Eastside's Hockey Elite Collide

Obviously, there have been some questions regarding the Lecavalier incident. Chris Thorburn (ATL) also received a career-ending injury this past season. They are definitely few and far between in real life in terms of on-ice career-ending injuries. Justin has asked to put it to a vote, and I think that's fair. He told me he will abstain from voting since it clearly benefits him the most.

This poll will close in 5 days.

free Vinny imo . I'll be here running TB regardless for a long time, but losing Vinny really sucks and I don't feel the "career ending injury" aspect of EHM is realistic and we have the power to change it. That feeling though might have something to do with losing my best player lol

I've always thought editting the injury to a long term injury instead of career ending was great idea.

I would like some feedback from those who voted. Explain what you voted and why.

Commissioner (CBJ) wrote:I would like some feedback from those who voted. Explain what you voted and why.

i'm a douchebag



(For the record, I have altered my vote to no after thinking about the cases brought up. There's good arguments on both sides and I like the sound of having a long term injury + variable length of extra "recovery" time + attribute devaluations. But at the same time, it is in the EHM code...)

Career injury happens in real life. They should definitely happen in EHEC. Why would we edit that ? It's part of the game... I don't get it.

Career ending injuries happen in real life? I can't recall any lately besides too many concussions which don't happen in EHM.

Any career ending injuries should just be changed to a indefinite injury (or 6 mnths) IMO.

Tampa Bay GM wrote:free Vinny imo . I'll be here running TB regardless for a long time, but losing Vinny really sucks and I don't feel the "career ending injury" aspect of EHM is realistic and we have the power to change it. That feeling though might have something to do with losing my best player lol

There are a lot of unrealistic things in EHM that we don't change, and I don't see a push to have 6 month injuries edited down. I don't see any evidence that these kinds of injuries happen 'too often' in EHM- if so, we should tone the injury slider down. But I think it's fine. Sure chest injuries don't usually force players into retirement, but head and knee injuries do all the time, or at least knock out players for years. Berard, Deadmarsh, Hackett, Keith Primeau, possibly Hiller and Savard this season, they're not that uncommon. Also players never suffer long-lasting effects from injuries in EHM - they always bounce back 100%.

Having said that, I'd probably be arguing the opposite if it was my own player, so editing it to an 8 month injury and maybe chopping off some sk/st/en sounds reasonable to me. Otherwise we're just randomly removing a subset of random events because...? I agree it's not fun to lose a key player forever, but neither are 3-6 month injuries and there's no debate about those.

What Nashville said.

When was the last time a player retired right after the game in which he got injured?

TorontoGM wrote:When was the last time a player retired right after the game in which he got injured?

This

SharksGM wrote:Having said that, I'd probably be arguing the opposite if it was my own player, so editing it to an 8 month injury and maybe chopping off some sk/st/en sounds reasonable to me. Otherwise we're just randomly removing a subset of random events because...? I agree it's not fun to lose a key player forever, but neither are 3-6 month injuries and there's no debate about those.

This is an intriguing idea and something I think I'm seriously going to consider depending on the poll results. It's very easy to do and highly realistic. Especially for indefinite/very long term injuries, say, 3M or more. Maybe even 2 months, but those could be a limited time kind of thing.

EHM supposedly has a built-in "extra 100 days" where the injury is far more likely to come back within the next 100 days. Not sure it's really relevant unless the player is very injury prone.

So far in this thread, I've tended to agree with the yes side. But, being a democracy and all...

I agree with San Jose - instead of a career ending injury, let's make it a finite amount of time (6-8 months?) with a decrease in some statistics to make it realistic.

Why would we change this? Well, we have the power in EHM to make any kind of reality we want - why wouldn't we take advantage of an opportunity to keep EHEC as close to the NHL as possible in terms of active star players? From another point of view, I think it would really take a lot of fun out of it if one of your star players that you worked hard to get all of a sudden wasn't available any more, especially if it occurs at a young age.

I too agree with SharksGM's comments. (Yeah, you have a name, but to me everyone's named "[Team] GM".) Some thoughts...

1. Sure, players rarely retire (or stop playing, even if they don't announce a retirement right away) immediately after an injury. All that means is that EHM has a clunky, simplified way of handling injuries. In other words, how often do you know a player is definitely out for 4 months after an injury? In real life, don't players sometimes come back early? Don't head injuries often linger for longer than originally hoped/suspected? EHM just has a simple, barbaric way of handling injuries: "Boom. You're out for 4 months." In real life, it would be "He'll be out for a few months, but maybe we'll get him back for the playoffs," or something of that sort.

2. I'm not comfortable with the argument "let's make EHM as close to possible regarding real star players." We addressed that somewhat at the beginning of the league with the pot/attribute bonuses. We continue to address that by adding real players into the draft. I think that's where it should stop. If, however, we were going to make that argument, then why stop there? I'd like to make Derek Stepan and John Carlson legit NHLers, like they are in real life. But I don't think it should happen because it's an amazing headache to do, and because if you're going to make undervalued EHMers better, then maybe you'd better make OVERvalued EHMers worse.

3. Having said all that....I do think AvsGM has an interesting point. If we're going to vote to eliminate career-ending injuries, then I would propose changing them to variable-end-date injuries. Change the injury to six months, and at the end of that period randomly determine any "extra" time -- from, say, zero to four more months -- to mirror the lingering effects of a long-term injury. You could alter attributes, but then that's one more thing for the Commish to keep track of. If you don't mind doing that, and there's a place to keep obvious track of that on the forums, then I say go for it.

I should expand a little on what I said last night. In general, I am very much opposed to rules for the sake of rules. For better or worse, the league decided to use EHM as their sim engine, despite its flaws. Some of these flaws required external correction to promote competitive balance but I don't think that is the case here. Every team is affected equally by the existence of career-ending injuries. A couple teams have actually HAD them, which is terrible luck for them, but they haven't been singled out or treated unfairly in any way. There is no way to control for bad luck, nor should we WANT to. Bad luck is part of the game, plain and simple. I would really rather just leave it at that.

I think EHEC is trying to do more then to just "promote competitive balance". One of the major reasons I enjoy being apart of the league is the realism factor and how close it is to being a real GM in the NHL. While injuries are done quite well in EHM, the career ending injuries are totally unrealistic. When have you ever heard of a player intending to hurt another player during a play, and subsequently cause an injury SO severe that it was announced immediately after the game that players career was over? Oh, and the offending player does not receive a suspension.

Steve Moore is the closest case I can find on the net (NHL) recently and even then iirc it wasn't know for weeks/months that he couldn't continue to play. In 1933 a player named “Ace” Bailey was hit from behind by Eddie Shore which caused a severe skull fracture and he never played again. I guess you could throw Brashear into this discussion as well, but the rest of these "career ending injuries" are mostly players suffering from multiple concussions. Paul Kariya, Adam Deadmarsh, Pat LaFontaine etc are cases where they suffered a concussion and continued playing with a diminished skill set (how diminished would be hard to determine) until more concussions occurred.

In all those situations not one had a post game press conference immediately after the first injury, announcing the players retirement. Afaik EHM doesn't decay attributes because of injury but the "100 days" theory where a player is more injury prone when returning from an injury might have some credibility, Lecav had been injured in January for 1M. I didn't vote because I stand to gain the most from this decision but I think there are some teams that also stand to benefit more then others. Teams in my division that have to play TB more then your average team are obv going to be inclined to vote Yes, I can respect that as a competitor but I think realism is more important then getting an edge.

Seem's were pretty split, maybe a compromise that certain LT injuries come with a skill set reduction but we eliminate the SNAP CALL career ending part? IMO, that be the most realistic.

I know it's not realistic, but as has been mentioned, there are a LOT of things in EHM that aren't realistic. I never said EHM was trying to promote competitive balance here; I'm not even sure what you meant by that, unless it was that I was implying Lecavalier received a career-ending injury because he plays for the top team in the league. What I said was that EHEC's supplementary rules are designed to promote competitive balance when EHM fails to do so internally. As I said, in this case, nobody is at an advantage or a disadvantage.

If you want realism, maybe the league should hold off on officially announcing that the injury is a career-ender until six months after the fact. Sure every GM already knows it's a career-ender, just like every GM knows exactly how well every single prospect is going to develop years before they even make it to the NHL. There is nothing at all realistic about that, but it's not like anyone is requesting that every prospect's POT, CON, and ceilings be randomly changed after the draft to make things more "realistic."

Perhaps we can still have a career ending injury, but why not roll the dice to see if it is. Have a set said of outcomes 1, 2 = 1 year ( it happens) 3 =9 months 4 Career ending 5= 6 months 6= 4months. - assuming a 6 sided die is cast. wouldn't that be something if we decided to get rid of them and Sid the Kid never plays another game? - never know - I don't think he'll be the same if he does. You look at other players Zholtok died on the ice, that Atlanta goalie collapsed - though he was ok, - Pat Lafontaine, Moore. It does happen but yeah it's pretty rare - hence the roll of the die. That way the computer isn't killing off players.

@ parker. You said in your earlier post that we correct some of EHM flaws in order to restore competitive balance. Imo, we should be fixing/adding to ensure the most realistic enviroment.

It's not a bad idea to edit the injury to IND and then decide at a later date, if the injury should be extended OR the player THEN retires. Maybe taking into account value to the team, age, injury proneness, etc.

Tampa Bay GM wrote:In all those situations not one had a post game press conference immediately after the first injury, announcing the players retirement. Afaik EHM doesn't decay attributes because of injury but the "100 days" theory where a player is more injury prone when returning from an injury might have some credibility, Lecav had been injured in January for 1M. I didn't vote because I stand to gain the most from this decision but I think there are some teams that also stand to benefit more then others. Teams in my division that have to play TB more then your average team are obv going to be inclined to vote Yes, I can respect that as a competitor but I think realism is more important then getting an edge.

Seem's were pretty split, maybe a compromise that certain LT injuries come with a skill set reduction but we eliminate the SNAP CALL career ending part? IMO, that be the most realistic.

For the record, as a division competitor I voted no. My gut feel, albeit simplistic, is what if it were player X [Gormley, Kane, Campbell etc.] on my team? I'd be willing to bet that most of us placed in Justin's shoes would be fighting tooth and nail to keep our star around too. Our league is setup in such a way that losing a star player is completely devastating. To which some of you would probably respond, that mirrors real life and injuries do happen.

Even with that in mind, I would argue two career ending injuries in one season is a bit excessive. A player like Thorburn I'm sure is of no consequence to anybody, myself included. Lecavalier's skill level is the only reason CEI are even being discussed at this point in time. As Pat mentioned before players such as Stepan and Carlson are nowhere near their real counterparts.

At EHEC's inception re-rates were also given to alleviate some of the file's weakness. My point being, I've scouted the file multiple times and I'd say the talent depth is shallow. Sure, some players may be overrated, but I believe the stinkers outweigh them. Future drafts, like 2010 for example, will certainly make this less of an issue. I'm just not sure star players completely vanishing is what the league needs right now. However, I wouldn't be averse to an extended injury and/or attribute changes.

Ya, at this point the situation is so miserable either way I just want it to be over. I can't prove I would vote "No" if it was another team's best player with a CEI, but I really think I would. When it happened to Thornburn with the time I have spent with EHM, CEI happen soooooo infrequently (i've only seen 5-6 and probably simmed 30+seasons) I just assumed it happening again in the near future or ever was highly improbable. I'm gonna try and not post in this thread again, I try'd my best to stay away but as Yoda says "Do or Do not. There is no try." Losing Vinny is a crushing blow this season and will change the path of my team completely going forward. Ty for the No's

I voted no, being an East team as well.

I voted yes, but I agree more that the Injury could simply be mitigated to a long-term injury with an unclear timetable for return... so actually I should have voted no. Best for Vinny to be gone for an unbearable (due to the speed of the league) length of time rather than for good, right?

Jungle Cats wrote:I voted yes, but I agree more that the Injury could simply be mitigated to a long-term injury with an unclear timetable for return... so actually I should have voted no. Best for Vinny to be gone for an unbearable (due to the speed of the league) length of time rather than for good, right?

Lol, let the record state FLA meant no!

Unfortunately, people have been changing their votes this entire time. Changing their minds back and forth based on the evidence presented in the thread. I'll likely have to have everyone PM their vote and go from there. Unless I finally fixed it in the forums admin CP to not allow you guys to change your vote, but, based on the fact that you still can, something still isn't right.

I voted YES. In my opinion,

1) CEI adds some fun. Got the whole league to talk and I even put Vinny in my sig!
2) We have to stop creating rules.
3) Concussions don't exist in EHM. Want Adam to call Risto Remes to make a new version of EHM with concussions to make our league more realistic?
4) And, even then.. Pacioretty's career almost ended last month, so it is very plausible that careers can end with injuries other than a concussion. Obviously it's not announced right after the game, but again EHM doesn't have that feature.

I'd swear my fucking asshole off if Cody Hodgson would take a slapshot to the neck and die on the ice, but I honestly would take it as a challenge and wouldn't say a word. Just go back to two years ago, Luc Bourdon died in a motorcycle accident. Did the Canucks dig him out of his grave so he can play again?

Seriously.. Leave EHM alone.

Completely changing the contract aspect of the game was just fineeeeeeeeeeeee, but editting stupid and RANDOM career ending injures to long term injuries? OH MY GOD when will the madness end?!? Yall confuse me.

Career ending injuries are random! Unless you think there are NHL players who are career ending injury prone...

Erik Cole could have had his career ended a few years back when he broke his neck, and that's not too far from your chest unless you're a giraffe or Tyler Myers.

I just think EHM is random, especially since it didn't suspend Staal.

Brooks Orpik hitting Erik Cole into the boards from behind isn't random, it's just dumb which is Orpik's middle name.

Good point Pittsburgh..

Seriously, just take it as a challenge and let's stop editing random things that happens 1-2 times a season.

Geez Tampa, you won the cup in year 1 and finished first this season. Are you that afraid of challenge ?

SharksGM wrote:Career ending injuries are random! Unless you think there are NHL players who are career ending injury prone...

This was a great matter for debate on fhockey.com forums a few years back, when it was reported by several people that Eric Lindros had suffered a career-ending head injury in their sims.

The Lindros thing could just be a coincidence. On the other hand, I am confident that the player's injury attribute does affect not just the frequency of injuries but also the severity; in over a hundred seasons of simming over the years I've seen maybe twenty career-enders, and only two were to players with an injury attribute above 60.

Ya your right NAS, I even think we should institute a "cei" clause where the best team each year loses there best player forever. So everyone can have as much fun as I will! But seriously idc at this point, but with the current injury settings and the amount of injuries/CEI this year I woudn't be surprised if we had another one in the next few seasons. Someone else (not as contending team) might have to deal with a similar situation that devastes a team entirely. What will happen then? We'd have this poor little orphan team no one wants to run that goes 4-78 the next 3 seasons.

Two career-ending injuries in one season is an outlier, not a trend. We didn't have any in 2009-10, and I doubt we'll have any next season either. It's just terrible luck, and that's all it is. If this league starts putting rules in place to counteract bad luck, then I want a rule where every game I've lost against an inferior team gets resimmed beacause I should've won that game and it was only bad luck that I didn't. Also, every prospect I have with poor ceilings should be re-rated because that's bad luck too.

I'm being sarcastic, obviously, but I think this illustrates the fact that luck plays a big part in the simulation, just like it does in the real NHL. Very realistic, if you ask me.

Also, the idea that there would ever be a team in this league that has only one single asset in their entire system, frankly, is laughable. We've already had one instance of a GM being removed and his transactions reversed because of incompetence and intentional tanking, so this could not happen. A team bad enough to go 4-78 is going to have a lot of elite prospects and high draft picks in their system, so the organization would still present good value to a GM who enjoys rebuilding. Not everyone needs to step into an existing powerhouse to enjoy their league experience.

Parker wrote:Two career-ending injuries in one season is an outlier, not a trend. We didn't have any in 2009-10, and I doubt we'll have any next season either. It's just terrible luck, and that's all it is. If this league starts putting rules in place to counteract bad luck, then I want a rule where every game I've lost against an inferior team gets resimmed beacause I should've won that game and it was only bad luck that I didn't. Also, every prospect I have with poor ceilings should be re-rated because that's bad luck too.

I'm being sarcastic, obviously, but I think this illustrates the fact that luck plays a big part in the simulation, just like it does in the real NHL. Very realistic, if you ask me.

This is an excellent post. And very correct.

Everybody has had to work with the hand that they've been dealt, whether it be from the ceilings generated at the start of the file or the randomness of EHM injuries. I've done what I can to re-rate some guys at file startup, made the 2010 Draft Class better than it realistically was to provide an influx of talent, and tried my best to fix the financial shortcomings of the simulator.

I have to be honest, I did this hoping to generate discussion, not really concerned one way or another with the outcome. It's definitely done its job.

To Tommy's point about if this hadn't happened to a star player, it wouldn't be discussed is completely right. The more I think about it, the more it's, for lack of a better word, hypocritical to ignore Thorburn's but then to see if a rule change is necessary solely because it happened to a good player. I know the response I'm going to get to this point, but if we never had entertained the thought from the start, to do so now is short-sighted.

How many careers would have been lost without the medical technology of the real world? There's no way EHM can attempt to simulate that. Reconstructive surgeries, better concussion protocols, and other advances have been able to prolong careers and keep guys playing who maybe would not have. Do players stop playing from one injury? Almost never, which is the point of contention here, and I get that.


I wanted to stay out of the discussion as long as possible, because I don't want to sway any votes one way or another. I can see both sides of the argument and, again, I will not have a documented vote unless I need to break a tie.

That said, for those advocating an indefinite injury and then a decision later on the future of his career, what is my basis for that decision? I know exactly how long he is supposed to be hurt. At what point can I justify telling Justin that Lecavalier is retiring. Because he will ask why. And I'll have no answer. Using a random number generator with a 60-40 chance of him retiring is no different from allowing the randomness of EHM to take its course.

To alter attributes, what do I do? Make Lecavalier's endurance 34 because of a chest injury and increase his injury-proneness? Then what? How EHM spins the wheel and decides which body part gets injured is weird. Do I assume he broke his sternum and lower his stickhandling because the injury altered his range of motion? We're getting in to a lot of hypotheticals that aren't necessarily explainable. If we're talking a knee, I can make him a bad skater with poor endurance and lower his positioning, I guess. But with a chest injury?

One could argue that, a la Vladimir Konstantinov, the random nature of a CEI is no different from something that happens off the ice like a Luc Bourdon incident. Since, EHM has no way of simulating the day-to-day nature of life before and after a game.



Then to the side voting against allowing CEIs, their point is valid. How many one hit career-ending circumstances are there? Maybe the kid who broke his neck playing college hockey. Steve Moore is another. Tony Granato had to retire from a hit from behind into the boards. Beyond that, 97-98% of guys who get injured in a game come back and play at some point again, especially if they're only 30 like Lecavalier. They may not play at the same level, but they do come back.

How exactly does somebody get an intent to injure penalty from a chest injury? Did he Alexander Perezhogin two-hand Lecavalier in the chest? Board him from behind? We have no idea. But, there's no basis for me to manually suspend Staal because the league rulebook only addresses headshots to simulate the NHL's policy and it is written that we use EHM's random suspension policy. I can't make every ItI penalty a suspension. That's just EHM's way of explaining injuries. What's the last intent-to-injure penalty we saw in the NHL? Is it fair that Staal walks because we have no idea what actually happened and Lecavalier has to retire?

Do we make a subsequent ruling that any long-term injury as a result of an I-t-I penalty is a suspension? I don't like that idea at all.

There's a point where I agree that we have to stop trying to take EHM in to our own hands and compensate for every individual shortcoming. This may be that point.

Tampa Bay GM wrote:Ya your right NAS, I even think we should institute a "cei" clause where the best team each year loses there best player forever. So everyone can have as much fun as I will!

Tampa Bay GM wrote: But seriously idc at this point, but with the current injury settings and the amount of injuries/CEI this year I woudn't be surprised if we had another one in the next few seasons. Someone else (not as contending team) might have to deal with a similar situation that devastes a team entirely. What will happen then? We'd have this poor little orphan team no one wants to run that goes 4-78 the next 3 seasons.

I dont think losing a guy to a CEI can destruct a team. It's like losing a good player to the UFA market... Was the amount of injuries this year that bad ? Much worst than what happened in the NHL this year ?? I don't think so..

NashvilleGM wrote:

Tampa Bay GM wrote:Ya your right NAS, I even think we should institute a "cei" clause where the best team each year loses there best player forever. So everyone can have as much fun as I will!

Tampa Bay GM wrote: But seriously idc at this point, but with the current injury settings and the amount of injuries/CEI this year I woudn't be surprised if we had another one in the next few seasons. Someone else (not as contending team) might have to deal with a similar situation that devastes a team entirely. What will happen then? We'd have this poor little orphan team no one wants to run that goes 4-78 the next 3 seasons.

I dont think losing a guy to a CEI can destruct a team. It's like losing a good player to the UFA market... Was the amount of injuries this year that bad ? Much worst than what happened in the NHL this year ?? I don't think so..

I'm pretty sure if we lost Taylor Hall, we wouldn't have a winning season for 4-5 years.

TorontoGM wrote:I'm pretty sure if we lost Taylor Hall, we wouldn't have a winning season for 4-5 years.

Maybe if you managed your team like Brian Burke does!

CapsGM wrote:

TorontoGM wrote:I'm pretty sure if we lost Taylor Hall, we wouldn't have a winning season for 4-5 years.

Maybe if you managed your team like Brian Burke does!

hahahahaha I try.

I'd love to see the reaction if this was Taylor Hall instead of Vinny. My team would be devastated and it would cripple my rebuilding efforts which I do not enjoy(Who the fuck enjoys rebulding anyways?).

TorontoGM wrote:

CapsGM wrote:

TorontoGM wrote:I'm pretty sure if we lost Taylor Hall, we wouldn't have a winning season for 4-5 years.

Maybe if you managed your team like Brian Burke does!

hahahahaha I try.

I'd love to see the reaction if this was Taylor Hall instead of Vinny. My team would be devastated and it would cripple my rebuilding efforts which I do not enjoy(Who the fuck enjoys rebulding anyways?).

Oh Mike, I did not thought you were rebuilding, I just thought you sucked

NashvilleGM wrote:

TorontoGM wrote:

CapsGM wrote:

TorontoGM wrote:I'm pretty sure if we lost Taylor Hall, we wouldn't have a winning season for 4-5 years.

Maybe if you managed your team like Brian Burke does!

hahahahaha I try.

I'd love to see the reaction if this was Taylor Hall instead of Vinny. My team would be devastated and it would cripple my rebuilding efforts which I do not enjoy(Who the fuck enjoys rebulding anyways?).

Oh Mike, I did not thought you were rebuilding, I just thought you sucked

Same shit.

TorontoGM wrote:
I'm pretty sure if we lost Taylor Hall, we wouldn't have a winning season for 4-5 years.

is that a shot at the Oil who did loose Hall to injury - getting his first Gordie Howe Trick...

Just wanted to say regardless of the decision I'm happy theres a league as cool as EHEC and hold zero ill will towards anyone about this. I was fing dealing with morons in my fantasy league around the time of some of those posts, may have come across as seriously tilted. Good luck to everyone this playoffs

Tampa Bay GM wrote:Just wanted to say regardless of the decision I'm happy theres a league as cool as EHEC and hold zero ill will towards anyone about this. I was fing dealing with morons in my fantasy league around the time of some of those posts, may have come across as seriously tilted. Good luck to everyone this playoffs

Good sport.

Penguin wrote:Good sport.

Agreed. TB has my vote for GM of the Year for taking this crushing blow in such a mature and respectful way. I doubt I'd be half as composed if it happened to me.

There's no majority vote eithe way ---- hmm what to do, what to do.

Montreal Canadiens wrote:There's no majority vote eithe way ---- hmm what to do, what to do.

Justin asked me what we'd do if there's a tie. I told him I have the deciding vote.

No pressure!

I voted no because like I said I don't think this is a particularly fun or realistic mechanic.

About the fact that it's a chest injury, it seems unlikely that EHM does anything more sophisticated than picking a random body part to injure. I wouldn't worry about the suspension of disbelief here unless you really want to edit out any injuries that seem 'unrealistic'.

I think it would be more fun (less unfun to the GM of the injured player) and more realistic to give a long recovery period. Even if it was just an 8 month injury followed by a 50% chance of full recovery I think that would be better than the status quo. I think attribute decreases are more reasonable because they're in principle recoverable and realistic (e.g. - Erik Cole came back from his broken neck after less than a year, but it took him over 2 seasons to get back to being even half as effective as he was prior to the injury). Hell, who knows what will happen to Crosby, Pacioretty, Perron, Hiller, Savard, etc. if/when they come back.

Endurance, strength and skating seem reasonable candidates to me because if it's really a 6 month injury it's typically going to be something that prevents full workouts. Maybe positioning, since it takes practice to keep up? Shooting and stickhandling are possible, I guess, although I can't think of any NHLer that completely lost their shot/stickhandling ability after a non-wrist injury. Playmaking and checking are mental things I don't think players typically lose.