HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > General Fantasy Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
General Fantasy Talk Forum for fantasy leagues, mock and all time drafts, and hockey video games.

PPM Part VIII: Sponsor Offers are in for Hockey!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2013, 09:45 AM
  #776
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
Also, I was talking about hockey. I guess it was your OTR that was impressive.
Ya I was 1st in OTR at the start of the year. I've made up ground on the 15% I lost from last season to this season so I should be okay financially next year. However, the year after will be largely dependent on how competitive my rebuilt team is. I suspect the years of 40+M profit/week are gone. At least until my 15 year olds hit 20...

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 09:53 AM
  #777
suprvilce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 1,382
vCash: 500
My first max tripple-multi will be completed in a few days. What accessories should/must i build on it while keeping in mind i want to keep expenses as low as possible. I plan on building the Vip longue/skybox, is there any other "must" thing i should build on it? media center or fan shop or both or neither? Thanks.

suprvilce is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 10:00 AM
  #778
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by suprvilce View Post
My first max tripple-multi will be completed in a few days. What accessories should/must i build on it while keeping in mind i want to keep expenses as low as possible. I plan on building the Vip longue/skybox, is there any other "must" thing i should build on it? media center or fan shop or both or neither? Thanks.
Skybox, Press Centers (all), Souvenirs (some initially, all later). 1 and 3 contribute $. 2 contributes better profrmance.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 11:58 AM
  #779
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
Any thoughts on me testing a 4-3-3? Center midfield is my weakest position. I have 4 capable strikers I can slot in at any time.
Don't use it against team with a numerical advantage in midfield that play hurry up as their style, it will be painful if you do.

I would deploy a Normal intensity wit a 3 man midfield along with long ball or normal style of play.

Its advantages is against the weaker teams imo.

Started the week with a narrow defeat to my main rival for the 1.I title in soccer.
Pissed about it for 2 reasons, 1. I didn't set the style of play I was supposed to, and 2. My subs (for whatever reason) did not come on.

Hockey - I should make the PO final handy enough after an opening PO round cake walk. Up against No. 5 team from my league who although has saved tons of energy, doesn't have the the strength to beat me, hopefully!!

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 12:26 PM
  #780
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Oh one more thing - what is the best formula to work the effective qualities of a player?

I don't mean just the average of ones qualities.. then again, you already knew that!

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 01:11 PM
  #781
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
That's very interesting info about the midfield and hurry up. I wonder if I could use that to get some shots on goal vs the Boilermakers. Maybe go with one forward... a 4-5-1... Hmm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
Oh one more thing - what is the best formula to work the effective qualities of a player?

I don't mean just the average of ones qualities.. then again, you already knew that!
I believe the term EQ just means the average of the Qs for that players position. Adjusted EQ is probably what you want. Did Obj come up with that term?

You have to take each Q and multiply it by whatever ratio you're using. Then get the average of those numbers. So a goalie in hockey with Qs of 80/90/90 and a ratio of 2:1:1 would have an EQ of 86.7 and an AEQ of 85. That's 80+80 (because the goalie attribute is worth two) + 90 + 90 = 340. Then divide by 4.

This gets a bit more difficult in soccer. I have some guys with weird ratios. Like over 100 for the primary. That's just to give more options to adjust training. It also makes it more annoying to figure out AEQ.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:18 PM
  #782
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
Oh one more thing - what is the best formula to work the effective qualities of a player?

I don't mean just the average of ones qualities.. then again, you already knew that!
It's based on the ratio you train at. Goalies everyone uses 2:1:1 so:

EQ = (2*Goal_Q + Pas_Q + Tec_Q)/4

In a more general sense:

EQ = 1/n * sum(from i=1:n) of w_i * q_i

That is n = number of attys you're including
i = each individual attribute
w_i is the weight of attribute i (your training ratio number)
q_i is the quality of attribtue i

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:21 PM
  #783
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
That's very interesting info about the midfield and hurry up. I wonder if I could use that to get some shots on goal vs the Boilermakers. Maybe go with one forward... a 4-5-1... Hmm.



I believe the term EQ just means the average of the Qs for that players position. Adjusted EQ is probably what you want. Did Obj come up with that term?

You have to take each Q and multiply it by whatever ratio you're using. Then get the average of those numbers. So a goalie in hockey with Qs of 80/90/90 and a ratio of 2:1:1 would have an EQ of 86.7 and an AEQ of 85. That's 80+80 (because the goalie attribute is worth two) + 90 + 90 = 340. Then divide by 4.

This gets a bit more difficult in soccer. I have some guys with weird ratios. Like over 100 for the primary. That's just to give more options to adjust training. It also makes it more annoying to figure out AEQ.
Don't quote me on my idea's about the football, it's just my basic understanding from the guide.

Theoretically, a strong midfield playing a team playing H/U intensity should get the upper hand, but with so many variables in soccer, that could change alot.

Cheers for the info on the ratios.

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 02:32 PM
  #784
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Just picked up this guy from the market, it's early doors in the season, so I should get him well above 600 OR by the seasons end. I'll keep my fingers crossed his CL stays as is for next season, otherwise he's going through the revolving door.



Oh and a heads up - my best friend stuck 3 of his better players on the market a day or 2 ago.
I told him he's better off cashing in until he has the facilities to develop good Q'd players.

The 3 players in question are all 17 years of age, 6/6 CL with around 550+ OR, the qualities of these players are quite good.

I'd bid myself, but it could cause a problem the PPM GM's, so I must give them a wide berth.

His team are Ratoath Rovers
These are his 3 players up for sale: deadline in about 17 hrs
Patrick O'Carroll
Ken Harte
Eddie O'Sullivan

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 05:29 PM
  #785
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
Oh one more thing - what is the best formula to work the effective qualities of a player?

I don't mean just the average of ones qualities.. then again, you already knew that!
I use a weighted harmonic average of the qualities to determine EQ. This is based on the assumption that practice and quality have a linear relationship. The idea being that the qualities are rates at which an attribute increases.

As a fairly extreme example:

Which defenseman would you want in hockey (assuming you want to train 2:1:1:1)?

Guy 1: 99Q Def, 99Q Pas, 10Q Tec, 99Q Agr
Guy 2: 50Q Def, 50Q Pas, 50Q Tec, 50Q Agr

Using the average of the qualities to be trained would lead you to believe Guy 1 is better. Let's throw in some numbers to see how it works out.

Let's say your facilities and staff are at a level where you train 0.01* the quality being trained each day (the linear relationship mentioned above). (i.e. training a quality of 50 leads to the expected value of practice being 0.50)

Guy 1 will spend 10 days to improve his technique by 1 point. In those 10 days, Guy will train 2 points in defense and a point each in passing, technique, aggressiveness.

You can scale the 0.01 to whatever value you like and you'll end up with the same result.

In this example, I would calculate Guy 1's EQ as (2+1+1+1) / ((2/99)+(1/99)+(1/10)+(1/99)). Which is roughly 35.6.

Guy 2's EQ would be (2+1+1+1) / ((2/50)+(1/50)+(1/50)+(1/50)). Which is 50 (huge surprise, I know).

The difference between the two methods is small when the qualities are roughly equal and becomes larger if the qualities are spread out more. I think those that take the arithmetic average do so for quickness. I always have a spreadsheet available on whatever device I'm using to check PPM.

Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 08:29 PM
  #786
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
Just picked up this guy from the market, it's early doors in the season, so I should get him well above 600 OR by the seasons end. I'll keep my fingers crossed his CL stays as is for next season, otherwise he's going through the revolving door.
How did I miss him? I've been checking the market constantly for players like that. Mind you, I'm not in the hunt for a RM so maybe that's why I missed him. Damn fine price too!

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 08:52 PM
  #787
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
Okay. That's a weird looking post. It took me a few minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. It really goes against my gut instincts. But I see it now. It's easier to keep player 2 in the proper ratio. It would take 8 days for player 2 to gain complete the 2:1:1:1 ratio while it would take player 1 13 days! And that's with rounding up the 99 Qs to 100. You would actually need 16 days!?!

Very interesting post.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 02:55 AM
  #788
redcard
Registered User
 
redcard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
I use a weighted harmonic average of the qualities to determine EQ. This is based on the assumption that practice and quality have a linear relationship. The idea being that the qualities are rates at which an attribute increases.

As a fairly extreme example:

Which defenseman would you want in hockey (assuming you want to train 2:1:1:1)?

Guy 1: 99Q Def, 99Q Pas, 10Q Tec, 99Q Agr
Guy 2: 50Q Def, 50Q Pas, 50Q Tec, 50Q Agr

Using the average of the qualities to be trained would lead you to believe Guy 1 is better. Let's throw in some numbers to see how it works out.

Let's say your facilities and staff are at a level where you train 0.01* the quality being trained each day (the linear relationship mentioned above). (i.e. training a quality of 50 leads to the expected value of practice being 0.50)

Guy 1 will spend 10 days to improve his technique by 1 point. In those 10 days, Guy will train 2 points in defense and a point each in passing, technique, aggressiveness.

You can scale the 0.01 to whatever value you like and you'll end up with the same result.

In this example, I would calculate Guy 1's EQ as (2+1+1+1) / ((2/99)+(1/99)+(1/10)+(1/99)). Which is roughly 35.6.

Guy 2's EQ would be (2+1+1+1) / ((2/50)+(1/50)+(1/50)+(1/50)). Which is 50 (huge surprise, I know).

The difference between the two methods is small when the qualities are roughly equal and becomes larger if the qualities are spread out more. I think those that take the arithmetic average do so for quickness. I always have a spreadsheet available on whatever device I'm using to check PPM.
Blew me away with this one, both methods made sense, so I spent longer than I care to admit putting pen to paper and messing with the formulas and comparing player training.

Only took about 2 minutes to change the formulas on my excel file to fit yours, but considering I've use the arithmetic way for so long its possible I've made player decisions in the past in which I kept the wrong player and sold the other guy, because his Arithmetic EQ was higher. But looking at my current roster, it didn't make any difference in the rankings of my players, the ones with the higher Arithmetic EQ still have higher EQs with your formula, albiet the gaps between them have changed.

redcard is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 04:44 AM
  #789
Obryantj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tujague View Post
Okay. That's a weird looking post. It took me a few minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. It really goes against my gut instincts. But I see it now. It's easier to keep player 2 in the proper ratio. It would take 8 days for player 2 to gain complete the 2:1:1:1 ratio while it would take player 1 13 days! And that's with rounding up the 99 Qs to 100. You would actually need 16 days!?!

Very interesting post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcard View Post
Blew me away with this one, both methods made sense, so I spent longer than I care to admit putting pen to paper and messing with the formulas and comparing player training.

Only took about 2 minutes to change the formulas on my excel file to fit yours, but considering I've use the arithmetic way for so long its possible I've made player decisions in the past in which I kept the wrong player and sold the other guy, because his Arithmetic EQ was higher. But looking at my current roster, it didn't make any difference in the rankings of my players, the ones with the higher Arithmetic EQ still have higher EQs with your formula, albiet the gaps between them have changed.
Thanks guys.

Tujague, I think you meant it would take player 2 ten days to complete the 2:1:1:1 ratio and 14 days for player 1 to complete the 2:1:1:1 ratio (with rounding the 99s to 100s). (at least in this example)

---------------

The handball news is interesting. They're going a different direction than what has been discussed on this forum, but it looks like they're focusing on the teams that carry a large number of players. The costs of carrying more players is going to be increased by the number of coaches and physiotherapists required and the increase in the salary of coaches and physiotherapists. It'll be interesting to see how it goes through.


Last edited by Obryantj: 03-28-2013 at 05:44 AM.
Obryantj is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 07:38 AM
  #790
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
I lost the first game 2-7. I didn't play VH, but. Can definitely see that I'm still outclassed. Or out gassed. I got him on tactics, but The Fighting Tie Domis have a lot more energy. I could put my backp goalie in and make things more interesting, but there's no point in tempting fate.

The top team, Dinamo, lost 2-3 He's going on the road now and I don't think he knows the tactics wheel. That would be insane if he lost again. Actually that might suck. If another good team relegates, I might be stuck down here longer than expected. Nah. That'll never happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
Thanks guys.

Tujague, I think you meant it would take player 2 ten days to complete the 2:1:1:1 ratio and 14 days for player 1 to complete the 2:1:1:1 ratio (with rounding the 99s to 100s). (at least in this example)
Durr. I forgot to double time for the primary in both. It would actually take the first guy 17 days to get the ratio the first time. Thats what i was trying to say after that it would be 14 days most of the time.

It'll be interesting to see if this changes my lineup at all. I don't have any ridiculous gaps like the player 1 example, but I know that some of my bottom line guys were a toss up as far as who played and who sat.

Quote:
The handball news is interesting. They're going a different direction than what has been discussed on this forum, but it looks like they're focusing on the teams that carry a large number of players. The costs of carrying more players is going to be increased by the number of coaches and physiotherapists required and the increase in the salary of coaches and physiotherapists. It'll be interesting to see how it goes through.
I'm stunned that they are making changes to their system. I was getting nervous until I read that there is a max of 4 coaches. I thought we would see teams with 52 coaches and 150 players or something ridiculous like that. Now the big question is how many players can 4 coaches train? If it's still a stupid amount then this isn't really helping. It'll be interesting to see what else they do and if those changes make a big difference.

Too bad it's handball and the US will only have 10 teams. Maybe they'll finally merge us with Canada? And Mexico. And that guy in St Pierre & Mequelon. That's probably spelled wrong.

tujague is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 11:43 AM
  #791
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obryantj View Post
I use a weighted harmonic average of the qualities to determine EQ. This is based on the assumption that practice and quality have a linear relationship. The idea being that the qualities are rates at which an attribute increases.

As a fairly extreme example:

Which defenseman would you want in hockey (assuming you want to train 2:1:1:1)?

Guy 1: 99Q Def, 99Q Pas, 10Q Tec, 99Q Agr
Guy 2: 50Q Def, 50Q Pas, 50Q Tec, 50Q Agr

Using the average of the qualities to be trained would lead you to believe Guy 1 is better. Let's throw in some numbers to see how it works out.

Let's say your facilities and staff are at a level where you train 0.01* the quality being trained each day (the linear relationship mentioned above). (i.e. training a quality of 50 leads to the expected value of practice being 0.50)

Guy 1 will spend 10 days to improve his technique by 1 point. In those 10 days, Guy will train 2 points in defense and a point each in passing, technique, aggressiveness.

You can scale the 0.01 to whatever value you like and you'll end up with the same result.

In this example, I would calculate Guy 1's EQ as (2+1+1+1) / ((2/99)+(1/99)+(1/10)+(1/99)). Which is roughly 35.6.

Guy 2's EQ would be (2+1+1+1) / ((2/50)+(1/50)+(1/50)+(1/50)). Which is 50 (huge surprise, I know).

The difference between the two methods is small when the qualities are roughly equal and becomes larger if the qualities are spread out more. I think those that take the arithmetic average do so for quickness. I always have a spreadsheet available on whatever device I'm using to check PPM.
Tnx for the info.
I was always one for the arithmetic method, but I went with gut feelings with some players when it came to selling them.

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 04:58 PM
  #792
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Came up with this little dinger earlier on when choosing my lineup for the 2nd leg of my PO round.

Basically Player A came up as a better choice than Player B when selecting my lines.
A heads up for those who might wanna compare and contrast these 2 guys on your own spreadsheet/workbook.... I award 10% per 100 EXP and 10% per 100 Chem to my players as opposed to the much more used/thought/suggested 20%


Player A
Exp: 167 - Energy: 90 - Chem: 100
Def: 429 - Shoot: 150 - Pass: 236 - Tech:194 - Agg: 215

Player B
Exp: 81 - Energy: 90 - Chem: 100
Def: 447 - Shoot: 135 - Pass: 246 - Tech:202 - Agg: 224

My question?
If you could only play 1, which would it be?

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 05:00 PM
  #793
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
How did I miss him? I've been checking the market constantly for players like that. Mind you, I'm not in the hunt for a RM so maybe that's why I missed him. Damn fine price too!
Yeah, was pleasantly surprised to get this guy for the price I did, works out he's in and around 89% EQ - he should fetch a pretty penny if his CL doesn't work out.
Fingers crossed (on my part) it stays 6/6 till he hits 19!

Quote:
Originally Posted by canucks357 View Post
It's based on the ratio you train at. Goalies everyone uses 2:1:1 so:

EQ = (2*Goal_Q + Pas_Q + Tec_Q)/4

In a more general sense:

EQ = 1/n * sum(from i=1:n) of w_i * q_i

That is n = number of attys you're including
i = each individual attribute
w_i is the weight of attribute i (your training ratio number)
q_i is the quality of attribtue i
I never thanked you for this info, cheers

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 05:24 PM
  #794
doug5984
Registered User
 
doug5984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Louisiana
Country: United States
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to doug5984
I have a similar spreadsheet / formula, not exactly the same but very close. One tab of the workbook is a position rater- I have the forumulas for the ratios I like my guys to be at- simply plug all the qualities in and it'll tell you the adjusted quality at each position. One stray quality can really mess a guy up. I have quite a few guys with 90+ in their primary quality but once you do the overall adjusted they really don't look anything special. (I like to train these guys up and sell them because the person doing a quick scan on the market sees the high quality and is more likely to bid)

doug5984 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 05:26 PM
  #795
doug5984
Registered User
 
doug5984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Louisiana
Country: United States
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to doug5984
tujague- surprised I was able to get the tie against you.

I think it's no secret what my plan is this year- sand bag early and try to rack up on ties while keeping energy very high. Come mid season I'll be able (attempt to) to steal a lot of wins with a 10+ energy advantage. I know I can't compete with the top 10 in the league (yet) so I'm simply hoping to finish 1 spot ahead of where I did last season.

doug5984 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 07:34 PM
  #796
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
If you could only play 1, which would it be?
I award 20% for 100 EXP and another 20% for 100 chem. Player 1 by a landslide. Truth be told, I've found experience even more important in playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
I never thanked you for this info, cheers
It was awfully mathy written. Hope you could make sense of it. It is the full equation in shortest form. If I were to be technical

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-29-2013, 01:26 PM
  #797
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Won this latest round. That means II.3 or II.4 for me. I started a TC so likely II.3 (didn't want to spill over into next year and can't do it during P/R since sponsors will punish me for a low OTS). Pleased with that. II.3 and II.4 are comparable and rebuild-friendly for the most part.

canucks357 is offline  
Old
03-29-2013, 04:03 PM
  #798
tujague
Registered User
 
tujague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,794
vCash: 500
I'm out of the hockey playoffs. I'm glad that's over with. I just tried to ignore them so I wouldn't be tempted to try to win.

The poor guy playing the top seed tied game 2 with under a minute to go, then gave up a goal with ~10 seconds left to lose. Would have been hilarious if he could have pulled off that upset

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug5984 View Post
tujague- surprised I was able to get the tie against you.

I think it's no secret what my plan is this year- sand bag early and try to rack up on ties while keeping energy very high. Come mid season I'll be able (attempt to) to steal a lot of wins with a 10+ energy advantage. I know I can't compete with the top 10 in the league (yet) so I'm simply hoping to finish 1 spot ahead of where I did last season.
I was trying to get you some points I rested McCready and only have 4-5 starters in there. And dropped importance. I assumed you would go for it after our discussion in the I.1 topic

tujague is offline  
Old
03-30-2013, 07:13 AM
  #799
Emerald76
Registered User
 
Emerald76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Dubh Linn
Country: Ireland
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Regarding Power Plays and Penalty Killing in hockey, does anyone have the info on what counters what?

This is something I've been neglecting for far too long!!

Emerald76 is offline  
Old
03-30-2013, 07:36 AM
  #800
canucks357
Registered User
 
canucks357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerald76 View Post
Regarding Power Plays and Penalty Killing in hockey, does anyone have the info on what counters what?

This is something I've been neglecting for far too long!!
I did at one point but I've since forgotten. It is fairly intuitive from what I recall.

canucks357 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:36 PM.

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.