• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rainsilent last won the day on April 3 2021

rainsilent had the most liked content!


About rainsilent

  • Rank
    GamePlanHockey Advisor

Profile Information

  • Playing What GM Games

Recent Profile Visitors

7,716 profile views
  1. Increased demands would include more 1 way contracts. As it is you can convince 87 overall players, and even higher if the player is green in greed, to take two way contracts and that is quite ridiculous. By 85 overall 1 way should pretty much be the enforced norm with players not willing to take a two way at all at that point. Getting player demands to be more in line with what they reasonably should be would really solve most of this. It would genuinely solve a good chunk of demoting teams trading players away too as there would be fewer teams with the cap space to trade for higher quality players. As I asked when the motion was put forth to increase the cap from 60 million so long ago; "What is the point of having a cap if it isn't forcing you to make difficult decisions on who to keep when you have a good team?" Edit: Look at how trading in the NHL has really dried up over the past two seasons. Why? Because most teams are very close to the cap. As in most teams are within ~ 2 million of the cap. In the past most teams had anywhere from 5-10 million in cap space and there were a lot of trades. One more thing I would like to point out in relation to players at 85 demanding 1 way contracts. Something you see when a player reaches 83 overall is the notion that they feel like they are too good for the affiliate. So why aren't they demanding 1 way contracts in negotiations then? Why are they accepting two way contracts on contract renewals?
  2. I can see a legitimate argument for 30 but not much more than that. The bigger thing that will go into fixing a lot in terms of player hoarding and a lack of FAs is having players demand more salary. To give everyone a perspective on how easy it is to keep an absolutely stacked team together top players ask for around 6-7 million a season tops, unless they are greedy. The cap at the GHL level is 71.5. So top players are only asking for typically, at most, 10% of the cap available to a team. That means that teams can easily hold onto 6-7 of the top players in the league and still have enough room cap wise to fill the rest of their team with high end players. Those high end players playing more depth roles will, because they are playing depth roles, never ask for much more than depth role money even though they are players fully capable of playing top line roles in the league. Compare this to the NHL where top players get paid at least, with new contracts, 15% of the cap when you ignore the AAV adjustments due to back-diving contracts. Crosby, when he signed his current deal, signed for 8.7 million against the cap, due to the contract being back-diving he was getting paid 12 million actual, when the cap was at 64.3 million. Cap wise he was getting paid 13.5% of the cap while salary wise he was getting paid 18.7% of the cap. It was rumored that Crosby was going to get 10 mil a season average against the cap. He would have if the last 3 seasons of his deal weren't 3 mil each. Either way, we can't back-dive contracts in this game so I am removing those 3 seasons from the discussion. Crosby demanded, and got, 18.7% of the cap. The next big contract to look at is Malkin. He signed for 9.5 the next season when the cap was at 69 million. That is a cap hit of only 13.8%. Why was his lower? He took a "home team discount," partially forced by Crosby's contract the season prior and partially because Malkin didn't want a back diving contract. His cap hit should be higher as he is clearly the statistical outlier as I will show later. The next big contracts were the duo of Kane and Toews. They both signed the exact same back-diving contracts of 10.5 aav and 13.8 actual when the cap was 71.4. Because we can't do back diving contracts the actual salary is what we are concerned with and 13.8 is 19.3% of the cap. The next big contract to look at is McDavid's. AAV of 12.5 but a slight back-diving contract means that his actual early salary is 15 mil when the cap was at 79.5. That is 18.9% of the cap. We are missing one massive contract example though. Ovechkin's 08-09 resigning. The AAV is just over 9.5 million but his contract was 13 years total with the first 6 being 9 mil a season and the last 7 being 10. So how do we calculate this one as it isn't back diving? It really won't matter as the cap was only 56.7 million that season. It is going to be 16.8% if you use the 9.5 something AAV or 17.6% if you use the 10 mil seasonal pay. That is what NHL players are getting payed relative to what the cap is. The closest example we have to go by to our cap in the game is Kane and Toews. If we go by that and compare what top player demands are for us in game you will find that top players are asking for about half of what they should be percentage wise. Imagine McDavid getting paid around 7 million a season and how much that would help the Oilers cap wise. That is what is going on in our game at the moment as top players should be asking for about double what they are actually asking for at the moment. This doesn't mean that all players should be asking for about double what they currently are. However, players that fall just under the top rate players should easily be asking for 7-8 million rather than the ~5 million that they are asking for at the moment while 3-4 million players should be asking for 5-6 million. Players asking for more appropriate salaries relative to their actual skill level, as well as relative to the cap, would go a long, long way into fixing both of the issues presented here. I'd even go so far as to say that a roster limit would be made redundant with the increased salary demands. Also note that I only think that player salary demands need to be adjusted at the GHL level. They seem fairly appropriate at every other level.
  3. Really? You don't say? Kind of hard to be close when my team is in the BHL. Also, check the spelling of the player name. It wasn't long term planning at all. I built the team flawed deliberately to see if I could finish 10th first. I then saw the available prospects for the next draft that same year and got the idea to try to follow up finishing 10th with then trying to finish first in the SHL the following year. It isn't excuses so much as what actually happened. Go look at the records yourself. I very much doubt you were experimenting to the extent I was. My aim for this team has never been to deliberately promote each season, excluding the plan to try to win the SHL to draft Haulk. That plan never got beyond the planning stage for obvious reasons. I could just as easily 'cut a swath of destruction' all the way up to the GHL as well if I made that my goal, but it isn't. Instead I am literally messing around with things, not taking promoting seriously, and I am still promoting nearly every season. Nearly every other manager is actually trying to do their best and most of them still aren't finding the success that I am when I am just messing around. I'm not shifting goal posts and I'm not making excuses. I'm telling you what I have been doing and what has been happening with my team, genuinely. You want to be this naive then that is on you. I find it rather sad that you feel the need to gloat at all, as if it actually means something. Take your pathetic ego elsewhere. Because I have addressed this in the conversation prior. Addressing it again would just be going in unnecessary circles. To reiterate for you though, the standings show no proof whatsoever that what I said cannot be true. It doesn't quite go that far. You are stretching Occam's Razor well beyond what it is meant for here with exactly what you are saying. As for the rest of what you said about it? I'll just leave it at the fact that modern scientists and engineers, not just use it, but rely on it with reason. I'll take the fact that scientists and engineers still rely on it to mean more than those claimed 'studies' of yours. Not that there isn't any truth to be found in those studies but the people I would put my money on say otherwise regarding Occam's Razor. Yes. It is a separate stand alone fact. That you got correct. Hence why I brought up the positive feedback loop. That is the explanation. I assume we can agree on the fact that teams with high confidence play better than when they have low confidence when all other things are equal. I then assume that we can agree that confidence is built the fastest when a given team strings together a winning streak at the start of the season. Can we then agree on the fact that the randomness aspect of everything means that any team can be the beneficiary of this fact at the start of every season? Is it then not down to mathematical certainty that better teams will inevitably be behind worse teams early in the season due to this? Need I remind you that the game engine doesn't just hand the 'better teams' the win because they are the 'better teams'? The entire problem with your argument here has been that you aren't actually analyzing anything. Instead you are just taking a snapshot view of the current moment that is only telling the current story while trying to claim that it tells the entire story up to this point when it doesn't at all. Had you looked at the team confidence of those two teams when they were off to their hot starts and compared them to the more talented teams that were struggling out of the gate you would have seen that those two teams had higher team confidence and likely higher player confidence too. Why did the two worse teams have higher confidence? Because they were winning. Once the better teams that struggled out of the gate build up their confidence they will start to catch, and will likely pass, those two teams in the standings. Then what is it? Truth be told, I wasn't admitting the possibility that I was wrong earlier. That was sarcasm. My explanation is entirely based upon what is in the help files and combining that with statistical theory. As much of a 'wall of faulty logic' that they might be I see the help files as the gospel to how this game works. Figuring out what is going on in game and why is simply trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together based upon what is in the help files and applying them to statistical theory. Statistical theory isn't exactly complex math either. A little story for you that has a connection to this. Season 6 of Biscuit I finished 1st in the league. Game World Biscuit Season 6 GHL Cedar Rapids Minutemen 1st 42-4-4-10 Playoff 3 The next season my team started off slow. Very slow. 15 games in I was dead last in the standings. I asked Anders what was going on. Anders said that I could figure it out. No, Anders wasn't being snarky. We had talked about the workings of the game before. He never gave me direct yes answers though, only no or not quite when I had something wrong. I started looking at everything trying to figure out why my team started off so slow. It was then that I actually noticed team confidence for the first time. I watched it for a little over a week for nearly every GHL team and noted the results. I asked Anders about what I had noticed in terms of team confidence and asked if that had anything to do with my team's slow start. He replied with just a smiley. The remainder of that season, which was about 40 games, my team only lost 5 games in regulation and ended up 4th in the standings. Game World Biscuit Season 7 GHL Cedar Rapids Minutemen 4th 37-1-4-18 Playoff 2 The next few seasons I paid close attention to the confidence of every GHL team for the first 15 games and noted the results. Sure enough, there was a pattern clear as day. Every team that got off to a fast start built up team and player confidence quicker than every other team. Every team that got off to a slow start had the team confidence sink a little until they started winning consistently. The teams that got off to fast starts were seemingly random with no discernible connection to results from the season prior. The same for teams that got off to slow starts. Things are no different now in the game engine than they were those 3 long years ago so this very thing is still what is going on. You are welcome to disagree and believe what you want though.
  4. This isn't relevant at all. That said, the only reason I did drop from the SHL is that I tried to be too clever and the game said, 'nope, not happening.' I deliberately built my SHL team to be flawed in a handful of ways. One major way was lack of forwards that could pass the puck. Another was lack of depth on D. I was deliberately trying to finish 10th. I was 10th in the standings with 10 games to go and over 10 points up on 11th when the team suddenly stopped playing after going 3-2 in the prior 5 games and beating the 3rd place team in the most recent game. Team confidence went from blue/good instantly to yellow/crisis after beating the 3rd place team for no reason and my team went 0-0-2-8 and then lost the playoffs in 3 straight. The only thing that changed to explain what happened was the sudden flip in team confidence but there was no warning of that flip coming. For the record, the team started the season very poorly too going 4-1-1-10 in its first 16 games. Almost the entirety of the rest of the season my team was around .500. The reason for finishing 10th that season was so that I could take a run at promoting the next year and have a shot at drafting Dieter Haulk while getting the best possible draft pick in the SHL the season before. As for you reaching the SHL faster than me. I have been experimenting with several things with this team with no aim of deliberately promoting each season. In fact, promoting the first season from the IIHL was an unintended accident. My team was ill suited to the tactics I was using yet still beat the teams it faced in the playoffs. Had things gone to what I was planning I would have actually stayed in the IIHL. Rather I've had the approach with this team of if I promote cool, if not just as good because I have been experimenting with it. For example, that first season in the CHL? I deliberately tested how a more skill focused lineup would do in a less skilled tactic. Turns out better than I was expecting. They struggled but still performed well enough in general for the team to still be near the top of the standings. I don't think it did at all. My starting goalie didn't exactly play well for the entire season (only a 74 performance rating for the season behind a team that was statistically lights out defensively) whereas my team D was really strong once they got used to the tactic even though they had a lack of endurance. The team D is what carried the team to come from behind and eventually take the 1st place spot. With about 15 games to go, I was 3rd and about 20 points behind. I will give this one concession regarding endurance. According to the help page endurance does help with training. How much it does help I don't know. I don't think we will ever find out unless Anders directly says. Outside of that, for players I just don't see it having much relevance at all. I had an absolutely lights out defensive team once they got used to the tactic despite having a team wide poor endurance rating. I don't see that as a good thing either. I don't see it as a good thing that I can have players with ~70 endurance playing 20 minutes a night at the GHL level while training on hard and they don't get tired. That should be exhausting to those players should it not? To me, the only players that should be capable of 20+ minutes a night without getting fatigued by it at the GHL level are the ones that have around 85 endurance at least. Players with 99 endurance should be able to near 30 minutes a night a la what Ryan Suter was capable of for years. It isn't I. Not why I was asking the question. It was a genuine question for a legitimate reason thus it wasn't ad hominem in the slightest. You are taking it way beyond what I was intending. So you understand that this game engine is a multivariate probability distribution engine correct? The one or two successful teams at the onset of a season aren't extreme statistical outliers just because they are successful. This is bound to happen with some regularity because of the randomness of the probability distribution. Never mind the fact that most of them usually have, at least, decent teams with a few notable holes in the lineup. It is going to be a naturally occurring thing that "bad" teams are going to start out quickly every season. Which ones it is is going to be luck of the draw if you will. The fact that one or two newly promoted teams manage to do it a season with respectable teams shouldn't be getting your attention. The only newly promoted teams that should be catching your attention are the ones with mostly 70s-80 overall players that get off to those hot starts. I have seen one newly promoted team that fits that description actually do that. If it was a regular thing for them too, I would think that your idea might actually have some merit. As it is, you are saying that all newly promoted teams have some boost to them simply because one gets off to a fast start that they almost always don't sustain while the rest stay near the bottom of the standings the entire year. This is why I don't put much, if any, legitimacy to your view. If they all aren't benefiting from it then it can't just be a newly promoted team boost. It has to be something else. The something else that I see explaining it is the finicky thing that is player and team confidence. With every team starting the season with low confidence a team that manages to get off to a hot start and build confidence quickly will lead to a positive feedback loop where they will jump ahead thanks to that building confidence. Such a start isn't restricted to teams that have been in the GHL for a season or more. It is available to any team and any team can get that hot start. This is why I asked about taking a statistics class. You should be able to recognize these patterns if you really did. Have you really? I just see speculation that a new team started hot so it must have the new team boost to its performance that new teams get with no actual hard evidence. I've countered with the notion that because all teams start with low confidence that teams that can build their confidence with a hot start starts a positive feedback loop wherein they continue to build up confidence faster than slower starting teams which puts them further ahead due to better play that only drops off once those slower starting teams catch up confidence wise. You even say yourself; "at the beginning of the season when ALL teams should have similar low confidence and results should be determined using other variables" Those other variables is the randomness of the sim engine on crack because all teams have low confidence. The teams that manage to get off to hot starts are going to build player and team confidence quicker than other teams. In the crazy randomness that is the sim engine early in the season that could be any team. Again, once the other teams catch up confidence wise those not as good teams that managed the hot starts are going to be caught and surpassed by the better teams. That is the general simplification passed around of what Occam's razor actually is. I gave the actual principle as originally defined. Scientists use it regularly to predict which is the most likely result to an experiment into the unknown. A massive majority of the time Occam's Razor is correct. You are welcome to think it is trash all you want. The science community sees it as an accurate and valuable predictor. The engineering community use it as a very useful troubleshooter. You clearly didn't read the help threads I suggested you read. If you had you wouldn't hold this view. The uncomfortable mostly references recent game results. The bar updates slowly over time and it is still blue. The meaning of all that is that the team is feeling uncomfortable over the results of the few recent games while the team confidence in general is still ok/good. What that means is that the team is entering into, or in the midst of, a streak of poor quality play from the team. Short of a disaster the team should play its way out of that slump. When it does you will see the bar still be blue but it should say ok or good instead. But hey, what do I know? I hide behind walls of faulty logic right? They happen to be the same walls that are spelled out in the help section of the forum.
  5. At best for you, it doesn't support your point because there is no hard evidence whereas there is actual hard evidence backing confidence. Let me ask you a question. Did you ever take a statistics class in math? At least be responsible about it by looking at and breaking down why rather than just blindly claiming it as proof. How can you be sure when you don't bother looking into the details of what happened so far and what is currently going on? Your not analyzing a single thing. Your just seeing something happen and using it as confirmation bias for what you think might be going on without bothering to investigate one little thing. This doesn't even touch on the fact that for every 1 or 2 examples a season you could claim as confirmation there are 4 or 5 that show otherwise. So is it selective boosting where only certain teams get it? I never did deny this. In fact, if you go back and read what I typed you would find that I have been hinting at good team building. Again you are putting words in my mouth that I am not saying. Stop. It is disrespectful. Read up on team and player confidence. It will help you understand moments like that if you are willing to be open about them and think logically about it. If you still don't get it, go ahead and ask for me to explain it if you want. Better yet, ask Anders. Wrong year. It was the first year I was in the BHL. You could have put in at least a minimal effort and looked at the endurance ratings of a handful of the players before making the assumption of which season it was.
  6. No. You couldn't say the same about my view regarding your side of the argument. In the past Anders said that there was no boost to newly promoted teams. I'm inclined to believe him since he did put the code of the game together as well as had no beneficial reason to lie about it. Your view also has no supporting evidence in game either. It is based strictly off of assumption. My argument actually has some in game evidence backing it no matter if you give it any credibility or not. Some in game evidence is more substantial than an assumption that there is a hidden buff in the code for specific teams. You are trying to make the question team confidence when it isn't about team confidence. It was about confidence on the whole. Both team and individual confidence matters. You are trying to force an argument that isn't true by redirecting the discussion. Don't try to force words in my mouth either. He only played 3 players with low confidence. Now look at the players in question, where they played and how they played. Jason, 1st line in a defensive Dman role, likely on a stay at home line and had a good game with a 75 rating but not an impact player in the game and was a +0 for the game. Low team and player confidence doesn't eliminate the possibility that a player can have a good game. Sutter, 3rd line winger playing as a sniper and likely not playing on an offensively focused line. Possibly a poor role choice and had a bad game. The other winger on the line also had a bad game but the center on the line had a great game. The line, on the whole, had little impact on the game though. Dupej, 4th line winger in a power forward role. Had an ok game and his line didn't have much of an impact either. Of his players that didn't have built up confidence only one had a good game. Just like you. The difference is you went 1 out of 4 with a few of those players that didn't play well playing in key positions in the lineup. He went 1 of 3 playing well with the 1 being in a key position in the lineup. You were playing with greater risk with more players in key roles still building confidence than he was. The lack of built up confidence either way means a greater chance for a bad game. Either confidence not being built up doesn't guarantee a bad game nor does it eliminate the chance of a good game. It simply opens up the possibility of results to a wider spectrum. Hence how low confidence takes the randomness that you already get and makes it go wild with results earlier in the season. What happened in your game was a proverbial perfect storm. You opened the door enough for the possibility of that happening with risky decision making and you got bit for it. Had you not made such risky decision making in terms of your lineup set up or even not made the trades at all you would have likely trounced the team like you did in the first game the two teams played. Do you really not realize that your team's 3-0-0-5 record since you made the first trade is, in large part, due to those trades and the resulting impact of having players with low confidence in key positions in the lineup despite your team on the whole having rather high confidence? Your teams performance has been very up and down with Haulk, in a key position in the lineup, struggling with consistency since the trade for him when the player you had before and traded for Haulk was doing very well. I don't doubt that Haulk will eventually settle in but until then his lack of built up confidence is going to be a negative impact to your team. Let us also not overlook the fact that that is actually a solid GHL team skills wise that beat you. No, not great by any stretch but still solid. There are teams above that team in the standings doing more with less talent. The manager is going a good job in general. They just aren't doing as good a job optimizing the lineup and utilizing the players that they have as they could be. Finally, may I introduce Occam's razor. When two theories exist trying to explain the same thing the one that is more likely accurate is the one with the fewest assumptions. My theory is based on the fact that a lack of built up confidence, either team or player, has an observable negative impact and a significant one early in the season when no teams have any built up confidence. This can be reliably and repeatedly tested in game easily. Your theory is the assumption that there is a hidden code in the game that provides a boost to new teams in the GHL. This is an assumption that cannot be reliably proven in game.
  7. It is a valid argument. You just don't believe in it thus you don't see anything too it. Because of something called randomness. It doesn't happen every season. It happens randomly. Every once in a while a newly promoted team does it. Almost every instance, if they don't have a quality line up, they fall back into obscurity over the rest of the season. No. It isn't and I wasn't saying that it was either. I was saying that the early season randomness is exasperated with low confidence. No. It doesn't nullify the argument whatsoever. It actually contributes to it in a way you aren't paying any attention to. Maybe you failed to notice that you had four players in your lineup that are building confidence due to relatively recent trades for those players. Sure enough 3 of those 4 players had relatively bad games. Of which a lack of built up confidence was a contributor. That impacted the lines that they were on and sure enough one of those lines got absolutely stomped on. -3 for all players on the line. Yes, your team got massively outplayed but you aren't bothering to look into why at all. A part of why is even right in front of you staring at you in the face.
  8. I have. You put way too much stock into overall and not enough into actual skills. As a result, you don't actually know what you are going on about here. You have at least 4 quality top 6 forwards skill wise on your team. They are 85, 84, 82 and 85 in overall. You don't need a high 80s overall player to have a quality top 6 GHL player. Add two quality power forwards or two way players, which you have, and you have two quality top 6 GHL lines. You need the right skill set. My GHL team, since the reset, has relied on a player as a top 6 winger and they only recently reached 84 overall. Most other GHL teams have their entire top 6 made up of high 80s. My GHL team currently, overall skill wise, is one of the worst in the GHL being 12th in the conference and 23rd overall out of 28 teams. Yet here I am 5th in the standings competing game in and game out with the best skilled teams in the league. Trust me when I say I know what I am talking about when it comes to what makes a top 6 GHL forward skill wise. Take a look a the images I included and see for yourself. As I keep saying, yet hardly anybody actually listens, player skill is more important than overall. Instead a majority of managers chase after the higher overall players with an attitude along the lines of if they only had that player then their team would be good. Or managers gripe about how they can't compete with the 'top' teams or GHL teams because their players are better overall. Hello? I'm going up against teams with significantly better rosters overall wise than what I have and yet I am still a strong team in the GHL. What more proof do I need to show for people to start listening when I say that it isn't overall that matters? I've built a team with no endurance (almost every player in red endurance numbers at the BHL level where it is easy to get players with blue endurance) and used the defensive tactic that required endurance with that team. My team still dominated defensively with my team not having any endurance. I'm more than willing to bet that can be repeated at the GHL level with the same results. Have no player with greater than ~70 endurance but with otherwise good skills for the tactic. I'm pretty sure you will still be a strong defensive team. Thus it is as near worthless a trait as there currently is. As for you saying that you are ignoring the offensive skills let me point out that you are still getting at least a few very skilled offensive players for the level, even if you aren't deliberately looking at those skills. Thus what you are insinuating here isn't true at all. This is why this claimed boost of yours doesn't exist. Go to your team page. Look at your roster tab. You see overall then confidence and then health left to right at the far right correct? That middle one, at the beginning of the season, where is it at compared to later in the season? What do you think the impact and significance of that is? Without confidence boosted up games are wild and crazy. I've seen meh AI SHL teams soundly beat top rate GHL teams in a preseason friendly. Something that they would never likely do if the GHL team's confidence was up. I was able to soundly beat a quality GHL team with a moderately good SHL team in season two playoffs in the old format because the team confidence of the GHL team was in yellow crisis while mine was good. The entire reason bad teams can get off to a hot start at any level is because they get off to that hot start due to no team having confidence built up which boosts their confidence which allows them to potentially continue that streak until the better teams build their own confidence. At that point they then will fall back to earth. The team got off to a hot start, which built the confidence of the team faster than every other team. Once the better teams got their confidence up the team in question got shelled like they should have.
  9. Not a case in point at all. First, 30 games is wholly insufficient. Get back to me after a few seasons of success and I will take it as a proven case in point if it actually shows the argument to be valid. Otherwise it will just be another statistical outlier that I see happen every once in a while. Second, there are very good GHL quality top 6 role players on the team in the top half of that roster getting quite a collection of points. Thus there very much is solid GHL level offensive talent on that team. On this basis alone it does not even actually show me anything at all like you are claiming that it does. While the team on the whole is modestly skilled offensively there is still serious GHL level offensive talent on that team. I've had this very discussion about offensive skills not mattering in the past with another manager who thought they could prove to me that they didn't matter at all. They tried 5 seasons straight to win in the GHL with no GHL level offensive talent at all. They scratched their way into the playoffs once and were a bubble demotion team the rest of the time before they gave up*. This was back when elite GHL level offensive talent in fast leagues was pretty much all 99s across all of the skills (and pretty much everyone had a few of them) and this manager never had anyone with one offensive skill 85 or greater. That said they did stack the team defensively as much as possible to counter act their lack of offensive skills. Ditch all players with any offensive attributes greater than 85 and I will start to take your attempt seriously. You will have an easier time of it than the other manager did if you give it a go sooner rather than later. The only thing you are managing to do at the current moment is show what can be done with a limited roster so long as you have some idea on how to use the pieces you have properly. It is a very good job you are doing but it is nowhere near achieving what you are claiming that it is. * Edit: They gave up as in they quit the game. With a PM saying that I didn't know what I was talking about and was a bad influence spreading lies. Edit 2: For the record, I think Alex's view that new teams to the GHL get a boost is complete nonsense too.
  10. The way I see spirit is along the lines of what is described here from 7:50 to about 8:05 and I'd rather have a team that fits what is said here than pretty much any other kind of team. Basically I see spirit as how much effort the player puts into the play, how willing they are to give the extra effort, et cetera. I'd rather have a team like the 2000 Wild or the late Bruke lead Flames team where they are known for how hard working and playing the team is, how committed they are, how willing to do the extra stuff, et cetera. That is just how I like my teams though and how I would rather my teams be known for no matter how they otherwise might play.
  11. So the opposing goalie stole 2 of those games. Oof.
  12. Were you at least close in those games? How did your team on the whole and players individually play?
  13. While there might be some truth to it there is a massive negative drawback that goes along with it. Holding on to those players is an active restriction to what you can do in FA while also being an active handicap to your teams performance. You are holding on to a player, bringing several detrimental side effects to your team in the process, just for a, most of the time, modest trade value. It isn't worth holding back your team because of that. Yet the reason the latter part of 2 and the entirety of 3 is true at all is because managers hoard players that don't work for them when they shouldn't. If they let them go to FA the FA pool would have many more players in it and so long as you went in looking for what you needed rather than strictly the best overall player there wouldn't be many bidding wars. The only getting lucky there would be would be in outbidding for the top players. Which, to be honest, should be how that sort of goes anyways. It is literally a self perpetuating issue. The fact that there is no real cap crunch for the really deep GHL teams only serves to add to it. If I had this same mindset I never would have gotten any of my current 4th line players. A 4th line that is, performance wise, one of the best 4th lines around. I traded better overall players for Stubna, Stang and Reason. I traded those players because they weren't working in the role that I had them filling. I didn't trade for Stubna, Stang and Reason knowing, or even thinking, that they would be as good as they are. I traded for them thinking that they had the skill set to perform good enough on the 4th line for the duration of the contracts that they were on. Meaning that they would fill that role until I let them go and filled their spots with better players. Some of those players were from AI teams. The rest Anders created because the player pool that was generated at the start was strictly to fill the teams meaning that there were no extra players to go around at any level. As I said above though, if managers weren't hoarding players that they didn't need or players that weren't performing for them the FA pool wouldn't be nonexistent. Top end players would still be a rarity, as they should be, but quality 2nd and 3rd line players would be notably more abundant if managers didn't unnecessarily hoard players. This is really going to become a pointed problem in the GHL the further we go because teams with great depth are allowed to keep their rosters due to players not increasing their salary demands enough. It was a serious problem in the past and it will be a problem in the future too if the two faster leagues are any indication.
  14. I hate games like that Paul. I get that they will happen but I still hate them none the less. You did end up getting the consolation of a 1-0 loss rather than a bad blowout.