HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Qualitative +/- Ratings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-20-2013, 11:48 PM
  #1
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
2012-13 Qualitative +/- Ratings

Find last year's results here.

The concept

The basic idea of Subjective +/- is very simple: we assign +/- to players based on their actions, rather than their circumstances.

The single fundamental problem with standard +/- is that it is linked to events that have no direct relation to the scoring of goals -- a player gets a + or - regardless of where he was on the ice, or what he was doing. This creates all kinds of problems for the stat, but the bottom line is that it doesn't actually tell you anything about how well or poorly a player has performed. It simply tells you that certain events happened and he was on the ice at the time. This project is an attempt to generate data that actually measures performance in a rationally subjective manner.


The rules

1) Assignment of pluses and minuses is based upon our collective evaluation. We must identify a direct link between a player's actions and the scoring of a goal in order for a point to be assigned.

2) A "plus" is assigned when a player actually contributes to a goal by his actions (or, rarely, by his non-actions). This could be as subtle as a screen or pick away from the puck, but it must have a tangible impact upon the sequence of events that lead directly to the goal.

3) A "minus" is assigned when a player actually contributes to a goal-against by his actions (or, often, by his non-actions). A "minus" is not necessarily related to defensive play; offensive errors which lead directly to a goal against, such as own-goals and turnovers in front of the net, may count as minuses.

4) Only goals scored at even strength will be counted. Unlike standard +/-, SH goals are ignored.

5) Goals scored in the immediate sequence of events following the end of a power play will not be counted, even if they are technically ES goals. The idea is that a team is still essentially shorthanded for a few seconds after a penalty ends.

6) Empty net goals will not be counted.

7) Goals that are judged to be the fault of the goaltender will not be counted. The idea is to hold players responsible for things that are reasonably under their control.


Procedure

I will review each game and post an initial summary of points awarded. This is intended to be a draft, not a final judgment. To the best of my ability, a video showing full replays of each goal will also be posted.

All forumers are welcome and encouraged to review the video and note any potential errors or omissions. This crowd-sourcing of our data ensures that it is valid and useful. Please speak up if you see something that needs to be changed!

If there is a substantial amount of disagreement over a point, it will go in the Margin of Error (MoE) column. This provides some transparency as to the accuracy of the final numbers.



I hope this will be a fun way to learn a little more about our players and the game, and perhaps generate some useable data that will benefit the hockey community in some small way. This being the second season, I'm excited to see how the numbers begin to create a more detailed and informative picture.

To everyone who takes the time to contribute, Thank You!


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 10-11-2014 at 09:17 PM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-20-2013, 11:55 PM
  #2
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
This is the master list of total +/- ratings.

Player Plus Minus Total Margin Of Error
Forwards
Nicholas Blanchard 2 - +2 -
Drayson Bowman 6 2 +4 -
Zach Boychuk - - 0 -
Tim Brent 2 2 0 -
Zac Dalpe 2 - +2 -
Patrick Dwyer 16 7 +9 +1
Dan Ellis 1 x +1 -
Adam Hall - 2 -2 -
Jussi Jokinen 4 5 -1 -
Chad LaRose 3 1 +2 -
Riley Nash 11 8 +3 -
Andreas Nodl 1 - +1 -
Tuomo Ruutu 8 1 +7 -
Alex Semin 27 5 +22 -
Jeff Skinner 16 9 +7 -
Eric Staal 38 13 +25 -
Jordan Staal 18 8 +10 -
Jiri Tlusty 24 3 +21 -
Tim Wallace 3 1 +2 -
Kevin Westgarth 4 - +4 -


Defensemen Plus Minus Total Margin of Error
Brett Bellemore 2 - +2 -
Marc-Andre Bergeron 1 3 -2 -
Joe Corvo 8 12 -4 +1
Justin Faulk 10 15 -5 -
Tim Gleason 9 10 -1 -1, +1
Jay Harrison 10 10 even -
Michal Jordan - 2 -2 -
Jamie McBain 6 12 -6 -
Ryan Murphy - 1 -1 -
Joni Pitkanen 4 7 -3 -
Bobby Sanguinetti 5 18 -13 -


Goaltender Errors
Player Errors
Cam Ward 6
Dan Ellis 6
Justin Peters 2


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 08-19-2013 at 08:20 PM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 12:23 AM
  #3
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Game 1 @ Florida Panthers
1/19/2013
5-1 loss




ES GOALS FOR

2nd 9:15 Dwyer (Pitkanen, Faulk)
+1 Dwyer - Not only did he get the actual goal, but the sequence started with a really nice use of his speed to force a turnover.
+1 Pitkanen - Likewise, Joni was in great position to receive that turnover, never mind the beautiful assist.
+1 Bowman - For a smart pass to the point, keeping the possession moving.
+1 Faulk - A subtle but critical movement toward the inside before he passed, which opened the passing lane for Joni

ES GOALS AGAINST

1st 3:37 Huberdeau (Mueller, Kovalev)
-1 Sanguinetti - Started by getting caught on a bad pinch, then made a mite-level attempt at defending a 2-on-1 situation.

2nd 3:35 Kovalev (Huberdeau, Kuba)
Goaltending Error - Ellis - Bad enough to get a puck banked off his rear end, but Kovalev actually tried the same thing just a second before. There's nothing the D can do about shots from behind the net.

Totals
Bowman +1
Dwyer +1
Faulk +1
Pitkanen +1
Sanguinetti -1

Error - Ellis

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 12:37 AM
  #4
loobarlow
Registered User
 
loobarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to loobarlow
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Goaltender Errors
Player Errors
Cam Ward -
Dan Ellis 1
Maybe MLB-level errors, but Ward had some goaltender-level errors that caused a few of those first 4 goals. His level of depth in the net was totally up to him, and he played with no aggression on both Campbell goals.

loobarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 12:49 AM
  #5
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by loobarlow View Post
Maybe MLB-level errors, but Ward had some goaltender-level errors that caused a few of those first 4 goals. His level of depth in the net was totally up to him, and he played with no aggression on both Campbell goals.
Ward was definitely responsible for those goals, but they were PP goals so this project isn't concerned with them. The only ES goal he surrendered was a case of ECHL defense by Sanguinetti.

Last night's numbers almost look backward from reality (more + than -, Ellis with an error and Ward not) but that's perhaps an indicator that we were better at even strength over the full 60 minutes than it felt. The first-period meltdown was almost entirely triggered by dumb penalties and bad goaltending, moreso than getting dominated by the other team. When you come down to it, Ward's 2-for-5 on PP shots pretty much decided the outcome of the game.


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 01-21-2013 at 12:56 AM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 05:47 AM
  #6
Mr America
Registered User
 
Mr America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
Didn't Eric make a bad play, leading to a turnover and the scoring of the first goal (I think it was)?

Mr America is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 05:52 AM
  #7
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr America View Post
Didn't Eric make a bad play, leading to a turnover and the scoring of the first goal (I think it was)?
Eric wasn't on the ice for the first goal. That was the 2nd goal where he made a bad play...and it was a PP goal. He and Tlusty (I think) both made poor decisions IMO.

Instead of clearing the puck, Eric tried to hit Tlusty for a potential chance at a shorthanded goal which was picked off by Campbell. Tlusty was also breaking and got himself out of the zone before the puck was cleared and therefore was behind Campbell.

Both guys were looking more for a short handed chance than worrying about keeping the Panthers from scoring on that PK.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 05:59 AM
  #8
Mr America
Registered User
 
Mr America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
I don't understand why **** like that isn't counted?

Already skewing the stats to protect our Captain I see...

Mr America is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:46 AM
  #9
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr America View Post
I don't understand why **** like that isn't counted?

Already skewing the stats to protect our Captain I see...
It's a conspiracy!

Seriously though, that Florida game was just not a good "warm up" game for this project. Over the course of the season it'll make sense to ignore terribad PK play, even if it stole the show on Saturday.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:09 AM
  #10
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
This rating system isn't subjective enough...Bobby shoulda had a -2 for that first goal.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:16 AM
  #11
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,341
vCash: 500
I think we discussed it last year, but I wish there was a way to incorporate the guy who takes a penalty into a minus if the other team scores on the PP. Also, the guy who draws the penalty getting a plus if the Canes score on a PP. It kind of goes against the whole premise of +/-, but many times, that is a key factor.

I realize that sometimes a guy get's bailed out because the PK prevents a goal, but how's that any different than general bad plays. For instance, in Sanguinetti's case on the first goal, if Cam Ward had happen to decide to try and poke check that pass coming across, then Sanguinetti's poor play may have amounted to nothing, even though it was terrible defense on his part.

Just a thought.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:01 AM
  #12
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
I think we discussed it last year, but I wish there was a way to incorporate the guy who takes a penalty into a minus if the other team scores on the PP. Also, the guy who draws the penalty getting a plus if the Canes score on a PP. It kind of goes against the whole premise of +/-, but many times, that is a key factor.
Hell, why not just track it on a separate chart? This is a super-easy thing to put together and would give us some interesting info.

I'll just make a second thread tracking penalty liabilities.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:05 AM
  #13
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Anton View Post
I think we discussed it last year, but I wish there was a way to incorporate the guy who takes a penalty into a minus if the other team scores on the PP. Also, the guy who draws the penalty getting a plus if the Canes score on a PP. It kind of goes against the whole premise of +/-, but many times, that is a key factor.

I realize that sometimes a guy get's bailed out because the PK prevents a goal, but how's that any different than general bad plays. For instance, in Sanguinetti's case on the first goal, if Cam Ward had happen to decide to try and poke check that pass coming across, then Sanguinetti's poor play may have amounted to nothing, even though it was terrible defense on his part.

Just a thought.
Pretty much this. I think the problem is that sometimes you take "good" penalties to save someone else's behind that lead to a PP goal, so it's another judgement call. If you take an interference penalty because you gave the puck away at the blue line (Corvo) then its pretty cut and dry. It's up to tar heel if he wants to include things like this, but I think the numbers from last season told us everything we would expect to see based on the old eyeball test.

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 12:44 PM
  #14
Finlandia WOAT
Registered User
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,647
vCash: 500
Could we incorporate an subjective indirect plus/minus stat as well? One thing I noticed last year was that the subjective plus minus was particularly cruel for defensmen (I believe our best defender was a minus 12). The indirect plus/minus would provide a stat equally in their favor.

An indirect plus is when a player takes an action that directly breaks up a good scoring chance. For example, a defender makes a great play/blocks a shot/breaks up a pass. It is not enough to simply impede the opposing player: they have to be directly responsible for breaking up the play.

An indirect minus is when a player fudges up a great scoring opportunity. For example, LaRose does not finish a pass from E. Staal. It is not enough to simply enough to get a great chance and whiff on it: they must be directly responsible for breaking up the play.

Given the, compared to the cut and dry direct subjective plus minus, increased subjectiveness of this particular stat, it would require more active board participation and a notation of the stat during game time, as well as with multiple margins of error. But it would reveal more about the defensive side of the game, which is the purported worth of the original plus minus.

Finlandia WOAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 12:52 PM
  #15
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
Could we incorporate an subjective indirect plus/minus stat as well? One thing I noticed last year was that the subjective plus minus was particularly cruel for defensmen (I believe our best defender was a minus 12). The indirect plus/minus would provide a stat equally in their favor.

An indirect plus is when a player takes an action that directly breaks up a good scoring chance. For example, a defender makes a great play/blocks a shot/breaks up a pass. It is not enough to simply impede the opposing player: they have to be directly responsible for breaking up the play.

An indirect minus is when a player fudges up a great scoring opportunity. For example, LaRose does not finish a pass from E. Staal. It is not enough to simply enough to get a great chance and whiff on it: they must be directly responsible for breaking up the play.

Given the, compared to the cut and dry direct subjective plus minus, increased subjectiveness of this particular stat, it would require more active board participation and a notation of the stat during game time, as well as with multiple margins of error. But it would reveal more about the defensive side of the game, which is the purported worth of the original plus minus.
I don't mean to be...that way...but, how about if we all just watch the games and be comfortable with our own subjective rating of each player, since that's what we're going to bring to the table anyway?

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 01:40 PM
  #16
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
PtP, similar to my post in the Penalty Liabilities thread, the main thing stopping me from incorporating that kind of system is a lack of ability to review video of entire games. I can be certain of having quality video of every goal, which makes this project easy to implement. I couldn't pull it off if it went beyond just the goals.

You're right, though, that the numbers tend to brutalize defensemen. I think there are two important takeaways to be made:

1) One of the big lies that standard +/- propagates is that there is a singular "overall value" to every player. That is just not true. Forwards have a distinct type of value compared to defensemen. Unless his name is Bobby Orr, a defenseman is highly unlikely to have an actual "positive" impact on the scoreboard. Even a very good defenseman will get burnt for goals-against more frequently than he materially contributes to goals-for. The opposite is true of forwards. It's just the nature of the game. The way we evaluate each position should reflect that reality, which is obscured in the traditional stat since defensemen get their pluses primarily from linemate play.

2) The key to evaluating defensemen in this system is to generate enough data points that small negatives start to look good. Say a guy like Lidstrom plays 82 games and ends up -5. That looks bad by the traditional standard, but it would be a phenomenally good number in this system -- and unlike traditional +/- it would be an accurate reflection of his personal effect on the game. The value would become apparent when you look at the rest of the league and everyone else is -10 or worse.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 01:50 PM
  #17
normalpsychology
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mass
Posts: 966
vCash: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
This is the master list of total +/- ratings.

[TABLE]
Goaltender Errors
Player Errors
Cam Ward -
Dan Ellis 1
On what planet does this make sense??

normalpsychology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 02:16 PM
  #18
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lennay Kekua View Post
On what planet does this make sense??
If not Ellis, who was responsible for that Kovalev goal?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 05:48 PM
  #19
Zombie Mike Murphy
Registered User
 
Zombie Mike Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Some things just happen. It was a freak goal. If he positions himself to not allow that, he's just opening up a hole somewhere else.

If nothing else, since the goalies are in a separate "bucket" anyway, why not count PP goal errors, when the goalie just blatantly misplays it?

Zombie Mike Murphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:37 PM
  #20
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
No, it does not open a hole for Ellis to cover his post properly. NHL forwards will do that all day if you let them. Hell, beer league forwards will do that. It's not a complicated or original play.

If someone wants to track overall goalie errors, and have those arguments after every game, have at it. This project is concerned with ES only and the goalie-error number is a way to quantify situations where the skaters did their jobs and the goalie simply misplayed the shot.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 08:32 AM
  #21
Joe McGrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,729
vCash: 500
Are we really arguing about who's fault it is when someone banks the puck off the goalie from behind the net? Really?

Joe McGrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 12:37 PM
  #22
Blueline Bomber
Noah MAN-ifin
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 25,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe McGrath View Post
Are we really arguing about who's fault it is when someone banks the puck off the goalie from behind the net? Really?
Seriously, that's not a debate. That should never happen, let alone to an NHL goaltender. If it does, it's the fault of the goaltender.

Blueline Bomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-23-2013, 08:34 AM
  #23
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Game 2 vs Tampa Bay Lightning
1/22/2013
4-1 loss




ES GOALS FOR

none

ES GOALS AGAINST

1st 5:18 Pyatt (Lecavalier, Carle)
-1 Sanguinetti - This is kind of a tough one to hold against Sanguinetti, because Lecavalier and Pyatt really made a world-class play. Still, that play doesn't happen if Sangs doesn't get caught flat-footed behind Pyatt; Lecavalier could as easily have made a conventional pass and Pyatt would still have been open in front of the net.

1st 11:36 Conacher (Lecavalier, Purcell)
-1 Pitkanen - Unacceptable defensive zone turnover
-1 Eric Staal - If Staal plays his angle properly, Lecavalier doesn't have an easy path to the net here. On top of that, he stops moving his feet when he gets burnt, allowing Conacher to get to the net too.
-1 Sanguinetti - This guy does not understand defense. Starts in front of the net, positioned to stop a play like this one. As soon as the puck turns over, he LEAVES that spot to go chase Conacher, as though Concacher wasn't going to consider crashing the net. Then makes a sad little hook on Lecavlier and turns his back on the puck while Conacher puts it in the net. Kaberle-esque.

3rd 1:37 Aulie (Mikkelson)
-1 Corvo - Turns the puck over, gets caught up ice, lazily coasts back into the play and inexplicably behind the net, and finally makes a conscious decision not to leave the slot to Skinner (who had busted his ass to cover Corvo's mistakes this entire time) instead letting Aulie walk the puck all the way to the faceoff dot for a screened shot. Also Kaberle-esque.
-1 Harrison - Screened Ward on the shot.
-1 Jokinen - That ill-advised blind pass from a prone position was really not necessary.


Totals
-2 Sanguinetti
-1 Corvo
-1 Harrison
-1 Jokinen
-1 Pitkanen
-1 Staal

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 07:46 PM
  #24
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Game 3 vs Buffalo Sabres
1/24/2013
6-3 win




ES GOALS FOR

2nd 01:02 Skinner (Jordan Staal, Dalpe)
+1 Skinner - Nice puck work in the dirty areas.
+1 Jordan Staal - He got a little lucky that this turned into an assist, but the old principle of "just get the puck on net" tends to work that way.
+1 Dalpe - Smart, heads-up pass to create that initial shot.

2nd 13:56 Skinner (unassisted)
+1 Skinner - Well played by Skinner to cut around the opposite side of the net and catch Pominville flat-footed for the takeaway.

2nd 14:05 Eric Staal (Mcbain, Joni Pitkanen)
+1 McBain - Perfectly threaded pass through the neutral zone.
+1 Eric Staal - A really nice play from the blue line in.

3rd 09:26 Eric Staal (Joni Pitkanen)
+1 Pitkanen - "Good Joni" with a brilliant pinch, steal and assist.
+1 Eric Staal - Simple enough, gather the puck and shoot it in the net.



ES GOALS AGAINST

2nd 08:50 Cody Hodgson (Jordan Leopold, Thomas Vanek)
-1 Gleason - In his defense, he was the victim of an uncalled pick; but he got caught scrambling off the boards and then lost his man in front, which as a whole is not a passable effort. edit: Gleason gets a margin-of-error point here
-1 Skinner - While the play was still pretty well contained, he got frozen by Vanek's move to the middle, rather than covering his assignment. That led to the initial shot.

2nd 10:39 Jason Pominville (Christian Ehrhoff, Alexander Sulzer)
-1 Dwyer - Not sure what he was doing there, if he lost an edge or disastrously mis-evaluated that pass, but it looked goofy and gave Ehrhoff the opportunity to make a world-class pass.
edit: Dywer was attempting to block Sulzer's shot, because for whatever reason Skinner was still down near the faceoff dot. Skinner has something to say to the refs, but ultimately it's his lane and therefore it's his minus. Dwyer gets a margin of error point.

3rd 06:06 Jason Pominville (Thomas Vanek, Robyn Regehr)
-1 Faulk - The old adage "don't get caught standing still" applies. Faulk did a lot of watching after the puck was turned over.
-1 Dwyer - His reckless rush up the sideboards, to the exact spot where Staal was already going, caused him to overshoot the puck and opened up a lot of empty ice for the Sabres to work with.



Totals
+2 Eric Staal
+1 Dalpe
+1 McBain
+1 Pitkanen
+1 Jordan Staal
-1 Dwyer
-1 Faulk
-1 Gleason


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 01-29-2013 at 09:58 AM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 10:04 AM
  #25
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,495
vCash: 500
Game 4 @ Buffalo Sabres
1/25/2013
3-1 win




ES GOALS FOR

3rd 15:10 Harrison (Eric Staal)
+1 Harrison - He is probably the best defenseman on the team at scoring this kind of goal, just flicking it at the net through traffic.
+1 Eric Staal - Clean faceoff win.
+1 Tlusty - His screen had Miller leaning the wrong way and was the real reason this goal was scored.


ES GOALS AGAINST

none


Totals
+1 Harrison
+1 Eric Staal
+1 Tlusty

tarheelhockey 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 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.