Penalty Killing Poll

[Virtual Jarmo]

One choice: Yes or No.

Poll ends Friday at 10:45 p.m. EST. Starting Friday, that will be our rule on defensemen playing forward on the PK.

[MinnesotaGM]

i dont think however that 4 defenseman should play on 1 unit though

[Bruins_GM]

They can't, the game will let up to a maximum of 3 D on the PK.

[SharksGM]

Did this ever happen in the NHL? Other than those bizarre moments of Sergei Fedorov playing defense.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I voted no for the simple fact its not realistic at all. I'm curious to hear from the 6 people who voted yes and why.

[CapsGM]

Yeah, it's totally realistic to have two year roster turnover rates, 18 year olds developing into All-Stars after 10 games in the AHL, and inflexible contract systems. But once a defenseman is playing forward on the PK, this fake hockey sim loses all its Zen.

[AnaheimGM]

No, it's not realist!

[TorontoGM]

I've always been under the assumption that we strive for realism in this league. Am I wrong?

[Parker]

I voted no because it would make defensive forwards virtually worthless. A team could run two offensive lines and two hitting lines, and the 6X OF, 7X DF player with focus mainly on checking and positioning no longer really has any value, because chances are your 5th-best defenseman is better suited to a PK role than a 4th-line forward who isn't a big hitter.

[SharksGM]

Yeah, it's totally realistic to have two year roster turnover rates, 18 year olds developing into All-Stars after 10 games in the AHL, and inflexible contract systems. But once a defenseman is playing forward on the PK, this fake hockey sim loses all its Zen.

Those are all compromises for things that can't be done much better.

I thought the general rule was that players can't play out of position. An exception was made for forwards playing the point on the PP since it's realistic and happens (and apparently forwards playing C/W out of position on special teams, which is a little more iffy). But D playing forward on the PK never seems to happen and allowing it here so defensemen with unreasonably good faceoff ratings can take draws is a little silly. Why not let D play F even strength too, then?

[NashvilleGM]

Voted no. Doesn't make much sense anyway.

[GM Office Q]

I've never used a defenseman on the PK (until last game), but I still voted yes. Of course, I want the league to be as realistic as possible, but the more rules like this that are in place, the less flexibility everybody has to use strategy. Is it realistic that whoever has the highest rated players should automatically win? This would actually benefit me. I've probably been out-maneuvered in terms of lines, but I don't care. A quick example: my team's average overall is 74.2 (unless Tom Preissing is magically recalled) and I am at 50 points. And that's after trading Zach Parise for Dougie Hamilton. Montreal's average overall is at 74.1 and they are at 76 points. Of course, there are other elements in play here, but you can sort of see my point that strategy matters.

This change alone doesn't change much, but these rule changes are getting out of hand. I already had to program in our GMCP code to babysit people from not having too much H&G/NZT. If we keep taking strategy out of the game, i.e. when we make this a rule, and then someone is butthurt about something else and we have to make a rule for that too, then by the year 2016 every team in the league will have the same strategy matrix.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I'm not sure where you're going with the OA thing.

Honestly pretty much everybody's lines are the same, or close to now anyway. I don't think removing defensemen being allowed on the PK up front is going to change people's strategies too much at all. It's not like all 30 teams are using a d-man in the faceoff dot on the PK.

[GM Office Q]

It's a pretty simple concept. As more restrictions are in place regarding strategy, less parity will exist. Strategies for all 30 teams will converge to the same idea. EHM is a puzzle. Why should we continue making these silly rule changes just to end up with a solved puzzle for everyone to build their team around? Concept-shifting trades will become non-existant, and really, isn't that one of the events that keeps things interesting?

You're right. This, itself, is nearly a non-issue, as I said it is. Alone, this changes almost nothing but having one extra thing to babysit. If hardly any teams are using a defenseman to take faceoffs on the penalty kill, why bother making this a rule? Who cares?

[Virtual Jarmo]

There are a lot of valid points in this thread and some pretty good, rational discussion, which is something this place has lacked lately.

I don't making rules for the sake of making rules. The NZT/H&G restrictions were both about increasing scoring and leveling the playing field. As it turns out, it's really put some teams in a bad spot.

This should be a non-issue, because it never really crossed my mind that defensemen would take faceoffs on the PK. And, to Dan's point, I see non-centers taking PP faceoffs in the NHL at various times, depending on which faceoff dot it is, so I don't see that as an issue.

I left it up to majority rule to decide because I don't care one way or another.

[Montreal Canadiens]

It's a pretty simple concept. As more restrictions are in place regarding strategy, less parity will exist. Strategies for all 30 teams will converge to the same idea. EHM is a puzzle. Why should we continue making these silly rule changes just to end up with a solved puzzle for everyone to build their team around? Concept-shifting trades will become non-existant, and really, isn't that one of the events that keeps things interesting?

You're right. This, itself, is nearly a non-issue, as I said it is. Alone, this changes almost nothing but having one extra thing to babysit. If hardly any teams are using a defenseman to take faceoffs on the penalty kill, why bother making this a rule? Who cares?

The caring part is it's a big advantage for those select few teams who can deploy a defensemen in a forward spot, and win the faceoff for the most part, and are playing 3 defensemen on the PK instead of the usual 2.

Line strategies are pretty much all the same as it is. Most teams are running, PP (or D&C), H&G, NZT, and either NZT or H&G. IMO, defensemen, should be anywhere from 10-20 for faceoff ratings, not 79, 80, 90 or whatever. Never in a million years does a defensemen take a face-off in real life. Especially key faceoffs in your own zone on a penalty kill.

[GM Office Q]

It's hardly a big advantage. We've been in the league now for almost 4 seasons. Every team in the league has had a chance to acquire players for all situations. Most teams in the league have 2 guys on their roster that can take faceoffs in defensive situations. The amount of babysitting that will have to be done (see: salary cap, NZT situation) versus the impact that this will have on results is out of proportion. There's never been anything stopping anyone from acquiring a defenseman with high FA. It's thinking outside the box, and it shouldn't be outlawed. But if Adam's ok with this, then go ahead. Who cares. I look forward to seeing what we'll have to watch over next season.

[Parker]

I think Brad's onto something with faceoff ability. Since the league creates every prospect, there's no reason we can't assign really low ceilings for faceoff ability of non-forwards. Most d-men seem to have a FO ceiling of 100, which makes them at least ON PAR with forwards in faceoff ability. Attacking the problem from this side eliminates the need for a rule entirely, since the only defencemen who are going to be playing forward on PK are guys who CAN win a faceoff. Just make it so defencemen all suck at taking faceoffs. I'm totally in favor of this happening across the board for all players. It actually kind of annoys me when I sort my roster by faceoff ability and three of my top ten guys are defenders.

[Virtual Jarmo]

I think Brad's onto something with faceoff ability. Since the league creates every prospect, there's no reason we can't assign really low ceilings for faceoff ability of non-forwards. Most d-men seem to have a FO ceiling of 100, which makes them at least ON PAR with forwards in faceoff ability. Attacking the problem from this side eliminates the need for a rule entirely, since the only defencemen who are going to be playing forward on PK are guys who CAN win a faceoff. Just make it so defencemen all suck at taking faceoffs. I'm totally in favor of this happening across the board for all players. It actually kind of annoys me when I sort my roster by faceoff ability and three of my top ten guys are defenders.

This is a good idea, but what do we do with current guys? Let them go? Because I'd love to play John Moore at forward on my PK.

[Penguin]

Boyssss no need to make things complicated. Defensemen NEVER play forward on the PK. It's not about faceoffs, it's about playing forward too. Also, I agree with Quinn about rules just to make rules, but this one should have been there since day 1.

[Parker]

This is a good idea, but what do we do with current guys? Let them go? Because I'd love to play John Moore at forward on my PK.

I'm cool with fixing existing players too, but I don't know how everyone else feels about that.

[Penguin]

This is a good idea, but what do we do with current guys? Let them go? Because I'd love to play John Moore at forward on my PK.

I'm cool with fixing existing players too, but I don't know how everyone else feels about that.

Tons of work for Adam for absolutely nothing.

[Bruins_GM]

Yeah.......no.

[Parker]

Fuck it, I'd do it myself if it's just an issue of the work involved. It doesn't look like my solution is very popular, though.

[GM Office Q]

I'm totally fine with adjusting newly drafted defensemen to have more 'realistic' faceoff ability. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to have a defenseman playing forward on the PK, just as it isn't unrealistic to have a forward playing defense on the PP.

I don't think it's worth changing every defenseman in the file. This will inevitably result in, you guessed it, butthurt of some type.

Also,

I think Brad's onto something with faceoff ability. Since the league creates every prospect, there's no reason we can't assign really low ceilings for faceoff ability of non-forwards. Most d-men seem to have a FO ceiling of 100, which makes them at least ON PAR with forwards in faceoff ability. Attacking the problem from this side eliminates the need for a rule entirely, since the only defencemen who are going to be playing forward on PK are guys who CAN win a faceoff. Just make it so defencemen all suck at taking faceoffs. I'm totally in favor of this happening across the board for all players. It actually kind of annoys me when I sort my roster by faceoff ability and three of my top ten guys are defenders.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I'm totally fine with adjusting newly drafted defensemen to have more 'realistic' faceoff ability. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to have a defenseman playing forward on the PK, just as it isn't unrealistic to have a forward playing defense on the PP.

Heh??? Name one player (a defensemen) on a team in REAL LIFE that plays forward on the PK.

Then, name forwards that play the point on the PP.

One of your answers should be zero.

[Penguin]

I'm totally fine with adjusting newly drafted defensemen to have more 'realistic' faceoff ability. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to have a defenseman playing forward on the PK, just as it isn't unrealistic to have a forward playing defense on the PP.

Heh??? Name one player (a defensemen) on a team in REAL LIFE that plays forward on the PK.

Then, name forwards that play the point on the PP.

One of your answers should be zero.

Agreeeeeed!

[SharksGM]

This should be a non-issue, because it never really crossed my mind that defensemen would take faceoffs on the PK. And, to Dan's point, I see non-centers taking PP faceoffs in the NHL at various times, depending on which faceoff dot it is, so I don't see that as an issue.

I see it as an issue because wingers can't play C at even strength but can on the PP/PK, whereas NHL forwards do occasionally switch from C to wing and back. I just think it would be more consistent to either not let wingers play C at all or let them do it any time, not just on special teams. Although I realize there are a lot of wingers in the file who would make good Cs but have been undervalued because they aren't allowed to play C... at even strength, anyways. (And for the record, I don't have a horse in that race, all of my good FA guys are natural centers).

For D playing forward, I just don't see the justification. I guess there are a few forwards who play D in the file and in the NHL but I can't think of any who play C, and most of them other than White are shitty enforcers anyways. It does seem like there aren't many good checking forwards in our file though, so I can see why people would want to play defensemen on the PK.

[GM Office Q]

It's an option to any coach. It's happened before, and it will happen again. As recently as yesterday, the Avs had three defensemen on the ice. You said it yourself, hardly any teams are doing it, so why is it necessary to eliminate it? If it's such a big advantage, why don't you just counter it by doing it yourself? Is the endurance of your defensemen too low to handle the extra ice time? Then don't do it. Too bad.

[Parker]

It's an option to any coach. It's happened before, and it will happen again. As recently as yesterday, the Avs had three defensemen on the ice. You said it yourself, hardly any teams are doing it, so why is it necessary to eliminate it? If it's such a big advantage, why don't you just counter it by doing it yourself? Is the endurance of your defensemen too low to handle the extra ice time? Then don't do it. Too bad.

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I wasn't doing it was because I thought it was against the rules. I'm going to start doing it if we're allowed to. Probably most GM's will.

Also, regarding the whole forwards playing out of position on power play units thing... I use guys like Boedker and Kartayev at C on the power play because they're better at faceoffs than my natural centers, and I routinely also put a guy on a PP wing he technically can't play, just basically assuming we're allowed to do this because I've never been called out on it. An official ruling on this would be good.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Also, regarding the whole forwards playing out of position on power play units thing... I use guys like Boedker and Kartayev at C on the power play because they're better at faceoffs than my natural centers, and I routinely also put a guy on a PP wing he technically can't play, just basically assuming we're allowed to do this because I've never been called out on it. An official ruling on this would be good.

I have no issue with forwards playing wherever on the PP.

[Calgary.Flames]

I voted YES.

I don't feel the need for other restrictions on how to build your lines.
I have used Niedermayer as a PK forward for a while and would probably do it again.
When you use those guys on the LW they usually don't take the faceoffs, the RW does.

[CapsGM]

I think Brad's onto something with faceoff ability. Since the league creates every prospect, there's no reason we can't assign really low ceilings for faceoff ability of non-forwards. Most d-men seem to have a FO ceiling of 100, which makes them at least ON PAR with forwards in faceoff ability. Attacking the problem from this side eliminates the need for a rule entirely, since the only defencemen who are going to be playing forward on PK are guys who CAN win a faceoff. Just make it so defencemen all suck at taking faceoffs. I'm totally in favor of this happening across the board for all players. It actually kind of annoys me when I sort my roster by faceoff ability and three of my top ten guys are defenders.

Also, regarding the whole forwards playing out of position on power play units thing... I use guys like Boedker and Kartayev at C on the power play because they're better at faceoffs than my natural centers, and I routinely also put a guy on a PP wing he technically can't play, just basically assuming we're allowed to do this because I've never been called out on it. An official ruling on this would be good.

By that logic, and if we're going for realism, why does it have to be just non-forwards? LW/RW players (like Boedker/Kartayev) shouldn't be great faceoff guys as well. Why should it be any different if they're a natural winger versus a defenseman? Neither defensemen nor natural wingers players have nearly as much faceoff experience as a natural center in real life. There's tons of wingers who never take draws throughout their career. If you have Patrice Bergeron taking a faceoff against Ovechkin or Karlsson in real life, Bergeron will dominate both.

Rule 3.2 should remain as is. No players playing outside their natural/alternative position, special teams or not, forwards playing point the one exception. If we're cracking down on special teams, the PP side should be scrutinized as well. A 99FO LW/RW playing center on the PP violates the rule as much as a defender on the PK. If a winger is good enough to play center in special team situations, then chances are he's a LW/C or a RW/C.

[Montreal Canadiens]

I agree with Tim, if we're going to say no to defensemen playing F on PK (which is much more Ludacris) then a winger playing C, but we should restrict both. If C isn't their natural or alternate position they shouldn't be allowed to play there.

And it's not hard to make the rule, it's just as we always thought - players can not play out of position - no matter what. And for people that complain that is too many rules, to be honest, every league I've been in, that's been a rule. It's second nature for me, I haven't double checked, but I don't think I have a single person playing out of position. I have Berglund not taking faceoffs on the 2nd PP unit as I didn't think I could play Backes on the left wing but apparently I can....lol.

[Bruins_GM]

Why don't we just build the rosters and run computer lines for all 30 teams, at this rate.

[CapsGM]

I agree with Tim, if we're going to say no to defensemen playing F on PK (which is much more Ludacris) then a winger playing C, but we should restrict both. If C isn't their natural or alternate position they shouldn't be allowed to play there.

lol wut?

[SharksGM]

By that logic, and if we're going for realism, why does it have to be just non-forwards?

That's what I asked...

Although at this point, if there's any desire to change that part of the ruling (Adam having said he has no problem with it), it seems like it should be another thread/poll.

Personally, I think it would make more sense to just let all forwards play wherever, because forwards do move around from W to C occasionally and there's no in-game way to accomplish that. Although I don't think this option will be popular because many roster moves were made with the natural position restrictions in mind. Alternatively, some way to change the alternate positions of 1 or 2 forwards per season would be cool. Maybe only for younger players who aren't as set in their ways?

Does EHM even care if players play in their natural positions or not? Is there any noticeable difference in performance?

[Montreal Canadiens]

I agree with Tim, if we're going to say no to defensemen playing F on PK (which is much more Ludacris) then a winger playing C, but we should restrict both. If C isn't their natural or alternate position they shouldn't be allowed to play there.

lol wut?

lol when I was trying to type it correctly, windows 8 auto changed it for me to the rapper. Not complaining though, good taste.

by Bruins_GM » Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:44 pm

Why don't we just build the rosters and run computer lines for all 30 teams, at this rate.

Or we could just simply not play people out of position....................

[Jungle Cats]

Can I assign a forward to play goal for my AHL team?

Okay, so one point I've seen is that if we're gonna allow 3-(4?) defensemen on the kill, we oughta allow forwards at the point and forwards out of position, which... I mean, both those things happen more often. I can agree with that.

As far as the mood of over-ledgislation, I dunno, I think this might be for our own good here. I agree that strengthening the utility of sub-optimal players is always in the league's best interests, and I can suss the mood here is that encouraging diversity and innovation should be a goal, because obviously we all know what the game engine does and does not do well... so after a certain point, everyone plays the same way and builds the same type of team (or doesn't, but fails amicably. I willfully ignore how much EHM loves Hitting, and I've made peace with that.) After a certain point, there are only so many ways to go. And playing goaltenders out of position doesn't work as well as it theoretically (in a statistical model) should, drat and tarnation.

...so I'm not voting.

[Bruins_GM]

Or we could just simply not play people out of position....................

I was referring to folks complaining about any players out of their natural spot at all, but whatever floats your boat.

[TorontoGM]

Board activity is up %200.

Well done everyone.

[Parker]

A 99FO LW/RW playing center on the PP violates the rule as much as a defender on the PK.

You make an interesting point, but I disagree with this. I think a forward playing defense or a defender playing up is a LOT different from a forward playing on his off-wing or a winger playing at centre. The forward is still playing a forward position. To me that's a pretty significant distinction, but you may not agree.

[Commish Bub(NYR)]

Can I assign a forward to play goal for my AHL team?

You can if he's Jason Bacashihua.

[CapsGM]

I don't disagree with that. It's a lot easier to switch between center/winger or vice versa than it is to switch from forward to defense. But at the same time, numerous players have changed positions successfully. Fedorov, Byfuglien, Streit, Burns, are the obvious ones that come to mind. Of course, they're listed as defense and forward in the file. But it wasn't until their coaches put them in that position for them to gain that success. And there's plenty of wingers who have struggled adapting to center as well (i.e. Kane last year).

Realistically, NHL teams dress 11 F and 7 D on occasion. The extra defender often plays shifts on defense/at forward/both forward and defense on the PK in one game. EHM obviously doesn't allow this. EHM doesn't even allow players listed as defensemen to play forward at even strength. But it's happened in the NHL.

The rulebook should clarify any exceptions to the rule, as there's plenty of confusion about it.

[Jungle Cats]

Can I assign a forward to play goal for my AHL team?

You can if he's Jason Bacashihua.

oh, those were the days. those were the party days.

[Penguin]

Wingers often play center on the PK, but defensemen playing forward on the PK, never see that shit. Cut the crap boys. Defenseman not allowed forward on the PK that's it that's all.

As for position limitations on even strength (C/LW can only play C/LW), we should keep it the same. As it was said, everyone made moves based on that, it would screw everything up.

Ps. Quinn, who was the defense playing forward on the PK yesterday for the Avs?

[Virtual Jarmo]

The rulebook should clarify any exceptions to the rule, as there's plenty of confusion about it.

Hey, I tried to cover everything. I didn't realize we were going to devolve into an a bunch of school-aged children who tattle on each other.

If there's a competitive advantage being gained illegally, like with high FA defensemen taking faceoffs, that's certainly one thing. If a player in the NHL could only handle playing RW, he wouldn't be on the team for long.

If you want to argue that C/LW or C/RW forces you to address specific needs with players that fill that position and it makes it more difficult to construct a roster, it's a fair point to make.

Zaq and Quinn are right about restrictions forcing most teams into the same framework of lines. The draft classes have also left a lot of teams with very similar make-ups in terms of overall, OF, and DF team attributes. I don't know how to fix that. I'd love to, I really would. At some point, I have to be able to let you guys manage your own team the way you want. More rules won't allow that to happen.

[GM Office Q]

By that logic, and if we're going for realism, why does it have to be just non-forwards? LW/RW players (like Boedker/Kartayev) shouldn't be great faceoff guys as well. Why should it be any different if they're a natural winger versus a defenseman? Neither defensemen nor natural wingers players have nearly as much faceoff experience as a natural center in real life. There's tons of wingers who never take draws throughout their career. If you have Patrice Bergeron taking a faceoff against Ovechkin or Karlsson in real life, Bergeron will dominate both.

This is an excellent point. If we're going to set limits on who is actually taking faceoffs, why limit it to just defensemen? While we're at it, why don't we fix some of the prospects like Jamie Benn who are useless in EHEC but are valued in the NHL? Is it realistic that Benn is terrible? EHEC had players develop at their own pace, and we all knew what their attributes would be when we drafted them.

Hey, while we're talking about realism, why don't we ban underagers? Last time I checked, that's actually a rule.

And it's not hard to make the rule, it's just as we always thought - players can not play out of position - no matter what. And for people that complain that is too many rules, to be honest, every league I've been in, that's been a rule. It's second nature for me, I haven't double checked, but I don't think I have a single person playing out of position. I have Berglund not taking faceoffs on the 2nd PP unit as I didn't think I could play Backes on the left wing but apparently I can....lol.

Are you volunteering to babysit this rule then?

Why don't we just build the rosters and run computer lines for all 30 teams, at this rate.

This is exactly what will happen after we keep adding silly rules. Let the players play.

Wingers often play center on the PK, but defensemen playing forward on the PK, never see that shit. Cut the crap boys. Defenseman not allowed forward on the PK that's it that's all.

Bern! We've both been playing in many games where, at the time, the best four fresh players available to kill a penalty include three defensemen. Is it realistic that for all 60 minutes the lines never change? I've played hundreds of games in my life, and I'd say it's a coin flip whether the starting lineup remains the same throughout the game. Are you really saying this never happens? Another very realistic scenario is what Tim mentions below.

Realistically, NHL teams dress 11 F and 7 D on occasion. The extra defender often plays shifts on defense/at forward/both forward and defense on the PK in one game. EHM obviously doesn't allow this. EHM doesn't even allow players listed as defensemen to play forward at even strength. But it's happened in the NHL.

Ps. Quinn, who was the defense playing forward on the PK yesterday for the Avs?

Tim looked this up on a shift chart and it was indeed who I thought it was, Hunwick, O'Byrne, and Zanon. The shift lasted for 15-20 seconds and was played in the neutral/offensive zone with no attempt to change. To be fair, the Avs didn't intentionally ice three defesemen as it came after Hunwick's penalty expired. But I'm still taking credit for recalling this situation off the top of my head.

[Virtual Jarmo]

Hey, while we're talking about realism, why don't we ban underagers? Last time I checked, that's actually a rule.

By the CHL/NHL transfer agreement, there are a lot of rules, but a player that TURNS 20 before January 1 of the next calendar year is eligible to play. If they can convince a European player to come over, I believe he's fair game.

[Jungle Cats]

Beats the world-destroying PK combo of Hunwick-Barrie used when leading late in the third. Can't stop the tank.