

This is why I'm kinda pissed on Warsaw's behalf because according to team stats, the bot for the Preds won 5 games, which actually meant Warsaw was more competitive with the bot goalie if we're going off win/loss ratio. That plus the starting goalie for Warsaw has been inactive for over a year now, I don't really see how the Preds playing better on average with a bot goalie over a one year+ IA goalie who has similar stats anyways means they should be knocked down FIVE draft spots in the lottery, that's horrendously overkill. 

Having a weak starter doesn’t excuse doubling the bot games and breaking the clearly defined rules. It’s also just anecdotal that the bit was “better” because he won. Bots frequently get wins from playing against worst teams, it happens. The stats of the bot in question aren’t really a matter to be considered, it becomes too subjective. Additionally human goalies never count against this, Warsaw could have picked up a human goalie and played them as much as they wanted and it would have been fine. Some teams had over 8 backup starts, that’s fine, it’s extra bit games that are the issue.

 

As for the 5 draft spots, I blame math. The original idea was actually to drop Warsaw 2 spots and Calgary 1 while not touching the odds. I think we were working with old odds at the time so it would have maybe been different but based on that it would have given NY 7.5% better odds and Moscow 10% better odds while Malmo and Chicago got the shaft. It felt unfair to “benefit” 2 teams while the other 2 in the lottery just remained exactly the same. Doing it this way I’ll admit dropped them more than we maybe had in mind but it “benefits” everyone else evenly and fairly. Warsaw still have a shot at first overall, it’s just a worse shot than before.

 

I get that punishments are gonna suck but obviously if we make them so weak there’s no reason for a GM to bother. It’s like the Louth rule, if we just say “you like 250k cap” or whatever and the “reward” is getting into the playoffs with a few extra wins that’s what’s gonna happen.

[Beketov 9,022]

8 hours ago, Ricer13 said:

I want this decision appealed before any type of lottery happens.

 

7 hours ago, Ricer13 said:

For a first time offender, who made an honest mistake and it being only 3 games….a 3rd is more than enough value.

I also just want to make something perfectly clear. This isn’t a COC violation where appeals and “first time offender” are really a thing. League rule offences work differently. People don’t get to appeal Louth rule punishments for example.

 

Hell we’ve let it go so often in the past that I doubt any current GM is even a first time offender anymore, we just don’t have the records to back that up. It has happened every season, enough is enough and the rules have to matter.

[Alex 3,198]

@Beketov just for clarification as with reading some of the messages I think that this is the idea some people have, Warsaw and Calgary are not dropping spots in the draft by this, correct? For example Warsaw will still draft at the worst 2nd?

 

Also to my knowledge precedent has been too let it go if it’s 5 or fewer games. And even with that in S83 LAS started their backup 14 times and it did have a direct effect on standings, yet there was no punishment. My main thing here is consistency, I don’t see why Calgary should have any form of punishment as their case did not have any effect on anything and was very minor. Warsaws was a bit more egregious, but the precedent based on the most recent example is for nothing to happen. Some more transparency and details on the decision making process would be appreciated.

[FrostBeard 2,049]

After seeing some added messages - in my opinion, if no punishment was served before doesn't justify rule break right now. 

 

There should be punishment for everyone who plays bot goalie more than 8 games unless they have no other goalie than a bot goaltender.

 

I see it as "If we let 2 games slide, every tanking team will play their bot 10 games".

[Mysterious_Fish 379]

Honestly, Warsaw doesn't deserve 5 spots lost so an idea that I have is

Warsaw loses 7.5% that is split into all other teams that didn't break the rule evenly.

Calgary loses 5% that is split evenly into the other teams

 

 

Just an idea that would make it a bit more fair

[jacobcarson877 2,528]

Official Projected Draft Lottery Results

Warsaw
Calgary
Chicago
Moscow
Malmo
New York

You heard it here first folks!

[FrostBeard 2,049]

8 minutes ago, Mysterious_Fish said:

Warsaw loses 7.5% that is split into all other teams that didn't break the rule evenly.

Calgary loses 5% that is split evenly into the other teams

 

So for 8 games we do 7.5%, and for 3 games we do 5%?

 

If anything it should be then closer to 7.5% and 2.5% then, at least mathematically.

 

But then again, I think that punishment isn't the most influential thing for those teams anyway so we should just keep living and enjoy life. 

[Beketov 9,022]

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

@Beketov just for clarification as with reading some of the messages I think that this is the idea some people have, Warsaw and Calgary are not dropping spots in the draft by this, correct? For example Warsaw will still draft at the worst 2nd?

 

Also to my knowledge precedent has been too let it go if it’s 5 or fewer games. And even with that in S83 LAS started their backup 14 times and it did have a direct effect on standings, yet there was no punishment. My main thing here is consistency, I don’t see why Calgary should have any form of punishment as their case did not have any effect on anything and was very minor. Warsaws was a bit more egregious, but the precedent based on the most recent example is for nothing to happen. Some more transparency and details on the decision making process would be appreciated.

I believe that to be the intention, sorry I didn’t make that more clear earlier. It’s been a crazy evening and morning. Need to confirm that’s how the portal will treat it but yes, this is just first overall odds. Much like how the lotto tournament worked your placement in the lotto doesn’t change, just the odds of winning it. So Warsaw still can only drop to 2nd and Calgary to 4th.

Precedent needs to change because honestly it’s every single season at this point so clearly leniency isn’t working. Additionally in the case of LA that you mention there were outside circumstances with the GM that had to be considered. At the end of the day we don’t like handing out punishments nor do we like arguing about them but the fact is that the rules exist and people need to start actually following them. Is every future game over 8 going to result in a punishment? Probably not, but there has to be a limit to the leniency.

[Mysterious_Fish 379]

35 minutes ago, FrostBeard said:

So for 8 games we do 7.5%, and for 3 games we do 5%?

 

If anything it should be then closer to 7.5% and 2.5% then, at least mathematically.

 

But then again, I think that punishment isn't the most influential thing for those teams anyway so we should just keep living and enjoy life. 

Okay yeah, i think 5% for Calgary was too much but Warsaw shouldn't get the 6th odds since I believe that there is a rule stating that the team with the 6th odds are unable to get the 1st OA pick. Yall can verify this 

[Beketov 9,022]

Just now, Mysterious_Fish said:

Okay yeah, i think 5% for Calgary was too much but Warsaw shouldn't get the 6th odds since I believe that there is a rule stating that the team with the 6th odds are unable to get the 1st OA pick. Yall can verify this 

That is 110% not a rule. Everyone in the lottery has a chance at 1OA, that’s what the odds are, the chance of first overall pick. The only other rule associated with it is that you can’t drop more than 1 spot from your initial position.

 

As I said above, positioning is not changing, I should have made that more clear but there was a bit of confusion and I’m tired and overworked. The odds are changing but the amount they can drop remains the same.

[leandrofg 1,156]

VSN

THIS JUST IN

WARSAW TO DROP WUMBO AND PLAY B-WAR G1 FOR 72 GAMES IN SEASON 91

[Beketov 9,022]

Just now, leandrofg said:

VSN

THIS JUST IN

WARSAW TO DROP WUMBO AND PLAY B-WAR G1 FOR 72 GAMES IN SEASON 91

Might wanna read the rest of he spirit of competition rule that I didn’t quote  

[jacobcarson877 2,528]

11 minutes ago, Beketov said:

That is 110% not a rule. Everyone in the lottery has a chance at 1OA, that’s what the odds are, the chance of first overall pick. The only other rule associated with it is that you can’t drop more than 1 spot from your initial position.

 

As I said above, positioning is not changing, I should have made that more clear but there was a bit of confusion and I’m tired and overworked. The odds are changing but the amount they can drop remains the same.

Forgot this existed, punishment makes far more sense now.

[Daniel Janser 2,166]

8 minutes ago, leandrofg said:

VSN

THIS JUST IN

WARSAW TO DROP WUMBO AND PLAY B-WAR G1 FOR 72 GAMES IN SEASON 91

Wumbo is pending retirement anyway (S82 player)

 

EDIT:

Having said that, Warsaw's goalie prospects are not fit to play in the VHLE let alone VHL at this point in time.

In the draft pool for S91 only Uber-earner Syko may have a chance to be barely VHL eligible (let alone being competitive) 

As per the player search in the Portal no FA goalkeeper is to be had

From the teams who do have a human back up at the time of writing (DC, Davos, LA, Malmo, Seattle and Toronto), DC will retire Utonium as well and is an unlikely trade candidate to start with (and considering the dry market for servicable netminders at the moment if any of these are willing to trade their back ups they will only do it for a king's ransom imo, being aware of Warsaw's need of a goalkeeper and the implied sanctions if they do not acquire one in FA/Trade/draft)...

Edited October 12, 2023 by Daniel Janser

[Mysterious_Fish 379]

24 minutes ago, leandrofg said:

VSN

THIS JUST IN

WARSAW TO DROP WUMBO AND PLAY B-WAR G1 FOR 72 GAMES IN SEASON 91

We might not have a goalie next season

[Gustav 6,405]

I really don't understand how it's even possible to just forget to put your starter back in. That's why you don't have your backup in your Day 10 lines; even if you don't touch what you've got in there it will just flip back to the starter for future games. That's just common sense.

 

I'm not going to have opinions here about who I think was actually tanking, but it really is just as simple as...play your starter the right amount. IMO this is way harder to screw up than the Louth Rule and that's pretty easy to follow.

[thadthrasher 1,692]

12 hours ago, Beketov said:

1. New York - 25.0%

[Nykonax 1,564]

4 hours ago, Beketov said:

10 and 3 doesn’t math, gotta be numbers that can be spread out to 4 teams since it has to equal 100%,

no one tell Bek about decimals

[Beketov 9,022]

Just now, Nykonax said:

no one tell Bek about decimals

Sush you.

[N0HBDY 1,117]

1 hour ago, Gustav said:

I really don't understand how it's even possible to just forget to put your starter back in. That's why you don't have your backup in your Day 10 lines; even if you don't touch what you've got in there it will just flip back to the starter for future games. That's just common sense.

 

I'm not going to have opinions here about who I think was actually tanking, but it really is just as simple as...play your starter the right amount. IMO this is way harder to screw up than the Louth Rule and that's pretty easy to follow.

Believe what you want idk it’s the truth about what happened in my case. Bek shot me a message around tdl when I had my backup saying I was over which i immediately changed, thanks to the reminder. I haven’t disagreed with the punishment or anything, I think and hope others would agree it’s my job as a gm to take care of those games, I failed, and the circumstances of the team made it look worse and more ill-intentioned. Sure he might’ve performed better, sure the blues might be lazy , and the punishment might be a little steep. But in the end I’m getting what I deserve

 

Is this a ball don’t lie kind of situation?

[Lemorse7 1,014]

I cant be a vhl gm I would forget I got the bot goalie in net and play him for 50 games 

[Daniel Janser 2,166]

38 minutes ago, Lemorse7 said:

I cant be a vhl gm I would forget I got the bot goalie in net and play him for 50 games 

I would even struggle with the Cap juggling tbh

 

[Beketov 9,022]

46 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

I would even struggle with the Cap juggling tbh

 

One of the many reasons I have never wanted the job. I’d rather just punish rule breakers than be one.

[Victor 10,937]

Need more vaguely worded punishment announcements going forward, it gets the forum going.