VHL Magazine Power Poll - Forced Retirement

[Molholt 2,185]

While I'm not strongly for or against it, I don't understand why the stats are a worry for everyone. That's what happens in sports no? Things change and that skews stats and records in different ways, but that's just how it goes.

Basketball added goaltending and lane violations and the game changed drastically, they stopped hand checking and it changed again. You can't compare George Mikan to Dwight Howard with just stats, you have to evaluate the different eras. I feel like that's just how it goes. Not that this is the thing, but eventually there will be changes that change how stats turn out in the VHL, it already has happened with things like expansion, etc - I think you just have to accept that and move on.

There will be records that will be easier to break and there will be records that will become nearly impossible to break, but that just adds more history and interest to the league.

No one is going to break some of Gretzkys single season records in the current NHL, but they changed stuff like goalie pad size anyway because it was better for the league.

Is this better for the league? I really don't know.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

Well even if it got changed who would really want to go 10 seasons? only a small group of player who would want to go 10 seasons. It wouldnt hurt the league in anyway in my opinion 

[Devise 4,475]

Molholt I can appreciate your point, but I can't agree with it. In real sports it's okay for rules to change that effect stats because when you compare players to their era you look at more than just stats. How did they play in their era for example. Was such and such players impact on the game as big as such and such. Sure you look at stats as a basis, but you can actually recall what this player did for his team. 

 

You can't do that in the VHL. There is no visuals. Awards, records, Hall of Fame voting it all comes down to the stats. It is all we have to go on. The fact that we don't even capture a few stats makes it hard enough to justify "defensive" stats as checking for example. Shots blocked here get compared to the quality of team your on and is considered a very minor defensive stat. 

 

To say nobody has a shot at breaking past records is just not true. A few seasons ago Mikes forward before he retired broke the top 25 in goals scored with 72. In regards to expansion, expansion in no way effected any stats. At all. It added more players to the league sure, more teams, but not more games. We still play a 72 game season like we always have. 

 

Also Stamkos the fact that this has the potential to mess with certain things as mentioned other than stats, flow of players, getting elite members to have to start over to let new era's reign supreme etc just furthers my point with your own. When you say who would really go 10 seasons? Exactly. So we should risk altering all this and compromising stuff because 4 or 5 people want to increase a players legacy a couple seasons? Those people will never be satisfied anyway. I imagine Green for example just wants to play with Remy Broduer style his whole VHL career. That won't happen. So what does two extra seasons solve? 

Edited May 16, 2014 by Devise22

[Molholt 2,185]

I didn't say there were things that wouldn't be, I said rule changes "could" change things like that, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing. IF the change is better for the league. Again, I'm not sure it's necessary or needed, but at some point there will likely be changes that warrant changing even if it skews some statistics.

You don't have to see tape of Wilt to know he was dominant but that his stats were inflated because of his era and his insistence on stat padding. If you follow basketball you know that while his stats are significantly higher, Wilt was probably less valuable than Bill Russell. You have to contextualize it for the era, for the rules, etc. The same can happen for the VHL.

[TheLastOlympian07 2,388]

I see your point, but even if it was there, it wouldnt hurt anyone. Just those few players would be happen and its a win win, the 10 season limit is there no one but a few select people wanna go 10 season and it doesnt hurt anyone. And the expansion definitely changed the landscape of the VHL. instead of having some stacked 5-6 teams we have 4 good teams every year. the talent is spread out.  

[scoop 3,426]

I voted no because I think the integrity of stats, re stocking players for drafts and the changing of the top guard in the league are all too important.

 

However if we were to do it wouldn't be overnight anyway. Even if we were to hypothetically assume that we wanted to extend the amount of seasons a player could have before retiring, no player who would be forced to retire with S38 as their last season should be eligible. Because all the players who recently retired would get the screwjob. Hell you'd probably have to go as far as to say no current player in the sim should be eligible. Only players created after the date that we announce the thing. 

 

In regards to the stats the only real way to try to balance that would be to divide them up into records for players who played in an eight season max rule, and records for those who played in a ten. You could still compare the players between them after the fact in terms of numbers and use that accordingly. But it ultimately all seems like so much work when 8 season cycles have worked great for us since inception. I like change but to me the only real reason to do this is because a few members are clinging on to a legacy and want to keep it. Not exactly a "league" priority. 

Records are all relative anyway. You think any of Scotty's ludicrous records should really be compared to the stats of any future players?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Hustles

[sterling 1,997]

If we did Labatte would still be in Calgary pwning you all

[Higgins 3,618]

If we did Labatte would still be in Calgary pwning you all

 

Even with 200% depreciation!

[Victor 10,940]

Even with 200% depreciation!

Pretty sure negative stats are more efficient in the sim anyway.

[Ball 453]

I feel that 8 seasons should suffice, after that players would be to depricated to really make an impact for teams.

 

Also a wise man once told me two life lessons:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it and

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck

[RomanesEuntDomus 442]

Something else that might be worth looking in to, even if we don't extend the maximum career length, is players who spent another year in the VHLM after being drafted. Their VHL-career ends up just being 7 years instead of the 8 years that players who stay up right away (usually recreates) get. I know this is made up for partially by the extra TPE you can earn in the VHLM through practice facility and the achievement tracker, but I think we should think about not counting this first year as one of the 8 career seasons a player can have, if he spends that first year in the VHLM.

 

We have a VHLM-cap in place so the players who stay down in the VHLM wouldn't be able to do this to exploit the rules, they get sent down because they actually need this extra year of development and wouldn't be competitive in the VHL if they stayed up. Maybe this would be a change worth considering, so that players who are consistently active at least get guaranteed the 8 career seasons. Obviously not counting a VHLM-year would only apply in a players first post-draft season, if he still is in the VHLM after that this season and all future years spent in the minors would count towards his career maximum just as they do now.

 

If people think that this would give an unfair advantage for players who stay down an extra year (which I think isn't the case, but it is a legitimate concern), we could make it that those players are subject to the same depreciation-timetable than players from the same draft class who stayed up in the VHL after being drafted. So for them depreciation would actually kick in in their 5th season (compared to the 6th season for players who stayed up), which means by their last season they have been depreciated four times, which should negate all the possible advantages the might have had by staying down the extra year.

[Molholt 2,185]

I actually wrote about that in the VHLM mag a long time ago and no one thought much of it lol.

I thought you should have 8 VHL seasons regardless of how long you stayed, with like a 4 season cap. I figured it would make it better for inactives who come back and want to continue their player but can't because he's at regression or halfway through with his career, etc.

It also benefits someone who maybe develops a little slower or has something come up for awhile in the vhlm, they can just take their time and then get really interested when they are in the VHL.

I agree with you that since there is a cap on tpe, you can't really exploit it.

[sterling 1,997]

I dont mind that idea, but it does needlessly complicate something that isnt really broken now.

[Molholt 2,185]

I dont mind that idea, but it does needlessly complicate something that isnt really broken now.

True. My initial thinking was it might help being someone back from inactivity, but the odds of it being utilized much are slim. Probably low risk, but also low reward.

Maybe Romanes had a more beneficial reason for suggesting it?

[Guest]

After re-evaluating this I determined a couple things.

 

1. Like said, we can't fuck up the historical facts as well as the stats that have 8 year careers in place.

 

2. Higgins mentioned the draft and I agree. The problem I see with the SHL is that their players can play for longer than 8 seasons and it widdles down the talent. I see almost everyone of their teams over there have 3-4 guys at 150 TPE (which is technically 0 TPE here). I think it drastically puts the fun down having to get good stats against no competition at all.  So yes it would be nice to play with a guy for 9+ seasons but it also would screw with too many things that make what we have a great sim league.

[Smarch 3,150]

no, players get boring enough over eight seasons for most anyways