HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Kings vs. Predators - 03/15/11 - POSTGAME THOUGHTS & TIDBITS

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2011, 06:21 PM
  #126
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattro View Post
Amazing, considering Terry Murray can't coach and Dustin Brown is a terrible captain.
It says more about how horrible this franchise has been over 40+ years.

Of course, everyone will point out that there wasn't a shootout before and the Kings have 7 extra wins already.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 06:26 PM
  #127
Puck U
2012 SC CHAMPIONS !
 
Puck U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Apple Valley, CA.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattro View Post
Amazing, considering Terry Murray can't coach and Dustin Brown is a terrible captain.
And that Kopitar is the next Olli Jokinen, and that Smyth and Handzus are both too old and too slow to be NHL players anymore, and that Scuderi blows, and Doughty is a Fatty w/ attitude problems that needs a haircut, and that Jack Johnson is terrible defensively and will forever be a minus player, and that Quick is a mediocre goalie at best, and that our power play sucks ass, and that Stoll is a beer league player not a 'TRUE' 2nd line center in the NHL, and ... I know I'm forgetting something dammit .... oh and how Willie Mitchell is one hit away from retirement, and how Justin 'Mr. Glass' Williams will never ever play a full season ... oh how Jamie Kopon should be fired, Terry Murray should be fired, Dean Lombardi should be fired, AEG should be fired, errrrrr I mean sell the team to someone who REALLY cares about Hockey ... and nope I still feel like I'm forgetting something ? ummmmmmmm, ahhhh, ummmmmm something .... someone wanna help me here ?

Puck U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 06:32 PM
  #128
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck U View Post
....? ummmmmmmm, ahhhh, ummmmmm something .... someone wanna help me here ?
Cammy really wanted to stay in LA and Dean drove him out of town!

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 06:35 PM
  #129
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibleedkings View Post
Couple of eye poppers from Hammond

The Kings won their 40th game of the season and have recorded back-to-back 40-win seasons for the first time in franchise history. This is the eighth 40-win season in franchise history.
... This is revisionist B.S. from Hammond, misleading and dishonest. The Kings are 33-28-9 this season without the shootout, and they were 36-28-18 last season without it. To call this the "best two year period in Kings history", which is what he's obviously implying, is not correct. The Kings won 80 games in two seasons from 1974-76, and 81 games from 1990-92. This season's team would have to go 11-2 or 12-1 the rest of the way, with all of the wins coming in regulation or OT, just to match that.

The Kings haven't had an actual 40-win season since 2001-02, when they were 40-31-11, and they've had five 40-win seasons, not eight.

It's embarrassing for those employed by the Kings' organization to put out incorrect "facts" like this, to let a silly gimmick like the shootout completely change the perspective of the team's history. This is what leads to dumb statements like "Quick is the best goalie the Kings have had since Vachon because wow look at all those wins" when over 20% of Quick's wins have come in shootouts and those would have been ties for the goalies who played before he did.

All I'm saying is - if they're going to compare current teams and players to those in the past, do it right and do it honestly.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 06:51 PM
  #130
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... This is revisionist B.S. from Hammond, misleading and dishonest. The Kings are 33-28-9 this season without the shootout, and they were 36-28-18 last season without it. To call this the "best two year period in Kings history", which is what he's obviously implying, is not correct. The Kings won 80 games in two seasons from 1974-76, and 81 games from 1990-92. This season's team would have to go 11-2 or 12-1 the rest of the way, with all of the wins coming in regulation or OT, just to match that.

The Kings haven't had an actual 40-win season since 2001-02, when they were 40-31-11, and they've had five 40-win seasons, not eight.

It's embarrassing for those employed by the Kings' organization to put out incorrect "facts" like this, to let a silly gimmick like the shootout completely change the perspective of the team's history. This is what leads to dumb statements like "Quick is the best goalie the Kings have had since Vachon because wow look at all those wins" when over 20% of Quick's wins have come in shootouts and those would have been ties for the goalies who played before he did.

All I'm saying is - if they're going to compare current teams and players to those in the past, do it right and do it honestly.
WooHoo!

Two 40-win seasons in a row!

FanSince2014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 06:52 PM
  #131
Quattro
Registered User
 
Quattro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 3,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Of course, everyone will point out that there wasn't a shootout before and the Kings have 7 extra wins already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... This is revisionist B.S. from Hammond, misleading and dishonest. The Kings are 33-28-9 this season without the shootout, and they were 36-28-18 last season without it. To call this the "best two year period in Kings history", which is what he's obviously implying, is not correct. The Kings won 80 games in two seasons from 1974-76, and 81 games from 1990-92. This season's team would have to go 11-2 or 12-1 the rest of the way, with all of the wins coming in regulation or OT, just to match that.

The Kings haven't had an actual 40-win season since 2001-02, when they were 40-31-11, and they've had five 40-win seasons, not eight.

It's embarrassing for those employed by the Kings' organization to put out incorrect "facts" like this, to let a silly gimmick like the shootout completely change the perspective of the team's history. This is what leads to dumb statements like "Quick is the best goalie the Kings have had since Vachon because wow look at all those wins" when over 20% of Quick's wins have come in shootouts and those would have been ties for the goalies who played before he did.

All I'm saying is - if they're going to compare current teams and players to those in the past, do it right and do it honestly.

Quattro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:01 PM
  #132
Winger23
Registered User
 
Winger23's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
This is what leads to dumb statements like "Quick is the best goalie the Kings have had since Vachon because wow look at all those wins" when over 20% of Quick's wins have come in shootouts and those would have been ties for the goalies who played before he did.
I think you are just upset that you have to admit Quick is far better in the shootout than Bernier and that bothers you.

Winger23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:08 PM
  #133
Tonellisghost
WE ARE THE KINGS!!!!
 
Tonellisghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: twillingate NFLD
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
Sorry but under todays rules the Kings do actually have back to back 40 game win seasons. That is what Hammond was saying and it is in fact true.

Now if we want to go back and compare what our wins vs losses are under the old system then its obviously off but then if we are going to do that then lets start trying to factor in the effect of other rules on the outcome of games (the instigator rule, the red line, the trap etc) because they too have had an effect on every teams win loss record to some extent.

The rules have actually changed so I would be all for making an identification as to pre/post rule change when establishing records but I wouldn't say that anyone was deliberately being misleading.

Tonellisghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:13 PM
  #134
Live in the Now
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Live in the Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,554
vCash: 1888
Wins are wins. Simple as that. Both teams are playing on level playing fields. We all know they're different, but they're still 40 win seasons. Sure the shootout helped us along that path, but it doesn't really matter.

Live in the Now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:25 PM
  #135
ZJames
Registered User
 
ZJames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dont worry about it
Country: United States
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... This is revisionist B.S. from Hammond, misleading and dishonest. The Kings are 33-28-9 this season without the shootout, and they were 36-28-18 last season without it. To call this the "best two year period in Kings history", which is what he's obviously implying, is not correct. The Kings won 80 games in two seasons from 1974-76, and 81 games from 1990-92. This season's team would have to go 11-2 or 12-1 the rest of the way, with all of the wins coming in regulation or OT, just to match that.

The Kings haven't had an actual 40-win season since 2001-02, when they were 40-31-11, and they've had five 40-win seasons, not eight.

It's embarrassing for those employed by the Kings' organization to put out incorrect "facts" like this, to let a silly gimmick like the shootout completely change the perspective of the team's history. This is what leads to dumb statements like "Quick is the best goalie the Kings have had since Vachon because wow look at all those wins" when over 20% of Quick's wins have come in shootouts and those would have been ties for the goalies who played before he did.

All I'm saying is - if they're going to compare current teams and players to those in the past, do it right and do it honestly.
This is the new NHL, and shootouts are a part of the regular season now, no matter how controversial they are. So by the standards of the new NHL, the Kings have had back to back 40 win seasons.

ZJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:37 PM
  #136
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonellisghost View Post
Sorry but under todays rules the Kings do actually have back to back 40 game win seasons. That is what Hammond was saying and it is in fact true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Wins are wins. Simple as that. Both teams are playing on level playing fields. We all know they're different, but they're still 40 win seasons. Sure the shootout helped us along that path, but it doesn't really matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZJames View Post
This is the new NHL, and shootouts are a part of the regular season now, no matter how controversial they are. So by the standards of the new NHL, the Kings have had back to back 40 win seasons.
... Hey thanks for completely missing the point of my post and instead telling me **** I already knew!

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:38 PM
  #137
Puck U
2012 SC CHAMPIONS !
 
Puck U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Apple Valley, CA.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Cammy really wanted to stay in LA and Dean drove him out of town!
Well THAT one IS true ... duh !

Puck U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:46 PM
  #138
Nex06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck U View Post
Well THAT one IS true ... duh !
True, but only with 6 million per season in his pocket.

Nex06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:47 PM
  #139
Puck U
2012 SC CHAMPIONS !
 
Puck U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Apple Valley, CA.
Country: United States
Posts: 8,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Hey thanks for completely missing the point of my post and instead telling me **** I already knew!
Obviously from your posts you DIDn't know it ... or cared to ignore it at least, so as to support your agenda ... but hey facts are facts, unless you don't like 'em that is ... then say "well yeah, that MAY be true and all, but since I don't like those facts, here let me substitute my own reality into the conversation so I can prove my point that Bernier is the bestest Goalie EVER' and look smart" .... wooo hooo ... look at me ... I'm almost as famous now as prancing boy btw nuttin but love for ya JT you know you're my boy, not in a gay way like the poster who luv's him some Lewis and Toffoli though ... completely in a hetro way


Puck U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 07:47 PM
  #140
ZJames
Registered User
 
ZJames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dont worry about it
Country: United States
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Hey thanks for completely missing the point of my post and instead telling me **** I already knew!
Chill man, im not attacking you. In your post you said its BS that the kings have back to back 40 win seasons. Im just saying that they do indeed have back to back 40's.

ZJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 08:18 PM
  #141
Tonellisghost
WE ARE THE KINGS!!!!
 
Tonellisghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: twillingate NFLD
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,729
vCash: 500
"This is revisionist history B.S. from Hammond, misleading and dishonest."

What part of your point did we miss? You said "The Kings are 33-28-9 this season without the shootout, and they were 36-28-18 last season without it". You are saying that prior to the rule change our record would be different and I and others have posted that it doesn't matter because the rule changes *have* happened.

I also don't think that what you have said about Hammond is right. I would say that he has had some of his facts wrong at times but I wouldn't say that he knowingly decided to be deceptive.

Your point was that we have had better stretches during our history and I am pretty sure we all "got" what you were saying. The rules have changed like it or not and this is the way things are until they change again.

So, prior to the rule changes the Kings did have other periods of time where they won at least 40 games but Hammonds point was that it is the first time in our history that we have won back to back 40 games in a row.

I think the rule change sucks but so what?

It happened.

We got it

so what?

Tonellisghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 08:21 PM
  #142
s3machine*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hyphy, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nex06 View Post
True, but only with 6 million per season in his pocket.
Lets take look at good ol' Mikey...

Michael Calamari (sauteed with onions yum!) has a cap hit of 6 mil per year..

He wont crack over 50 points again for the 2nd season in a row...

He is going to miss close to a quarter of the season again for the the 2nd consecutive year..

Hes a headcase.

missing 25% of the season.. netting 50 points.. and making 6 mil per year.. with 3 years left on the deal after this season!?.. all while being annoying as ****?

Would I want this guy in my lineup? ::

Good riddance chump

P.S. .. your not in Los Angeles anymore Dorothy.. keep up this crap for another season and the Montreal Press will chip away at your soul and run you out of town.

Good luck Cammmmmmmmmmmmmmy. You jerk off.


Last edited by s3machine*: 03-16-2011 at 09:50 PM.
s3machine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 08:30 PM
  #143
TonySCV
Moderator
One More Time
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 12,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Hey thanks for completely missing the point of my post and instead telling me **** I already knew!
They "got" your point. They're just rejecting it.

We'd have asterisks all over every record if we used rules of the past to interpret results today. The regular seasons were shorter in the past, teams played fewer games, there were fewer teams, there used to be no OT period, etc, etc. Records are established based on present-day rules. Always have been. Always will be.

Your Hammond comments aren't worth dignifying with a response.

It's sad you found it necessary to ***** about something and rile up fans in spite of all of the Kings success of late.

__________________
"In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened." - Vin Scully being clairvoyant in 1988.

The Los Angeles Kings - 2012 Stanley Cup Champions

Last edited by TonySCV: 03-16-2011 at 08:48 PM.
TonySCV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 08:31 PM
  #144
ZJames
Registered User
 
ZJames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dont worry about it
Country: United States
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3machine View Post
Lets take look at good ol' Mikey...

Michael Calamari (sauteed with onions yum!) has a cap hit of 6 mil per year..

He wont crack over 50 points again for the 2nd season in a row...

He is going to miss close to a quarter of the season again for the the 2nd consecutive year..

Hes a headcase.

missing 25% of the season.. netting 50 points.. and making 6 mil per year.. with 3 years left on the deal after this season!?.. all while being annoying as ****?

Would I want this guy in my lineup? ::

Good riddance chump

P.S. .. your not in Los Angeles anymore Dorothy.. keep up this crap for another season the Montreal Press will chip away at your soul and run you out of town.

Good luck Cammmmmmmmmmmmmmy. You jerk off.

ZJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 09:29 PM
  #145
Live in the Now
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Live in the Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,554
vCash: 1888
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Hey thanks for completely missing the point of my post and instead telling me **** I already knew!
I get your point. I also think you're wrong. Did the NHL stop handing out two points all of a sudden? Are shootout wins counted as wins?

Live in the Now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 09:39 PM
  #146
s3machine*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hyphy, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
why all the animosity?

We are on one of the best runs in franchise history.. about to take the division lead. We are a very dangerous hockey club right now.. and will be for many, many years to come.

We all bat for the same team.. All I can say is enjoy this fellas!

smile

s3machine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 10:06 PM
  #147
s3machine*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hyphy, CA
Country: Armenia
Posts: 465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... This is revisionist B.S. from Hammond, misleading and dishonest. The Kings are 33-28-9 this season without the shootout, and they were 36-28-18 last season without it. To call this the "best two year period in Kings history", which is what he's obviously implying, is not correct. The Kings won 80 games in two seasons from 1974-76, and 81 games from 1990-92. This season's team would have to go 11-2 or 12-1 the rest of the way, with all of the wins coming in regulation or OT, just to match that.

The Kings haven't had an actual 40-win season since 2001-02, when they were 40-31-11, and they've had five 40-win seasons, not eight.

It's embarrassing for those employed by the Kings' organization to put out incorrect "facts" like this, to let a silly gimmick like the shootout completely change the perspective of the team's history. This is what leads to dumb statements like "Quick is the best goalie the Kings have had since Vachon because wow look at all those wins" when over 20% of Quick's wins have come in shootouts and those would have been ties for the goalies who played before he did.

All I'm saying is - if they're going to compare current teams and players to those in the past, do it right and do it honestly.

eh.. I don't like your goaltender argument... Here is why.. You can argue it both ways.. You can also say that the game was different back then.. A lot more clutching and grabbing.. Defensive traps. No delay of game penalties.. no instigator penalties.. Goalies could play the puck anywhere... Forwards/Snipers weren't as evolved as they are today.. There were less teams so there was less travel involved.. So you could say that it might have been easier for goaltenders to actually pick up wins back then.. Easier to pickup shutouts back then.. and so forth..

I would say with all these factors lead to a wash out so you cant discredit goaltender wins today just because a shootout is involved.. plus.. its hard to discredit a goaltender for shootout wins when they are the main attraction in the shootout itself.. Also starting goaltenders played a lot more games back then.. You wouldn't see the backups getting as much action as they do today.. so in turn they had more chances to win games then the starters do today.. and again.. if you add the shootout victories of the goaltenders today vs the more action the starters of yesterday saw.. I would say its a wash again.

Just my .02

s3machine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 10:32 PM
  #148
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
They "got" your point. They're just rejecting it.
... That's mildly interesting. Besides, it looked to me like they posted "hey a win's a win and those are the rules now" whereupon I replied "hey no ****, sherlock."

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
We'd have asterisks all over every record if we used rules of the past to interpret results today. The regular seasons were shorter in the past, teams played fewer games, there were fewer teams, there used to be no OT period, etc, etc. Records are established based on present-day rules. Always have been. Always will be.
... See? Just like this one, where immediately I think "hey no **** sherlock, you mean to tell me that rules change within the sport over time? no ****in way!"

If you think it's perfectly legit to compare W-L records one-to-one to seasons past where there was no shootout and no three-point games, and then to use a line like "hey the season used to be 80 games or 74 games so yeah rules change this is totally legit" as your rationalization, then cool. I don't choose to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
Your Hammond comments aren't worth dignifying with a response.
... Then here's an idea! If that's how you feel, then don't respond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
It's sad you found it necessary to ***** about something and rile up fans in spite of all of the Kings success of late.
... It's sad that you can't or won't accept a perfectly legitimate criticism of something misleading at best and dishonest at worst, something that's written deliberately to be an eye-opener.

I guess it would be technically correct as well that the Kings have won 17 shootouts in the past two seasons, MOST EVER in Kings history, right? But that doesn't catch the eye as much as saying the Kings have won 40 games for two seasons in a row for the FIRST TIME in Kings history, does it?

You know pretty well that I've been happy with the recent results this team has posted. I find it a bit silly and humorous that some need to latch onto some misleading numbers in order to feel a few warm fuzzies about the team right now. 40 wins in a season used to mean something - elite, or pretty close to it. Now, 40 wins squeaks a team into the playoffs, and in fact the Kings could miss the playoffs this season despite posting 40 wins. That would not have been possible before 2005, would it? So, do me a favor and spare me the condescending lecture, OK? Thanks!

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 10:44 PM
  #149
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3machine View Post
eh.. I don't like your goaltender argument... Here is why.. You can argue it both ways.. You can also say that the game was different back then.. A lot more clutching and grabbing.. Defensive traps. No delay of game penalties.. no instigator penalties.. Goalies could play the puck anywhere... Forwards/Snipers weren't as evolved as they are today..
... Aren't goaltenders more evolved now than they were before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by s3machine View Post
There were less teams so there was less travel involved..
... Hasn't travel become easier now, with a couple more teams in California, one in Colorado, one in Arizona, and another in Texas?

Quote:
Originally Posted by s3machine View Post
Also starting goaltenders played a lot more games back then.. You wouldn't see the backups getting as much action as they do today.. so in turn they had more chances to win games then the starters do today
... They played a lot more games back then? Backups didn't get as much action? Do you have any examples to prove this argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by s3machine View Post
Just my .02
... Cool story bro!

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 11:04 PM
  #150
ZJames
Registered User
 
ZJames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dont worry about it
Country: United States
Posts: 521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
You know pretty well that I've been happy with the recent results this team has posted. I find it a bit silly and humorous that some need to latch onto some misleading numbers in order to feel a few warm fuzzies about the team right now. 40 wins in a season used to mean something - elite, or pretty close to it. Now, 40 wins squeaks a team into the playoffs, and in fact the Kings could miss the playoffs this season despite posting 40 wins. That would not have been possible before 2005, would it? So, do me a favor and spare me the condescending lecture, OK? Thanks!
You say that 40 wins used to be a sign of an elite team? Well now the elite teams are fringing on 50 win seasons. Between the shootout and the more competitive league, you are naturally going to see more wins. I dont feel its a discredit to a team or a goalie, its just part of the evolution of the sport.

ZJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.