Do 9 season VHL careers actually work?

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

 

Do 9 season VHL careers actually work? An analysis of S80-83 draftees

 

With the introduction of the VHLE before Season 80 came a different, possibly even more radical change for history and stat buffs like myself: nine season careers. Now, rather than going straight to the VHL after the draft and playing for eight seasons, the idea was that most players would go to the VHLE for one season then the VHL for their remaining eight, thus necessitating nine season careers post-draft.

 

But there was an interesting wrinkle within the announcement: Some players didn’t ever need to go to the VHLE at all. For those at 350 TPE and above, they had the option of going straight to the VHL and playing a longer career than any player in VHL history had ever had before. In doing so, however, they would be subject to a stricter regression scale that means four seasons of decline, with their peak occurring one season earlier than their counterparts who went to the VHLE for a season.

 

There were some thoughts that this may force the VHL to re-write some record books, or that nine season players would be easier shoo-ins to the Hall of Fame. And there’s some logic behind that argument: It’s only top earning players that would even have the option to skip the VHLE in the first place, so it stands to reason that they would also be the players dominating stats and awards.

 

Luckily though, we now have a pretty good data set of those nine-season players to analyze and try and answer the question: Is it worth it? Anecdotal data seems to be swinging towards no - just look at the lengths Logan Ninefingers and George Richmond took to stay in the VHLE this season. My very own decision on this could be coming in a few weeks, which is why I decided to take a look at the data.

 

By my count (unless I missed somebody, which is completely possible), there have been 12 players from the S80-83 draft classes who went straight to the VHL and have finished their careers. And the general thought is, maybe you’re not getting the full experience that you were promised. What I’m seeing is a lot of Very Good players, but maybe not the ability (or in some cases the drive) to become truly great.

 

(S80) C Matty Ice - Total TPE: 1285 @mattyIceman

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	648	302	420	722	83	3854	548	1259	346	39	51	7

 

Personal Awards: 1 (S80 RotY)

 

There were only two players to jump directly to the VHL in the first season the option was offered, and unfortunately the first one to be drafted isn’t the best test case. Although Fire would win Rookie of the Year in a truncated class (since much of his competition went to the VHLE), the user behind Fire would receive a temporary ban a bit into his career. As a result, Fire would hit 49 goals in two of his first three seasons, but never top 40 again for the rest of his career en route to a solid, but unspectacular nine season career.

 

 

(S80) LW Vinny Detroit - Total TPE: 1519 @dasboot

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	646	239	280	519	113	2850	1753	3163	362	39	42	2

 

Personal Awards: 0

 

The other S80 player to jump directly to the VHL that first season may not be the best test case either, seeing as how Detroit had one very specific goal: as many hits as possible. In that regard he absolutely accomplished his goal - Detroit’s 3136 hits is far and away the VHL record, more than 200 more than the eight seasons of Druss Deathwalker. From that angle, Detroit can be seen as a nine-season career success, with the extra season (Detroit had 339 hits in S80) allowing him a record he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to hit.

 

 

(S81) LW Nico Pearce - Total TPE: 2206 @Spartan

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	650	362	412	774	177	4216	769	1785	335	52	82	2

 

Personal Awards: 2 (S84 MVP, S84 Most Goals)

 

Now we’re getting to some interesting ones. Pearce is the current all-time TPE record holder and exactly the type of player that VHL leadership was thinking of when instituting the nine season idea. He sailed past the VHLE cut-off, was a 59 point contributor to a powerful Moscow team in his very first season, and was even able to hold on to the tougher regression scale to hit 44 goals and 88 points in his final season. But if you think of a career as a bell curve, Pearce’s peak was never quite there. Outside of the S84 season with 59 goals and 120 points, Pearce never topped 100 points and only topped 45 goals one other season (S85). The overall counting stats look good - Pearce’s 362 goals ranked 29th all-time - but the end result is a career in the Hall of Very Good.

 

 

(S81) D Harkat Mulds - Total TPE: 513 @hylands

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	504	137	238	375	18	1606	243	553	679	16	42	5

 

Personal Awards: 0

 

The other S81 draftee to go right to the VHL is also our first one to not actually finish out the nine season career. Mulds would stall out their TPE earning fairly soon after reaching the league, hopping around to four different teams (including Moscow and Prague twice) before retiring after their seventh season. The one thing that is interesting from Mulds is that their highest point total (73) actually occurred in that very first season that other contemporaries spent in the VHLE, on a Toronto team that made the playoffs no less.

 

 

(S82) LW Vasile Lamb - Total TPE: 1433 @dlamb

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	649	342	379	721	134	3928	1469	2877	366	68	76	5

 

Personal Awards: 0

 

Lamb’s career reads as very similar to Pearce’s to me, just with some additional player movement and without that one standout season. The cumulative numbers look nice - 342 goals is 42nd all-time, 68 game winning goals is tied for 17th all-time, and 2877 hits is third all-time. Those totals are something you look for in a nine-season career. But I think the trade-off of never truly being top-tier in TPA did hurt Lamb, both in terms of individual season highs (he topped 40 goals three times) as well as team placement (he’d play for six teams in those nine seasons). Another very good player, but the nine season career is not leading to the Hall of Fame.

 

 

(S82) G Cole Pearce - Total TPE: 1654 @N0HBDY

 

Season	GP	W	L	OTL	SV%	GAA	SO	GA	SA	MP
Totals	504	278	182	42	0.922	2.65	33	1333	17110	30162

 

Personal Awards: 1 (S86 Lowest GAA)

 

We have our first goalie! When I was active with Booberry, I watched Pearce’s career with great interest because he took the path I didn’t take. I thought that the additional season of regression would hurt too much, and especially with all of the competition at the goalie position, it would put me behind the eight ball too much. The final answer to that then is a resounding - maybe? Pearce did indeed only win one individual award, as he was competing with a rash of goalies in the next couple of draft classes who were able to keep pace with him in TPA. However, he also had arguably his best season in his eighth season (49 wins, .929 save percentage) before retiring one season early. Another one for the Hall of Very Good here.

 

 

(S82) D/RW Tavish DeGroot - Total TPE: 1447 @rory

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	577	197	318	515	115	2305	943	1417	981	30	63	5

 

Personal Awards: 0

 

There’s a trend I’m noticing as I’m going through too. Many members are starting to top 1700, 1800 TPE and work their way towards the upper reaches of the TPE leaderboard. But by and large, those aren’t the players skipping the VHLE, which you might expect. That’s why I’m putting final TPE totals by player names, because you’re seeing a lot of very strong totals in the 1300-1700 range, but not necessarily totals that can withstand a fourth season of regression which leads to eight season careers regardless. Anyway, as somebody who has had two players start on defense and switch to winger at the end of their career, it makes interpreting career stats a bit of a mess. DeGroot’s career was solid enough (especially with that S84 Continental Cup), but they wouldn’t top 70 points in a season until the final season playing on the wing in Seattle.

 

 

(S82) D Max Torq - Total TPE: 1728 @Steve

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	576	166	403	569	97	2169	780	1197	1200	33	81	3

 

Personal Awards: 0

 

Comparing apples to apples of defensemen who went nine seasons, Torq had some slightly higher highs than did DeGroot - a point total that stayed consistently between 61-86 between his second and eighth seasons, a 1200 shots blocked total that ranks 37th all-time. And similar to DeGroot he’s got a Continental Cup, with Torq’s coming in Season 83 with Seattle. But in his eight season career (he retired a season early similar to Pearce), there weren’t too many very high peaks. A very valuable player to every team that he was on and occasionally in the awards conversation, but ultimately did not bring home any hardware himself.

 

 

(S83) C Scotty Sundin - Total TPE: 1263 @fromtheinside

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	648	334	410	744	41	4015	409	814	322	55	69	10

 

Personal Awards: 2 (S91 MVP, S91 Most Points)

 

Sundin is an interesting one to me because of the dualities. 1263 is one of the lower total TPEs on the list, and he only topped 40 goals three times in his career. And yet - he’s literally the reigning MVP after career highs with 49 goals and 112 points last season, his 334 career goals are top 50 all-time, and he is the first and only person on this list to play the full nine season career with the team that drafted him (Chicago). I think they’re happy with their investment with the first overall pick, even if they didn’t get a cup out of it. Sundin a point in favor of the argument that it’s not necessarily the length of the career, but how you build for it.

 

 

(S83) G Brandt Fuhr - Total TPE: 1418 @Tate

 

Season	GP	W	L	OTL	SV%	GAA	SO	GA	SA	MP
Totals	581	290	243	43	0.924	2.77	32	1592	21000	34533

 

Personal Awards: 3 (S86 Playoff MVP, S87 Top Goalie, S87 Lowest GAA)

 

Another goalie, and this time the first one to go the full nine! And you could very well argue that he has the best career of the dozen players listed here. A stalwart in net for 8.5 seasons in Vancouver, the Wolves would go to the playoffs six times during that stretch, go multiple rounds in four, and win it all in one. By virtue of going 60ish games longer than any other goalie before him, Fuhr also ranks 19th all-time in wins and 47th all-time in shutouts, and still manages to hold on to a tie with the 18th-best save percentage of all-time. As I’m writing I kind of feel like I’m making an HOF case here, and I think it’s right on that line. Maybe you’d like to see a few more individual awards, but those are tougher to come by in a competitive era. The best case scenario for a nine-season career here.

 

 

(S83) C Igor Molotov - Total TPE: 1483 @Dom

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	576	250	341	591	-10	2925	761	1601	266	39	60	2

 

Personal Awards: 0

 

Molotov reads to me as a player who had a ton of potential, especially following a number of awards at the VHLM level, but that the nine season career may have held back. Molotov’s TPA peak ended up being the same as their player peak, with 41 goals and 88 points in their fifth season of S87. But regression came swift, where despite his only Cup coming in S88 with London, Molotov would not top 34 goals while in regression. Molotov’s another who clocked out after eight seasons rather than face the tough fourth season of regression, limiting their career numbers somewhat.

 

 

(S83) D AirRig GoodBrandSun - Total TPE: 1558 @Rhynex Entertainment

 

Season	GP	G	A	P	+/-	SHT	PIM	HIT	SB	GW	PPG	SHG
Totals	648	121	430	551	214	1847	792	1127	1293	23	53	1

 

Personal Awards: 1 (S83 Top Defensive Defenseman)

 

We end with GoodBrandSun, whose career is interesting in that they’re the only player to win an individual award in the season they were originally supposed to skip - an award that ended up being the only one of their career, as it turns out. GoodBrandSun developed from a more defensive-oriented player at the beginning of their career (198 shots blocked in S83 was by far their highest) to a more offensive-oriented player (93 points in S86) near the peak of their career. I believe GoodBrandSun is also the first one to reach the playoffs nine times in a career, eight with Calgary and one with Seattle, with a Calgary Cup coming in S87. Overall a career I’d call a nine-season success story, even if it didn’t come with necessarily the individual accolades.

 

 

Verdict for Me: After doing the exercise, I’m leaning towards not trying to go nine seasons in the VHL with Antonia Bucatini. While there are some mitigating factors at play with many of the players who tried it in this sample, there are a lot of flame outs on this board - and depending on Fuhr and Sundin potentially not a Hall of Famer in the bunch. Even those with high TPE totals like Nico Pearce (or later Henry Eagles and The Frenchman) may not be seeing the individual success they hoped for themselves on draft day. But there’s always that temptation to try something that not many others have, so it may end up being a conversation between myself and my future VHL team following the draft.

 

[CowboyinAmerica 2,889]

2000+ words, claiming for the weeks ending:

 

1/21

1/28

2/4

2/11

[Spartan 4,402]

This is probably something @Gustav  and others will pick up and run with regarding making a 9th season less punishing than it is now. And I can kind of see why from your analysis. However, that's also a bit biased since I didn't win many awards. I think if I had stayed on HSK after the MVP campaign, I'd have had a better career. But you and I know exactly how that all went.

[Gustav 6,407]

49 minutes ago, Spartan said:

This is probably something @Gustav  and others will pick up and run with regarding making a 9th season less punishing than it is now. And I can kind of see why from your analysis. However, that's also a bit biased since I didn't win many awards. I think if I had stayed on HSK after the MVP campaign, I'd have had a better career. But you and I know exactly how that all went.

 

Yeah, I mean, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of setting up depreciation in a way that makes the VHL more accessible to those who naturally take longer to reach it. I just also hate the idea that intentionally staying down when you have every opportunity to go up will benefit you in the long run. It's one of my strongest-expressed opinions surrounding everything VHLE and even just player development in general.

 

Ask yourself, what's wrong with a system that makes depreciation the same for both 8-season and 9-season players? Why should a max earner with every bit of ability to play up choose against it to game the system? I really don't understand why many people see absolutely nothing wrong with that or even why I've seen people saying that it doesn't make a difference when the depreciation/TPE numbers are right in front of them--shouldn't it now mean something that we've got numbers that discourage going up? There's really not much you could tell me that would change my mind on that, and please don't try to tell me it's a fair debate. Intentionally keeping yourself down will lead to higher peaks and developing as should be intended will just hit you harder.

[mattyIceman 1,213]

2 hours ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

the user behind Fire would receive a temporary ban a bit into his career. As a result, Fire would hit 49 goals in two of his first three seasons, but never top 40 again for the rest of his career en route to a solid, but unspectacular nine season career.

 

This is very true.  I had a lot on my plate at the time... I was an AGM for five seasons (waiting in the line to finally GM) and was the VSN head scout for many seasons as well.  I was feeling the burnout coming... the ban was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I lost alot of earning potential and returned on an island feeling very unmotivated, so alot of points were left on the table.

 

I might add that the first three seasons of Fire's career were the pre-hybrid attribute system and Fire benefitted from a shallow Toronto lineup so Fire was able to pad stats.  The remaining six were, quite long, but Fire moved around from team to team and nearly got a Cup with Prague.

[Spartan 4,402]

2 hours ago, Gustav said:

 

Yeah, I mean, I'm not at all opposed to the idea of setting up depreciation in a way that makes the VHL more accessible to those who naturally take longer to reach it. I just also hate the idea that intentionally staying down when you have every opportunity to go up will benefit you in the long run. It's one of my strongest-expressed opinions surrounding everything VHLE and even just player development in general.

 

Ask yourself, what's wrong with a system that makes depreciation the same for both 8-season and 9-season players? Why should a max earner with every bit of ability to play up choose against it to game the system? I really don't understand why many people see absolutely nothing wrong with that or even why I've seen people saying that it doesn't make a difference when the depreciation/TPE numbers are right in front of them--shouldn't it now mean something that we've got numbers that discourage going up? There's really not much you could tell me that would change my mind on that, and please don't try to tell me it's a fair debate. Intentionally keeping yourself down will lead to higher peaks and developing as should be intended will just hit you harder.

I always just considered it as the tradeoff for getting a full extra season to try and win a cup. You won't have a stellar rookie season often, although I'd say mine was fine for the era, so you're almost always sacrificing RotY. Goalies being so strong kind of makes them the default RotY winner though, that wasn't accounted for back then. I saw the E as a standard path vs the skipping/9 season option being an extraordinary situation. I just never saw the increase to 9 seasons to mean that everyone *had* to play 9 seasons if they were in the general TPE range. It just meant that people could choose to either follow a standard path and thats fine, or to play 9 seasons knowing its more of a challenge but with the ability to get some extra stats or go for a championship one extra time.

 

Do I regret 9 seasons? No, not at all. I think I prepared well for the depreciation impact from the start and even had more TPE left over after the final "brutal" depreciation hit. I'd change other decisions I made in my player career about where I played and when, but not that I played 9 seasons. I wanted to cup chase and 9 seasons let me do that. With my goalie, it made more sense to develop for an extra season (as I believe all goalies should) and there was no point in rushing myself up to Moscow for a season that ultimately didn't matter outside of where we picked in the draft.

 

However, that so many 9 season players didn't perform *as* well as you'd expect from mostly high earners may be the larger cause for concern, specifically with the difference in peak TPA that each can build. But then again, I think people have generally different perspectives and goals for their players that would lead them to choose one path over another. And to me, both are ok.

[Gustav 6,407]

11 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I always just considered it as the tradeoff for getting a full extra season to try and win a cup. You won't have a stellar rookie season often, although I'd say mine was fine for the era, so you're almost always sacrificing RotY. Goalies being so strong kind of makes them the default RotY winner though, that wasn't accounted for back then. I saw the E as a standard path vs the skipping/9 season option being an extraordinary situation. I just never saw the increase to 9 seasons to mean that everyone *had* to play 9 seasons if they were in the general TPE range. It just meant that people could choose to either follow a standard path and thats fine, or to play 9 seasons knowing its more of a challenge but with the ability to get some extra stats or go for a championship one extra time.

 

Do I regret 9 seasons? No, not at all. I think I prepared well for the depreciation impact from the start and even had more TPE left over after the final "brutal" depreciation hit. I'd change other decisions I made in my player career about where I played and when, but not that I played 9 seasons. I wanted to cup chase and 9 seasons let me do that. With my goalie, it made more sense to develop for an extra season (as I believe all goalies should) and there was no point in rushing myself up to Moscow for a season that ultimately didn't matter outside of where we picked in the draft.

 

I don't regret 9 seasons either, even if I didn't handle depreciation perfectly. But even so, the question of depreciation means that I had two choices in my first season. I could have gone up and progressed my way into the VHL and had my "shot at a cup," or I could have stayed down, avoided a season where I went 19-37-7 on a team that had zero shot at winning a championship, and also avoided losing over 300 TPE (!) this season altogether while keeping my TPA up straight through my capped years. This would have been great for me and LA during that time.

 

I think the cup-chasing argument sort of loses itself when you consider that a) many top players are drafted early to not-top teams and don't even have that opportunity to cup chase in their first seasons, and b) there should be more than that reason to go up when your team isn't great. I've heard a stat-padding argument as well, but what do you even stand to gain if your first season--as it likely will--doesn't go so well? Your career totals could end up higher, but they could also end up averaging out to making you look worse. That plus we've got some stuff that suggests that you're throwing away some stats, and I'd reject the argument entirely. "You get an extra season of stats" means a lot more to the people who make that argument if it's made under the assumption that everything outside of that season will be the same. What reason exists for going up if you know you're not winning that Cup and you have good reason to believe that your performance will be worse? I think the shot at a Cup is really the only benefit I can think of that isn't attached to some "yeah but" and that isn't even something that's accessible to a lot of players based on where they're drafted.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Spartan said:

However, that so many 9 season players didn't perform *as* well as you'd expect from mostly high earners may be the larger cause for concern, specifically with the difference in peak TPA that each can build.

 

I think this is something that can separate fact from opinion a bit. A lot of what I talk about is opinion and is just based on "this isn't the way the league should work"--and I think it's fair to say that things I've said before about how dropping your max TPA to play up will likely hurt you was based on my own opinion (or, rather, my own educated guess). I think this article largely backs up that statement. Saying "I believe that high earners are negatively impacted by playing up, this is a reason why I believe they are being rewarded for staying down, and I believe this is bad for the league" is one thing, but I also believe that getting to the point where we have factual evidence that can take away all of those "I believe"s makes that thing more of a thing. 

 

Unless your sole objective is cup chasing, which I'm not sure even describes many players, your player will be penalized if you don't game the system, so why would you not game the system? It still makes absolutely no sense to me why more people don't see it that way.

 

And even if you don't, what is the downside of having a depreciation system that works exactly the same way for 8- and 9-season players? I think if we find one that works well, we could remove this whole stupid debate. And at that point, we would probably see more people playing up--because staying down isn't the natural choice and we all know damn well why lots of people do it.

[Spartan 4,402]

7 minutes ago, Gustav said:

I think the cup-chasing argument sort of loses itself when you consider that a) many top players are drafted early to not-top teams and don't even have that opportunity to cup chase in their first seasons, and b) there should be more than that reason to go up when your team isn't great. I've heard a stat-padding argument as well, but what do you even stand to gain if your first season--as it likely will--doesn't go so well? Your career totals could end up higher, but they could also end up averaging out to making you look worse. That plus we've got some stuff that suggests that you're throwing away some stats, and I'd reject the argument entirely. "You get an extra season of stats" means a lot more to the people who make that argument if it's made under the assumption that everything outside of that season will be the same. What reason exists for going up if you know you're not winning that Cup and you have good reason to believe that your performance will be worse? I think the shot at a Cup is really the only benefit I can think of that isn't attached to some "yeah but" and that isn't even something that's accessible to a lot of players based on where they're drafted.

I mean, I'd say I'm the literal example of how it'd work no? We have a lot of people who have various conditions on where they play, who they play for, who they want to play with. Mine was to always try and be on a cup contending team and I think I generally accomplished that goal, outside the first HSK season. In sim leagues people have always controlled their narrative to some degree, folks like @Baozi and @Ahma openly state their goals for every player. Either to play for cup contenders only or Davos only. Just a couple examples of situations where these top players can control their destiny. But most prefer to be loyal and stick around (which I love from a GM perspective).

 

25 minutes ago, Gustav said:

your player will be penalized if you don't game the system, so why would you not game the system? It still makes absolutely no sense to me why more people don't see it that way.

You mean, you will have a tougher career for picking the openly-stated tougher route, instead of the standard 8 season route that the league always expected most players to follow. I remember this being the exact discussion point when the E was introduced. Almost everyone will go through the 8 season career. A few who want to challenge themselves with a longer career will go that way. I still don't see any issue with people following career paths as was intended from the start. I get it if folks just don't like the E though. I'm getting to that point as well myself. But complaining about the E existing is a totally different argument than bashing on 9 season careers because they're as difficult/high risk as they were always made out to be. Staying down in the E to me just was never abusing a system if that's how it always worked.

[Gustav 6,407]

1 minute ago, Spartan said:

Staying down in the E to me just was never abusing a system if that's how it always worked.

 

I don't really care to write out another media spot here but this is sort of the main point of contention for me. It's not "how it always worked" for good earners because staying down was not how it always worked (at least, in the frame of reference I'm using where we spent a few years after the weekly cap became 12 and going up was generally normal if you knew what you were doing and earned well). There is no "always" under the current system because we have players going up and we have players staying down--those going up aren't some rare case and those staying down are, in my opinion, abusing the system because the way it was created lent itself to abuse.

 

And that's what I have a problem with. The system itself was flawed from the start when we decided to set it up the way we did--that to me is the "always" rather than "the intent is for people in general to play a season down" (which is already achieved, in general, with a high cap). Nothing about this has to do with hating the E (although I do); it's just very much tied to the same circumstances. I'd say the same if it pertained to the M.

[Spartan 4,402]

5 minutes ago, Gustav said:

 

I don't really care to write out another media spot here but this is sort of the main point of contention for me. It's not "how it always worked" for good earners because staying down was not how it always worked (at least, in the frame of reference I'm using where we spent a few years after the weekly cap became 12 and going up was generally normal if you knew what you were doing and earned well). There is no "always" under the current system because we have players going up and we have players staying down--those going up aren't some rare case and those staying down are, in my opinion, abusing the system because the way it was created lent itself to abuse.

 

And that's what I have a problem with. The system itself was flawed from the start when we decided to set it up the way we did--that to me is the "always" rather than "the intent is for people in general to play a season down" (which is already achieved, in general, with a high cap). Nothing about this has to do with hating the E (although I do); it's just very much tied to the same circumstances. I'd say the same if it pertained to the M.

Yeah I don't mind saying that the system has enabled this decision making process. I was referring to "how it always worked" from a post-E perspective. I do feel that entering the E at or under 400 TPE is a much more difficult task than from when I remember coming up to the VHL around 300 TPE in the pre-hybrid era. You could have a much more fleshed out build back then compared to where someone at 350-400 TPE enters the VHL at now. So that's also part of my wiggle room here about the situation, that people are fine to stay down and experience the "normal as intended" 8 season career with a not totally useless rookie season.

[Daniel Janser 2,169]

Let's be honest here. Unless you are a netminder, if you enter the VHL at around 400 tpe you will have no shot at the Roty nor will your stats be fantastic due to the hybrid attributes. The main reason I chose to stay down was exactly that: I didn't want to be a glorified bot (especially since I have a weird build to start with). Regression was a minor part of it. Main was contribution to the team and giving some love the widely despised E.

Edited January 16 by Daniel Janser

[Victor 10,940]

Interesting read and the same conclusion I have reached through compiling career stats. Interestingly, some of these guys debuted pre attribute change so presumably rookie seasons are now even worse for the more recent 9 season players which is even more of a turn off.

 

For some info not in the public domain, Pearce is actually the only one currently on the HOF ballot (whether he makes it or not remains to be seen). This will be the first season Fuhr and Sundin are eligible but I wasn't planning to add them (and Fuhr I thought was a slam dunk around S88 or so before he slowed down) so interesting that they're the ones you have coming out as the best of the group.

[Rhynex Entertainment 481]

Great read! I had a blast making AirRig GoodBrandSun, whom had an incredible career thanks to a very good supportive relationship with @Ricer13 

I was surprised and disappointed that AirRig only ended up with 1 individual award, which like you mentioned happened in the 1st season, which is a completely ridiculous thing to happen given the difficulty of it for a rookie dman to be the top defensive defenseman. Winning the cup and 2 Golds for Canada were also incredible achievements to look back on (ironically I won the cup on the season where I was most inactive ), and then of course being the first player to make the playoffs for 9 seasons is an incredible honour (forever immortalized, you're welcome trivia lovers). The extra season (and mega harsh final season) of depreciation was a tough pill to swallow though. Overall, I don't know how AirRig's career compares with others, but I do not recommend jumping the gun into VHL if you do not want a mighty challenge, because the rules are very against players looking to jump straight into the VHL. First season is extremely tough to win ROY as your 1 season of TPE behind all other ROY candidates, and your season 2 becomes even harder when other top earners in your draft, whom went to the E, joins the VHL, because those who had joined the E had an unfair extra boost of TPE available to be earned throughout the season, leading them to have a chance to have higher TPE than those who started straight into the VHL (weekly Practice is 2 TPE vs 1 TPE in the VHL). And of course, as forementioned, your final (9th) season in the VHL, you get an extra harsh depreciation (which I call depression for a reason) without a good depreciation fighter, making it extra tough compared to your fellow draftees whom started in season 2, where they only have the 8th season depreciation to deal with (and have a good depreciation fighter to buy). Overall, I feel the main reason most players (skaters) whom had all 9 seasons don't have such a good individual awards is due to the constant need to fight against other players whom have (potentially) higher TPE than them. 

[Victor 10,940]

2 hours ago, Rhynex Entertainment said:

which is a completely ridiculous thing to happen given the difficulty of it for a rookie dman to be the top defensive defenseman.

Still think you should have got the Stolzy as well just for that achievement (I think I voted for you)

[Daniel Janser 2,169]

1 hour ago, Victor said:

Still think you should have got the Stolzy as well just for that achievement (I think I voted for you)

yeah it is weird to be considered the best defensive defender in the league and lose the 'Stolzy' against another defender (and a netminder from your own team)

[Spartan 4,402]

4 hours ago, Rhynex Entertainment said:

Great read! I had a blast making AirRig GoodBrandSun, whom had an incredible career thanks to a very good supportive relationship with @Ricer13 

I was surprised and disappointed that AirRig only ended up with 1 individual award, which like you mentioned happened in the 1st season, which is a completely ridiculous thing to happen given the difficulty of it for a rookie dman to be the top defensive defenseman. Winning the cup and 2 Golds for Canada were also incredible achievements to look back on (ironically I won the cup on the season where I was most inactive ), and then of course being the first player to make the playoffs for 9 seasons is an incredible honour (forever immortalized, you're welcome trivia lovers). The extra season (and mega harsh final season) of depreciation was a tough pill to swallow though. Overall, I don't know how AirRig's career compares with others, but I do not recommend jumping the gun into VHL if you do not want a mighty challenge, because the rules are very against players looking to jump straight into the VHL. First season is extremely tough to win ROY as your 1 season of TPE behind all other ROY candidates, and your season 2 becomes even harder when other top earners in your draft, whom went to the E, joins the VHL, because those who had joined the E had an unfair extra boost of TPE available to be earned throughout the season, leading them to have a chance to have higher TPE than those who started straight into the VHL (weekly Practice is 2 TPE vs 1 TPE in the VHL). And of course, as forementioned, your final (9th) season in the VHL, you get an extra harsh depreciation (which I call depression for a reason) without a good depreciation fighter, making it extra tough compared to your fellow draftees whom started in season 2, where they only have the 8th season depreciation to deal with (and have a good depreciation fighter to buy). Overall, I feel the main reason most players (skaters) whom had all 9 seasons don't have such a good individual awards is due to the constant need to fight against other players whom have (potentially) higher TPE than them. 

I 100% agree with your last line here. If you play 9 seasons, your peak TPA will be lower than someone playing 8. However, I would imagine that if you're someone who earns well enough to skip the E, you'd still be able to have a build around 1.1k TPA which is still quite excellent in the hybrid era given your team situation is conducive to allowing you on ice success.

 

What I disagree with though, is that disappointment/criticism about the 9th season. You mentioned having spurts of inactivity which definitely wouldn't have helped with managing depreciation, and I also vaguely recall you having an extremely high TPA (maybe over 1.2k if I'm not mistaken?) at some point before or during regression. Without a proper pool of banked TPE, you simply can't peak that high when you choose to go 9 seasons. 

 

Realistically is that why people are upset about 9 seasons? Probably a valid part of it. I don't think people are as nerdy as I am to try and calculate their long term earnings with the guarantee of remaining active at a consistent earning rate in order to plan their 9th season TPA with completely new regression midway through a career. Maybe the league just shouldn't offer a path like this if people don't fully realize the difficulty. Or maybe that difficulty just isn't needed.

 

On a final note though, I will slightly flex that I over prepared for the final season depreciation not expecting to be able to use a Jagr and peaked with the most TPA in my final season, up to 1,359 TPA. I ran a lower TPA peak around 1,150 or something expecting to not be able to use that Jagr and needing some 300+ TPA banked my final season which is a ridiculous number. Maybe if we wanted to add a % fighter for the last season only, instead of offering a Jagr, I'd agree at this point. I don't know how the pricing would work though, but I'd imagine it'd likely have to force 9 season players to stop buying random store packages before their depreciation seasons.

[mattyIceman 1,213]

54 minutes ago, Spartan said:

What I disagree with though, is that disappointment/criticism about the 9th season. You mentioned having spurts of inactivity which definitely wouldn't have helped with managing depreciation, and I also vaguely recall you having an extremely high TPA (maybe over 1.2k if I'm not mistaken?) at some point before or during regression. Without a proper pool of banked TPE, you simply can't peak that high when you choose to go 9 seasons

 

Maybe there could be some constructive criticism if the hybrid attribute system came out AFTER the 9 season system, there could be comparisons.  Maybe some members were licking their chomps to set some records whilst max earning and banking at a higher TPA level.

 

There can be no comparison as to how it was perceived for seasons 80, 81 and 82, where we were on the old system.  This is where Fire got his points.  Could have gotten 1k points possibly if there was no hybrid system but that's just speculation.  Goalies are much stronger now too with no hybrid system for them

[Spartan 4,402]

2 minutes ago, mattyIceman said:

 

Maybe there could be some constructive criticism if the hybrid attribute system came out AFTER the 9 season system, there could be comparisons.  Maybe some members were licking their chomps to set some records whilst max earning and banking at a higher TPA level.

 

There can be no comparison as to how it was perceived for seasons 80, 81 and 82, where we were on the old system.  This is where Fire got his points.  Could have gotten 1k points possibly if there was no hybrid system but that's just speculation.  Goalies are much stronger now too with no hybrid system for them

S80 was the first class of 9 season players, S82 or S83 was the first hybrid season yeah? At the least, only S80 and S81 folks might have been blindsided a bit but I think we were generally proactive about getting notice out to the league fairly quickly.

 

Goalies are too strong yes, but funnily enough, scoring is still fairly ok in terms of overall numbers. Just a lot of boosted goalie stats which haven't really been corrected. A topic of discussion in the BoG already.

[v.2 1,406]

Atlas took a beating already and it’s just year 6

[Spartan 4,402]

2 hours ago, v.2 said:

Atlas took a beating already and it’s just year 6

I don't see the exact numbers since I'm too lazy to add up your old updates and applied TPA, but were you around 1,300 TPA? As I've said in this thread, you are basically asking for super rough regression if you go that high. Realistically you're hitting your peak by year 5 and then maintaining your build over the depreciation seasons. Anything over 1.1k TPA will definitely feel a bit difficult because you're spending so much, and also depending on how TPE efficient your builds are for regression.

 

You're at 1.1k TPA right now and you're pretty much already the best of the best with 89 SC and 93 DF, all excellent metrics. SK/PH also in a good spot and you're not playing C, therefore avoiding the FO investment as well. SK/PH at 89 and 92 each too. You are going to get super marginal gains from where you're at now if you keep spending.  Maybe you can bump a couple attributes up by a point with another 100 TPE, but I just don't think it's worth it.

 

You'd actually be a bit more TPE efficient if you had kept PC at 90 and brought up DC to 90 instead, then use FO for increasing strength. It's small things like that that add up. Makes your OV the 100% Jagr whenever you use it since nothing else is spending over 90.

[tcookie 897]

I think 9 season careers aren't necessarily supposed to work super smoothly, right? Like, of course it should be completely possible to make a Hall of Famer that plays a 9-year career, absolutely, but it is supposed to be very hard. The VHL has been based around 8 season careers for its entire existence. I kind of disappeared right around when the 9th season started to become an option, but if I recall correctly, the whole thing was you can try the 9th season, but it's going to be very difficult. It was never hidden, and it isn't intended to be the main route you take just because it's available and you earn a lot.

 

Besides, there are a LOT of guys on this list that are in a 1200-1500 TPE kind of range. Not that it's a small amount of TPE, but then again - you have Nico Pearce showing you can maintain a build (and Spartan mentions he even over-prepared for depreciation, so you don't need 2200 TPE for it) throughout a 9-season career. If you can maintain the build, then obviously you can have a Hall of Famer. But yeah, you aren't gonna maintain it with 1500 TPE. And I think that's entirely by design and also a good thing. I might be a little biased because I just really like the whole 8-year career for everyone thing. But I think 9 being an option that is sort of disincentivized, not even close to the default, but an option for those who want to try it... is exactly the right place for it.

 

I will admit, encouraging top earners to sandbag to avoid going over the TPE limit for the E isn't a good outcome. But then maybe the E TPE limit should be increased so that you don't have to sandbag (I'm not familiar with how far over you can get, haven't done that math) and the option is always there for you.

[Triller 1,662]

I think my next player will go for 9 seasons but only max earn to get to the VHL and then in the 9th season just take the hit like an old player who should have retired but is still holding on.  No fighting it.

[mattyIceman 1,213]

1 hour ago, Triller said:

I think my next player will go for 9 seasons but only max earn to get to the VHL and then in the 9th season just take the hit like an old player who should have retired but is still holding on.  No fighting it.

 

I think this mentality was the basic idea behind the 9th season in the first place.  Hang on tight and hope for a cup in a support role like an aged star or something.  Go down this route for your own experience.

[AJW 2,156]

Randy Bobandy took his first depreciation hit of -153 TPE this off season. I’m just earning welfare+ now to keep filling my 1150ish TPA build’s bank for next season. I started banking already but got greedy and upgraded LD and DI for fun. Bobandy is currently ranked 15th in TPA among all VHL players, 9th in VHL centres. I’m projected to get around the same depreciation this upcoming season plus a little more of course, which my single season TPE earnings can match. I even slowed my earnings down a bit last season and season prior, on previous pace I should have hit 1400 TPE already, I’m at 1300 currently.
 

I have player store money when the depreciation gets rougher in my 7th/8th seasons and in my 9th season it’s basically see you later old guy anyways. I don’t think the depreciation hurts unless you’re trying to get 95+ attributes, which only like less than 1% of the VHL population has since they cost 10 TPE each. I did slow down my earning for 1-2 seasons and I don’t earn maxed capped now, which not everyone will agree on being fun to do, but I’m having fun with this 9 season VHL career. Only awards I’ve won are VHLE awards but I’m also only halfway through my VHL career.

[Gaikoku-hito 2,081]

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

I don't see the exact numbers since I'm too lazy to add up your old updates and applied TPA, but were you around 1,300 TPA? As I've said in this thread, you are basically asking for super rough regression if you go that high. Realistically you're hitting your peak by year 5 and then maintaining your build over the depreciation seasons. Anything over 1.1k TPA will definitely feel a bit difficult because you're spending so much, and also depending on how TPE efficient your builds are for regression.

 

You're at 1.1k TPA right now and you're pretty much already the best of the best with 89 SC and 93 DF, all excellent metrics. SK/PH also in a good spot and you're not playing C, therefore avoiding the FO investment as well. SK/PH at 89 and 92 each too. You are going to get super marginal gains from where you're at now if you keep spending.  Maybe you can bump a couple attributes up by a point with another 100 TPE, but I just don't think it's worth it.

 

You'd actually be a bit more TPE efficient if you had kept PC at 90 and brought up DC to 90 instead, then use FO for increasing strength. It's small things like that that add up. Makes your OV the 100% Jagr whenever you use it since nothing else is spending over 90.

I agree with your assessment that you have/had to keep your player around the 1100 TPE mark or risk being killed by depreciation and that is sort of the problem as by staying down the year in the VHLE means that you don`t have to limit your build. Look at all the high S84/85/86 players in comparison to 9 Season players of S84/85. It is a rather huge gap with non-skippers rocking 1200+ TPA with a fraction of the TPE. While the highest TPA player is currently Bouchard at 1050 TPA while currently the highest TPA.  While I am like you in the fact that I planned my players and love playing around in spreadsheets changing build and over planning the player with depreciation changes dropping in Dec of 2022 (Start of S87); it really changed the way I thought about the nine season career and forced me into a defensive mode to protect my player instead of the super build that I was seeing from the likes of other players from S80 - S83. Which is why I am think most end up cutting their career short.

 

The changes forced players from being a super build player that would dominate the league or possible dominate the league to having to limit their build or be killed by depreciation. There is a huge difference when I look at certain players; without want to name them in comparison to my own career. Some of them where pushing 1300+ builds and got the benefits of such builds before being killed by the changes. Where now the only players you see with similar builds are the players doing the 7/8 length careers as the 9 are in defense mode for about half of their careers as you mention peaking around S4/5 in. 

 

While I understand/understood the need to clip these super builds; it really hasn`t worked as we are still seeing them but only if you don`t skip or play the 9 season career. Which to me means the depreciation is a bit too harsh.