Why not just get rid of the backup goalie rule?

[scoop 3,447]

If you're bothering to read this, you are probably involved enough with the league to be aware that the Seattle Bears have been found to be in violation of the Spirit of Competition Rule due to excessive starts being given to their backup goalie. As punishment for starting their backup goalie nine times more than the required eight times, their lottery odds will drop from 25% to 10% to win the first overall pick. This is the same punishment that Warsaw received two seasons prior for starting their bot goalie an extra eight times (Calgary was also punished that season, losing 5% for three extra starts).

 

 

Seattle's GM Blake Campbell claims it was by mistake that the bot goalie made those extra starts, and I find that easy enough to believe. However, I don't find negligence to be a good excuse. Honestly, though, Justin Lion is hardly even better than Seattle's bot goalie. As the Spirit of Competition rule is written, it would seem that New York was more in violation by continuing to start W. W. even after trading for Clueless Wallob. But then you could say that New York did not need to make that trade at all. Seattle also did not need to trade for four players from Davos to improve their roster at the deadline. But enough rambling about all that.

 

I think the rule that requires teams to give their backup goalie starts should just be abolished entirely. What purposes does it serve? It forces teams to give another human goalie starts, for those times when we have an excess amount of VHL goalies. It also gives a slight advantage to those teams that have a second goalie, as they don't have to start a bot goalie for those eight games. In my opinion, that's not enough to justify the rule. I think teams would typically give an active human backup some starts even without the rule, though maybe they wouldn't if they felt they were being disadvantaged because other teams don't have to start a bot goalie. That's where my next thought comes into play, though.

 

Depending on how fatigue works in STHS, I believe the league should try to utilize fatigue to give teams with larger rosters an advantage. Make the Endurance attribute something that players need to upgrade. Give teams a reason to want to have a backup goalie and to give them starts. Give teams a reason to possibly want more than the standard 6 forwards, 4 defenders; and more harshly punish them for having fewer than that number.

[Banackock 8,141]

I forgot about that trade we made with the team to hopefully improve our scoring a little bit for the Bears. 

[Daniel Janser 2,216]

7 hours ago, scoop said:

It forces teams to give another human goalie starts, for those times when we have an excess amount of VHL goalies.

At the moment we have 22 VHL-ready goalies. Six surplus to requirement, if no back up is needed. 

 

No-one has ever enforced (at least not to my knowledge) the spirit of competition rule when an active human has been played instead of bots, as long as the mandatory 8 backup games have been complied with.

 

Apparently back in the day GM's did not play their backups (human ones) in any significant number and hence a rule had to be established accordingly to give back up goalies at least some games during the season. 

 

I do not think a rule change is warranted under these circumstances.

 

Fatigue is an interesting concept (so are injuries imo), but do not know whether this will find league wide support and how difficult it would be to implement (maybe a test can be run in the JST/ProAm to see how it would effect the league?). 

[Spartan 4,531]

41 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

No-one has ever enforced (at least not to my knowledge) the spirit of competition rule when an active human has been played instead of bots, as long as the mandatory 8 backup games have been complied with.

You're mixing up two different rules here. The Louth rule specifically requires every VHL team to play their backup goalie 8 times in a season. It doesn't have to be just 1 goalie, could be any combination of backups as long as a single goalie on their roster doesn't have more than 64 starts in a season. Not GP, just starts. From what I recall, this rule was to ensure teams would be forced to play their secondary goalies since there are almost always a few human backup goalies in all seasons. If competitive teams aren't required to start their backups, GM's will take advantage of it.

 

The Spirit of Competition rule simply states that if you have a bot backup goalie, the bot can't start more than 8 games in a season. The logic is that pretty much every VHL-eligible human created goalie will be better than a bot, attribute wise, and we should always be playing user created players over bots. If you don't have a human goalie, you must make a significant/reasonable effort to acquire one. That's the rule that was broken here, hence why overplaying human backups is never punished, since there's no rule around their max starts.

[scoop 3,447]

57 minutes ago, Spartan said:

You're mixing up two different rules here. The Louth rule specifically requires every VHL team to play their backup goalie 8 times in a season. It doesn't have to be just 1 goalie, could be any combination of backups as long as a single goalie on their roster doesn't have more than 64 starts in a season. Not GP, just starts. From what I recall, this rule was to ensure teams would be forced to play their secondary goalies since there are almost always a few human backup goalies in all seasons. If competitive teams aren't required to start their backups, GM's will take advantage of it.

 

The Spirit of Competition rule simply states that if you have a bot backup goalie, the bot can't start more than 8 games in a season. The logic is that pretty much every VHL-eligible human created goalie will be better than a bot, attribute wise, and we should always be playing user created players over bots. If you don't have a human goalie, you must make a significant/reasonable effort to acquire one. That's the rule that was broken here, hence why overplaying human backups is never punished, since there's no rule around their max starts.

 

Quote

15.3 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

The Spirit of Competition rule doesn't actually state anything specifically about bot backups, that is just simply the only aspect of the rule which seems to be enforced. Why should "significant/reasonable efforts" not be required with regards to fifth/sixth forwards, or third/fourth defenders.

[scoop 3,447]

2 hours ago, Banackock said:

I forgot about that trade we made with the team to hopefully improve our scoring a little bit for the Bears. 

 

Davos making that trade is a punishable offense imo. It for sure had a more adverse effect on their roster than SEA G starting over Justin Lion in nine extra games. The league should have vetoed the trade if "Spirit of Competition" means anything other than "can't start bot more than eight games."

Edited February 26 by scoop

[Daniel Janser 2,216]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

You're mixing up two different rules here. The Louth rule specifically requires every VHL team to play their backup goalie 8 times in a season. It doesn't have to be just 1 goalie, could be any combination of backups as long as a single goalie on their roster doesn't have more than 64 starts in a season. Not GP, just starts. From what I recall, this rule was to ensure teams would be forced to play their secondary goalies since there are almost always a few human backup goalies in all seasons. If competitive teams aren't required to start their backups, GM's will take advantage of it.

 

The Spirit of Competition rule simply states that if you have a bot backup goalie, the bot can't start more than 8 games in a season. The logic is that pretty much every VHL-eligible human created goalie will be better than a bot, attribute wise, and we should always be playing user created players over bots. If you don't have a human goalie, you must make a significant/reasonable effort to acquire one. That's the rule that was broken here, hence why overplaying human backups is never punished, since there's no rule around their max starts.

that is what I meant to say, but apparently made hay out of it. Thanks for clarifying for anyone not being able to look into my head

 

[Spartan 4,531]

2 minutes ago, scoop said:

 

 

The Spirit of Competition rule doesn't actually state anything specifically about bot backups, that is just simply the only aspect of the rule which seems to be enforced. Why should "significant/reasonable efforts" not be required with regards to fifth/sixth forwards, or third/fourth defenders.

Quote

15.3 - Spirit of Competition

i. Best Available Roster - General Managers are expected to put forth their best available roster, every game of the season. Managers found to be violating the spirit of competition within the league, especially, but not limited to, any form of tanking, will face punishment, at the discretion of the League Commissioners. Punishment will range up to, and including, but not limited to: Draft Pick Forfeiture, Salary Cap Fines, GM Dismissal.

 

Example:

If a team in S73 is found to be playing CPU Players, or inferior Inactive Players, over better Human Created Players, they may face reduced Draft Lottery Odds, or possibly the loss of their 1st Round Pick entirely, in the S74 VHL Entry Draft. Depending on the severity of their transgression, the General Manager may also face dismissal.

 

ii. CPU Goaltenders - Teams may not start a CPU Goaltender for more than 8 games in a season, when a human created goaltender above 250 TPA is available. If the team does not have a human created goaltender on their roster, they must make a reasonable attempt to acquire one, whether that is through trade, free agency, or the VHL Entry Draft.

Have to read the whole section to see the bot backup bit. Its one of the explicitly defined portions within that rule that is easiest to uphold due to the quantitative nature.

[Daniel Janser 2,216]

10 minutes ago, scoop said:

 

Davos making that trade is a punishable offense imo. It for sure had a more adverse effect on their roster than SEA G starting over Justin Lion in nine extra games. The league should have vetoed the trade if "Spirit of Competition" means anything other than "can't start bot more than eight games."

The 'Spirit of competition rule' says best available roster. Players who are traded away, are obviously not available anymore. Are you suggesting that no trade can be approved if it is not an upgrade? That would be odd, as every trade which matches this description is clearly a downgrade on the other side of the deal, innit? And how would we value the picks involved in the trade? as non-existant as they obviously will not play a single game in the present season? 

[Pifferfish 597]

2 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

At the moment we have 22 VHL-ready goalies. Six surplus to requirement, if no back up is needed. 

 

No-one has ever enforced (at least not to my knowledge) the spirit of competition rule when an active human has been played instead of bots, as long as the mandatory 8 backup games have been complied with.

 

Apparently back in the day GM's did not play their backups (human ones) in any significant number and hence a rule had to be established accordingly to give back up goalies at least some games during the season. 

 

I do not think a rule change is warranted under these circumstances.

 

Fatigue is an interesting concept (so are injuries imo), but do not know whether this will find league wide support and how difficult it would be to implement (maybe a test can be run in the JST/ProAm to see how it would effect the league?). 

No injuries. I've had this discussion in other sim leagues alot and it boils down to this. One side says injuries are realistic and part of the sport we are simming and thus should exist. I say, well this isn't real life it's a simulation in which we can decide the parameters and turn injuries off. I don't make a sim player to see him happen to be unlucky and get hurt every year. I spend a lot of time building my player and to have him get injured bc of a random dice roll is absolute shit. It feels shit. Especially if it were to happen in the playoffs or something. To further the it's a simulation point. I also would point out that if the NHL could flip a magic switch to make players never get hurt, they would. They don't choose having injuries and they wouldn't do why should we if we have the choice. That's my ted talk on this.

Edited February 26 by Pifferfish

[Banackock 8,141]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Janser said:

The 'Spirit of competition rule' says best available roster. Players who are traded away, are obviously not available anymore. Are you suggesting that no trade can be approved if it is not an upgrade? That would be odd, as every trade which matches this description is clearly a downgrade on the other side of the deal, innit? And how would we value the picks involved in the trade? as non-existant as they obviously will not play a single game in the present season? 

If the team is running specific strategies (all PHY, no OFF or DEF), rebuilding and then trades all their “higher” players for a low pick… seems like there’s some deliberate tanking happen. Isn’t that what the rule tries to prevent? 1+1+1=3 but what the hell do I know  

[Spartan 4,531]

17 minutes ago, scoop said:

 

Davos making that trade is a punishable offense imo. It for sure had a more adverse effect on their roster than SEA G starting over Justin Lion in nine extra games. The league should have vetoed the trade if "Spirit of Competition" means anything other than "can't start bot more than eight games."

Trading players away is always going to be considered a slippery slope if you try to match it up against bot start rules or backup rules. Goalie is a position where every competitive team in the league would prefer to play their better goaltender if we had no rules around it. We have no injuries (league would be chalked if we did) or endurance as you say, but that'd arguably hurt skaters a lot more and we'd almost certainly have to contract the league in half to be able to roll a full 4 lines plus have some sort of system to replace players in your lineup entirely. So lets just rule that out for now as a way too complicated situation.

 

While we can't go to a rebuilding team and say "hey, you're not allowed to get value out of what you have when your season is lost already," we can still maintain the base of this league which is that human players matter more than bots.

 

1 minute ago, Banackock said:

If the team is running specific strategies (all PHY, no OFF or DEF), rebuilding and then trades all their “higher” players for a low pick… seems like there’s some deliberate tanking happen. Isn’t that what the rule tries to prevent? 1+1+1=3 but what the hell do I know  

Should report to Blues if you see this though, no? Not sure if you've already done it, just saying you should if you haven't. Though if it's just line strats and not team strats, it's near useless in our version like ice time sliders lol.

[frescoelmo 1,282]

 

 

[Mongoose87 387]

I think the backup rule doesn't go far enough. We should ban teams from playing their starter. 

[Banackock 8,141]

16 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Trading players away is always going to be considered a slippery slope if you try to match it up against bot start rules or backup rules. Goalie is a position where every competitive team in the league would prefer to play their better goaltender if we had no rules around it. We have no injuries (league would be chalked if we did) or endurance as you say, but that'd arguably hurt skaters a lot more and we'd almost certainly have to contract the league in half to be able to roll a full 4 lines plus have some sort of system to replace players in your lineup entirely. So lets just rule that out for now as a way too complicated situation.

 

While we can't go to a rebuilding team and say "hey, you're not allowed to get value out of what you have when your season is lost already," we can still maintain the base of this league which is that human players matter more than bots.

 

Should report to Blues if you see this though, no? Not sure if you've already done it, just saying you should if you haven't. Though if it's just line strats and not team strats, it's near useless in our version like ice time sliders lol.

All strats, yeah! Idc. Just where do you draw the line of “tanking” and “anti spirit of competition” then.

 

That was my two cents though. Happy Monday y’all

[Spartan 4,531]

1 minute ago, Banackock said:

All strats, yeah! Idc. Just where do you draw the line of “tanking” and “anti spirit of competition” then.

 

That was my two cents though. Happy Monday y’all

Yeah I think that's something you could, and should, bring up to Blues. While GMs generally squabble with each other when transgressions occur, I still think that the most effective way to hold everyone to the rules is by policing each other and bring up infractions as you see them. I don't expect Blues to be sitting there looking at every team's strats throughout the season.

 

And personally, I tend to consider spirit of competition to lean mainly towards the human/bots/inactives piece vs the general tanking instance. Because I think ever team will tank at some point or the other, especially when we incentivize trades mid-season via cap hit reduction. Tanking and rebuilding are fairly synonymous, but you're right that there's no clear line there. However, we do have clear lines drawn for backup goalies and bot backup goalies, so that's just what the low hanging fruit is each season.

[Alex 3,248]

21 minutes ago, Spartan said:

Though if it's just line strats and not team strats, it's near useless in our version like ice time sliders lol.

Spent most of the season just playing around with strats, came to the conclusion that they do nothing, if they do have an effect it's almost negligible. Kind of what I expected... 

[Alex 3,248]

Just now, Spartan said:

Tanking and rebuilding are fairly synonymous, but you're right that there's no clear line there. However, we do have clear lines drawn for backup goalies and bot backup goalies, so that's just what the low hanging fruit is each season.

There is kind of a clear line drawn for tanking/rebuilding teams given the roster minimums (Rule 1.2). 

[CowboyinAmerica 2,911]

I don't really care about the goalie rule one way or the other, but since nobody's talking about it - the hardest of passes on fatigue. I remember being in a (basketball?) league that tried it once, and there's nothing more demoralizing to activity than saying, "I know you're max earning and chasing records/titles/etc., but you're just going to not be involved now because the sim engine said so." Rule of Fun > Realism

[scoop 3,447]

37 minutes ago, CowboyinAmerica said:

I don't really care about the goalie rule one way or the other, but since nobody's talking about it - the hardest of passes on fatigue. I remember being in a (basketball?) league that tried it once, and there's nothing more demoralizing to activity than saying, "I know you're max earning and chasing records/titles/etc., but you're just going to not be involved now because the sim engine said so." Rule of Fun > Realism

To me, it really depends on how fatigue/endurance work in STHS and how much control we have over the balancing of it. Keep in mind, I don't have much an idea how it works, but here is the description of the Endurance attribute from the STHS manual

 

"If a player's is send on ice when he's fatigue, this stat is used in the formula to decide if all stats for this shift will be lower than normal."

 

If we can keep playing time the same, but make players with lower Endurance just overall worse players when they are fatigued, then I think it would be a fun change to the league, and I believe it would be a benefit to the max earners.

[Alex 3,248]

2 minutes ago, scoop said:

To me, it really depends on how fatigue/endurance work in STHS and how much control we have over the balancing of it. Keep in mind, I don't have much an idea how it works, but here is the description of the Endurance attribute from the STHS manual

 

"If a player's is send on ice when he's fatigue, this stat is used in the formula to decide if all stats for this shift will be lower than normal."

 

If we can keep playing time the same, but make players with lower Endurance just overall worse players when they are fatigued, then I think it would be a fun change to the league, and I believe it would be a benefit to the max earners.

My understanding of it is that it’s essentially a %effectiveness, if a player is 50% fatigue all stats are reduced by 50%. Fatigue wouldn’t really have an effect on backup starts, however we could artificially have it function as a maximum number of consecutive games played?

[scoop 3,447]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

There is kind of a clear line drawn for tanking/rebuilding teams given the roster minimums (Rule 1.2). 

 

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

Have to read the whole section to see the bot backup bit. Its one of the explicitly defined portions within that rule that is easiest to uphold due to the quantitative nature.

Yeah, I don't like reading so I stopped after the first bit apparently.

[scoop 3,447]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

My understanding of it is that it’s essentially a %effectiveness, if a player is 50% fatigue all stats are reduced by 50%. Fatigue wouldn’t really have an effect on backup starts, however we could artificially have it function as a maximum number of consecutive games played?

Yeah, it would eliminate the requirement, but like you said it, it creates a point where if a goalie plays in too many games consecutively, then they will get to the point where the backup is just straight up a better option. That's what I'm imagining, anyway. Again, I don't know how it all actually functions in STHS, but this would give teams a reason to actually give a backup human goalie more than 8 starts.

[scoop 3,447]

2 hours ago, Daniel Janser said:

The 'Spirit of competition rule' says best available roster. Players who are traded away, are obviously not available anymore. Are you suggesting that no trade can be approved if it is not an upgrade? That would be odd, as every trade which matches this description is clearly a downgrade on the other side of the deal, innit? And how would we value the picks involved in the trade? as non-existant as they obviously will not play a single game in the present season? 

No, I'm not. But I'm suggesting that you shouldn't be able to gut your roster of 4/10 of your skaters if you aren't even going to make an attempt to add more bodies to your team. And if you do, you should be punished in the same way that a team starting their slightly worse than their starter bot goalie would be.

 

 

 

Imagine a situation where there are no goalies available in free agency, and a team trades away it's only goalie and doesn't receive one in return. How would the league feel about that?

[MubbleFubbles 1,292]

14 hours ago, scoop said:

Make the Endurance attribute something that players need to upgrade.

One of the problems here would be that I'm not sure that the endurance attribute works with the version of the sim that we use. We use 1.1, and looking at this thread by Simon, it appears that Endurance may only have been added to Version 2 and later https://sths.simont.info/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=26396&hilit=endurance#p26396 (Most importantly: 53. Creation of new stats for Players and Goalies (Endurance, Penalty Shot)). I know there was a lot of debate when we added penalty shot as an upgradeable attribute because it didn't seem to do anything in our version of the sim, so given endurance came at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't have an effect in 1.1.

 

However, looking at an older version of the manual https://web.archive.org/web/20080510145220/http://sths.simont.info/Manual_En.php it looks like the Durability attribute can have an effect on Fatigue (13.4 in the manual) and there's still the option to activate/deactivate fatigue and keep injuries off, so it looks like it's possible, just not with the Endurance attribute.

Edited February 26 by MubbleFubbles