HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Is Mario's 1995-96 Season a little overrated?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2012, 09:15 PM
  #101
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Because they indicate the number of goal scored when we was on the ice vs the goal allowed, the most important thing in hockey (scoring more goal than the other team, anyway you achieve to make that statement true).

The thing that hurt Mario on the +/- is it remove the fact that he was the best player on the power play and that is a very useful thing.

Gretzky in the 1993-94 was not view as a great player and not considered for the hart, despite winning the art ross because of is weak 5vs5 result, so the question of 95-96 Lemieux winning the Hart over Hasek and considered better than Jagr is it justified ?

The answer is probably yes, but the question is not stupid and who seriously give really a crap about 5vs5 result on a large sample size ? come-on, +/- giving team situation and taking consideration player role and player generaly on the ice when playing (from his team and the opponent team) have certainly a good value on large sample size.
Gretzky was a -25 and his team wasn't even close to making the playoffs. That's a -25 with a D that included Blake, Zhitnik, Sydor, and Huddy.

In '96, Lemieux's comeback was the story. I don't really see him as undeserving of the Hart, but it should have been a lot closer between him and Jagr IMO. Jagr led the league in ES goals and ES assists that year. No one (except Jagr in '99 & '01) has done that since, nor even finished top 3 in both. He also led by 19 ES points (20 if you don't count Nedved), which is the best margin since peak Gretzky (prime Gretzky was close with 17 point margins in '88 & '90). He also set the all-time season records for points and assists by a wing. You'd think all that, following a year when he won the Ross without Lemieux and finished 2nd for Hart, would be good for another top 2 Hart finish. However, the media loved Lindros (115 points, +31) and Messier (99 points, +29), and Lemieux's comeback took a lot of credit and votes away.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 09:38 PM
  #102
robdicks
Registered User
 
robdicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Welland ON
Posts: 5,521
vCash: 500
Everyone always dismisses +/-.

I think it is fine to look at as long as you are comparing players on the same team. In the short-term it's stupid, but over long periods of time it is still a telling statistic (similar to Sv% IMO).

The logic is sound. Five-on-five does your team score more goals when you are on the ice than the other team?

In general good defensive players will have a better +/- than bad defensive players when compared to similar teams. (Don't compare a Lottery team's shutdown forward to a president trophy winning team's defensive forward).

Some times when Career +/- certainly tells the story:

Zdeno Chara 149
Nick Lidstrom 450
Pavel Datsyuk 208
Guy Carbonneau 186
Jonathan Toews 87

Then there are players that are notorious for poor work ethic and a lack of defensive play:

Alex Kovalev -30
Phil Kessel -33


Some players can outscore their defensive deficiencies, and some bad defensive players achieve a high +/- by riding better players on their line. You shouldn't use +/- as a be all and end all statistic, but too many people just flat out ignore it.

robdicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 09:43 PM
  #103
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 11,901
vCash: 500
Comes back from cancer, puts up those numbers.... and he's over rated?

God people get bored in the summer.

I could give two poops about the defensive abilities of the elite players of the game. Two way hockey, while good for team success, is generally boring. Who ever wanted to watch Mario or Wayne back check!?! They were somehow lesser players due to the fact no one wanted them, paid them, or even cared if they played defensive hockey? People weren't nearly as critical of these guys then as they are now about that sort of thing. Back then you just put them with a responsible linemate and told the talent to do what they do. Elite talent shouldn't be required to back off that talent in the name of better defensive play, and the best players ever shouldn't have their reputations "tarnished" because 20 years later someone wants to make a petty argument based off stats that either brings down the guy they don't like or raises the profile of someone they do. No one ever cared about plus minus until it became a fantasy hockey stat. Coaches know who their best defensive players are regardless of a stat like this. They know how the stat is easily skewed.

The pens got Francis, the oilers had Messier. Wayne and Mario were told to do what they do.


Last edited by bleedgreen: 07-31-2012 at 09:57 PM.
bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 09:51 PM
  #104
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
Comes back from cancer, puts up those numbers.... and he's over rated?

God people get bored in the summer.
The two fact that you give:

The coming back, and the impresive number are two reasons that the season can be overated.

Being very very highly rated give a good range of possibility of being overated, much easier to be overated when a lot of people rate you high, Maurice Richard is overrated by many.

Maybe that Jagr was not as far as people think, if this statement is true in a way 95-96 Mario season is overated.

The reaction on this very thread could be a good argument about the fact that his season is overrated.

The critics is not about being bad defensively (this is not important here), if you score that much more than the others team no problem, but if you do you will have a good +/-, if you overcome your liability by scoring more anyway than the other team you will have a good +/-, did even strength Lemieux in 1995-96 was still in the historical elite category or he was just simply the best of all time on the power play with very good / elite even strenght overall play that year ?


Last edited by MadLuke: 07-31-2012 at 10:07 PM.
MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 09:59 PM
  #105
Cawz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helm View Post
Well, who can argue with these facts you represent.
Apology accepted.

Cawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 10:29 PM
  #106
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 14,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Gretzky was a -25 and his team wasn't even close to making the playoffs. That's a -25 with a D that included Blake, Zhitnik, Sydor, and Huddy.

In '96, Lemieux's comeback was the story. I don't really see him as undeserving of the Hart, but it should have been a lot closer between him and Jagr IMO. Jagr led the league in ES goals and ES assists that year. No one (except Jagr in '99 & '01) has done that since, nor even finished top 3 in both. He also led by 19 ES points (20 if you don't count Nedved), which is the best margin since peak Gretzky (prime Gretzky was close with 17 point margins in '88 & '90). He also set the all-time season records for points and assists by a wing. You'd think all that, following a year when he won the Ross without Lemieux and finished 2nd for Hart, would be good for another top 2 Hart finish. However, the media loved Lindros (115 points, +31) and Messier (99 points, +29), and Lemieux's comeback took a lot of credit and votes away.
I do think Jagr overtook lemieux in 96-97, but that 95-96 season lemieux was king. When comparing numbers we also have to remember lemieux put up those numbers in 70 games, while jagr played all 82. Over 82 games lemieuxs pace is 189 pts, which is absurd considering top level stars like sakic, forsberg, and lindros were putting up 115ish. With such an overwhelming season by lemieux, there was no way the second best player on the team was going to be recognized for awards.

Luigi Lemieux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2012, 11:52 PM
  #107
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luigi Lemieux View Post
I do think Jagr overtook lemieux in 96-97, but that 95-96 season lemieux was king. When comparing numbers we also have to remember lemieux put up those numbers in 70 games, while jagr played all 82. Over 82 games lemieuxs pace is 189 pts, which is absurd considering top level stars like sakic, forsberg, and lindros were putting up 115ish. With such an overwhelming season by lemieux, there was no way the second best player on the team was going to be recognized for awards.
I think they were very close both years and in 2001 as well (on a per-game basis after Mario returned). Jagr has the edge in ES production & effectiveness (GF/GA ratio while he was on the ice), but Lemieux's PP edge (and it understandably ran through him) gives him the edge in total points. I don't think Lemieux was overrated,as much as Jagr was underrated. Look at each year after '93:

1994- Lemieux misses 58 games, Jagr leads the team in scoring and finishes 2nd in NHL in ES points (behind Fedorov)... Pens make playoffs

1995- Lemeiux retired, Jagr wins Ross and finishes second in Hart, Pens makes playoffs

1996- Lemeiux & Jagr have banner years, Pens make playoffs (5-5-2 in the 12 games which Lemieux missed)

1997- Lemeiux & Jagr on same line at ES, Pens make playoffs (2-3-1 in games w/o Lemieux, 4-13-2 in games w/o Jagr)

1998 to 2000- Lemieux retired again, Pens make playoffs (in 2000, 6-10-3 in games w/o Jagr)

2001- Lemieux comes back after half a season, plays at ES with Jagr, Pens make playoffs (16-17-6 in games w/o Lemieux)

Jagr leaves, team collapses.

I just don't see how Lemieux was clearly the more valuable player after 1993. Each time Lemieux missed time, the team found a way to cope and least be about .500, and they never missed the playoffs, while each time Jagr was absent, they turned into a lottery team.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 02:15 AM
  #108
HolyShot*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 2,015
vCash: 500
Times have changed now. There's no more standup goalies in the league, we entered another dead-puck era, the league wants parity by not enforcing obstruction and this is what sells. Mediocre GMs can be successful by placing big, slow, and crafty players out there. As long as a player has decent hands, he can make a team successful. On the other hand, the league used to let talented and popular players draw penalties like mad.

HolyShot* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 02:47 AM
  #109
Another Carter Snipe
Terminated User
 
Another Carter Snipe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 681
vCash: 500
Plus/Minus?




Hey Babe Ruth did a hell of a job hitting all those homeruns in the 1920's. But I really wish he bunted runners over more.





Big picture.

Another Carter Snipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:31 AM
  #110
Kannu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 96
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
Everyone has thier own opinion in this world, and no one's is more valid than another.

But scoring half your Goals and Points on the powrplay is a big gimme, and if you're playing with 150pts Jagr with a Plus 30 and Ron Francis 100pts and Plus 25 and Peter Nedved 100 pts and and Plus 40 .....

Huge discrepancy between Lemieux and the rest. More of a cherry picker? No touch rule like Gretzky after he got sick and came back? Greatest One Dimensional forward ever?
One dimensional? Are good PK'ers considered to be good defensively? Know who has the NHL record for most shorthanded goals in a season? I'll let you look it up.

Kannu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:54 AM
  #111
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdicks View Post
Everyone always dismisses +/-.

I think it is fine to look at as long as you are comparing players on the same team. In the short-term it's stupid, but over long periods of time it is still a telling statistic (similar to Sv% IMO).

The logic is sound. Five-on-five does your team score more goals when you are on the ice than the other team?
No, it's a straight-up useless number on its own. I don't care how you slice and dice the comparisons, the only way to use +/- is to make it part of an advanced-stats formula.

Here's why:

NHL coaches are smart enough to use players in situations that maximize their skill set. Therefore, the team's best offensive players are going to get the best chances to score goals -- and the best defensive players are going to get the most important chances to prevent them.

Here's the problem: plus-minus rewards offensive players for taking advantage of their sheltered ice time, but punishes defensive players disproportionately since they have an uphill battle just to get to the offensive zone. Even if you compare players on the same team, it's easy to find cases where the better defensive players have a worse +/- as a result of their role.

The only way to make +/- useful is to combine with with zone starts, QualComp and other numbers. Advanced stats still aren't perfect, since there will always be outliers, but they are at least constructed to tell us what we really want to know: which players got the best results compared to the difficulty of their assignments?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 07:58 AM
  #112
ssh
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kannu View Post
One dimensional? Are good PK'ers considered to be good defensively?
Considered? Certainly, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes a player can be a good penalty killer but poor defensively on ES and vice versa.

It's not uncommon that a team puts a scoring threat on the ice to keep the opposing PP unit on their toes. Scoring a bunch of shorthanded goals doesn't necessarily mean that someone is good at keeping the other team from scoring with his defensive talents.

ssh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:16 AM
  #113
KaraLupin
카라
 
KaraLupin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
No, it's a straight-up useless number on its own. I don't care how you slice and dice the comparisons, the only way to use +/- is to make it part of an advanced-stats formula.

Here's why:

NHL coaches are smart enough to use players in situations that maximize their skill set. Therefore, the team's best offensive players are going to get the best chances to score goals -- and the best defensive players are going to get the most important chances to prevent them.

Here's the problem: plus-minus rewards offensive players for taking advantage of their sheltered ice time, but punishes defensive players disproportionately since they have an uphill battle just to get to the offensive zone. Even if you compare players on the same team, it's easy to find cases where the better defensive players have a worse +/- as a result of their role.

The only way to make +/- useful is to combine with with zone starts, QualComp and other numbers. Advanced stats still aren't perfect, since there will always be outliers, but they are at least constructed to tell us what we really want to know: which players got the best results compared to the difficulty of their assignments?
With that logic, shouldn't Mario's plus/minus have been more sheltered than most? He was afterall an elite star because of his offence, not so much his defence.

Mario was a center, and there are two reasons with all those points, he was only +10:

That season he was coming back from Cancer, his defensive ability was not upto par with his usual self (which was DECENT, but nothing special, at best).

and

He scored ALOT of his points on the powerplay.

KaraLupin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 08:22 AM
  #114
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraLupin View Post
With that logic, shouldn't Mario's plus/minus have been more sheltered than most? He was afterall an elite star because of his offence, not so much his defence.

Mario was a center, and there are two reasons with all those points, he was only +10:

That season he was coming back from Cancer, his defensive ability was not upto par with his usual self (which was DECENT, but nothing special, at best).

and

He scored ALOT of his points on the powerplay.
I'm not sure if that was a rebuttal or not. I'd say you just illustrated quite concisely why +/- is completely inadequate as a stand-alone stay.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:43 AM
  #115
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
it's easy to find cases where the better defensive players have a worse +/- as a result of their role.
Sure but +/- is not a representation of defensive value, but overall value, usualy big dominanting line will have big +/-, and dominating 5 mans unit, not defensive not scoring unit.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:48 AM
  #116
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm not sure if that was a rebuttal or not. I'd say you just illustrated quite concisely why +/- is completely inadequate as a stand-alone stay.
That is sure too, but it is true for every stats.

The only thing that is important, is winning, for doing that you need to score more goals than the opponent, all stats give is an idea of how much the player helped your team scoring more than the opponent.

+/- of the team at the end of a season is a very good way to rank team and +/- take in context over large sample size is a good way to value 5on5 player dominance.

Scoring 100 goals if you let the opponent scored 101 add no value at all to your team.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:53 AM
  #117
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 16,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
Everyone has thier own opinion in this world, and no one's is more valid than another.
This is a fallacy that people who are often wrong cling to.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 09:56 AM
  #118
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Sure but +/- is not a representation of defensive value, but overall value, usualy big dominanting line will have big +/-, and dominating 5 mans unit, not defensive not scoring unit.
Yes but think about the full scope of the paragraph you quoted.

A one-way offensive player is going to get most of his shifts in the offensive zone against one-way defensive players. Sometimes he will do his job and get a +. Other times he will fail -- in which case the other team's defensive players need to go 200 feet and score in order for this guy to get a -. By the end of the season, he has to be truly horrible to not have a + rating compared to his teammates.

A one-way defensive player is going to get most of his shifts in the defensive zone against the other team's top scorers. Sometimes he will do his job and stay even. Sometimes, inevitably, he will fail and get a -. On the occasion that his team gets the puck (if he isn't immediately heading off the ice for a change) he needs to go 200 feet to even have a chance at a +. By the end of the season, he has to be downright incredible to have a + rating compared to his teammates.

While I agree that dominant two-way players (and their linemates) will usually do well in +/-, that's not enough to justify the stat... because the data set is corrupted by those who leech + ratings and by those who can't do much to avoid - ratings. Even if you only look at it on a team-by-team basis, situational information MUST be taken into account for the +/- ratings to have any usefulness at all.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:02 AM
  #119
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Perhaps it would be easier if I simply illustrate the point. Below are plus-minus ratings for the 2012 Carolina Hurricanes.

Before you look at the chart: pretend you are an alien who has no knowledge of the NHL. The only thing you know of hockey is what +/- represents. The numbers on this chart are your only source for judging the value of these players.

Tim Gleason +12
Jaroslav Spacek +4
Drayson Bowman +2
Jiri Tlusty +1
Riley Nash +1
...
Joni Pitkanen -15
Chad LaRose -15
Derek Joslin -15
Justin Faulk -15
Eric Staal -20


Now, what is the obvious conclusion you would draw about, say, Riley Nash versus Eric Staal based on their +/-? Who did a better job contributing to the team's success?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:15 AM
  #120
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Perhaps it would be easier if I simply illustrate the point. Below are plus-minus ratings for the 2012 Carolina Hurricanes.

Before you look at the chart: pretend you are an alien who has no knowledge of the NHL. The only thing you know of hockey is what +/- represents. The numbers on this chart are your only source for judging the value of these players.

Tim Gleason +12
Jaroslav Spacek +4
Drayson Bowman +2
Jiri Tlusty +1
Riley Nash +1
...
Joni Pitkanen -15
Chad LaRose -15
Derek Joslin -15
Justin Faulk -15
Eric Staal -20


Now, what is the obvious conclusion you would draw about, say, Riley Nash versus Eric Staal based on their +/-? Who did a better job contributing to the team's success?
Did Nash only played 5 games ? Too small sample size, and many game too have value.

And remember than +/- is just for 5on5 team success, not team success, this is very important (specialy for guy playing top power play or penalty killing unit).

Seing those number I will have to thing that those player did not achieve 5on5 success to the point that their team probably miss the playoff (if did not have incredible special team sucess).

At the end overall team +/- is the most important thing and factor to make cup winner prediction, no ?


Last edited by MadLuke: 08-01-2012 at 10:23 AM.
MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:20 AM
  #121
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Did Nash only played 5 games ? Too small sample size, and many game too have value.
Ok, so look at Tlusty instead. He played 79 games and was on Staal's line for a good part of it.

Tlusty +1
Staal -20

Conclusion?

Quote:
And remember than +/- is just for 5on5 team success, not team success, this is very important (specialy for guy playing top power play or penalty killing unit).
So you're already at a point where you MUST bring situational numbers into play, otherwise the raw +/- is useless. And that is just to make the number coherent, let alone accurate.

Have you ever seen ESTOI listed next to +/- on an official stat sheet? I haven't.

(btw, +/- measures more than 5on5. It's also heavily biased against PP players and toward PK'ers, regardless of their individual effectiveness)

Quote:
Seing those number I will have to thing that those player did not achieve 5on5 success to the point that their team probably miss the playoff (if did not have incredible special team sucess).
That's not what +/- purports to measure.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:26 AM
  #122
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
That's not what +/- purports to measure.
ES +/- is for measure ES team success no ?

Your right about the bias against and for pp player and pk player.

All stats need to be not taking raw to account how much the player contributed to win, even goaltender save%.

If not you could simply use math rules to give player awards at the end.

With point taking as a raw stat measure, Gretzky should have had the hart over federov in 93-94.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:40 AM
  #123
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
ES +/- is for measure ES team success no ?
That's not how it's intended to be used, no. +/- is an individual statistic. If you want team numbers, there's always ES Goals For and ES Goals Against.

Quote:
All stats need to be not taking raw to account how much the player contributed to win, even goaltender save%.
Most mainstream, tried-and-true statistics can be taken at least somewhat at face value.

Goaltender save% is intended to tell us the rate at which goalies stop shots. A save% ranking is almost always an accurate ranking of goalie quality. Yes there are some complicating factors, like shot quality, but they are marginal factors unless you are really splitting hairs for some reason.

The goals statistic is intended to tell us how many times a player manages to put the puck in the net. We can deduce from that which players are the best goal scorers. There are other significant factors involved, so a goals-scored list is less helpful than a save% list. But Goals does have value as a raw number.

+/- is not like that. It CANNOT be taken at face value because it measures an event which is fundamentally not reflective of individual performance. It is useful as a building block for other stats, yes -- but not as a raw number. It just isn't.


Quote:
If not you could simply use math rules to give player awards at the end.
Like the Ross, Richard and Jennings?


Again, raw plus-minus tells us that Jiri Tlusty is the best forward on the Hurricanes and Eric Staal is the worst. It's THAT misleading.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 10:46 AM
  #124
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,473
vCash: 50
He had Barrasso in net.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2012, 11:43 AM
  #125
Bexlyspeed
Registered User
 
Bexlyspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Astoria, Queens, N.Y
Country: United States
Posts: 1,657
vCash: 500
"Mario Lemieux" and "Overrated" should not be in the same sentance.

could argue until the cows come home on opinions and +/-, but here is mine. he's the greatest talent EVER to grace the game.

Bexlyspeed 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 03:57 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.