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.

Vezina fraud?? (2004 voting)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-09-2014, 08:02 PM
  #51
Eric Sachs
Registered User
 
Eric Sachs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Japan
Posts: 18,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
Let's replace impressions with facts (and I admit that I don't know how this will turn out as I'm typing this).

For each of the 32 voting Vezinas, how many times was the voted-up winner the league leader in wins, GAA, save percentage, shutouts, or goals above replacement? For simplicity's sake, I'm going to assume that the leader (or co-leader) in each of these five categories would get at least one vote, and so I can use my voting totals here as a crutch:

http://www.hockeygoalies.org/awards/vezinavoting.html

YearWinsGAASv%ShOGAR
1982X X  
1983XX XX
1984     
1985X X X
1986X    
1987X X X
1988X  X 
1989 XX X
1990XXX X
1991XXX X
1992 XXXX
1993   X 
1994 XXX 
1995 XXXX
1996   X 
1997  X X
1998  XXX
1999  X X
2000    X
2001   X 
2002  X X
2003X  X 
2004X  X 
2006 X XX
2007X  XX
2008    X
2009 XX X
2010    X
2011 XX X
2012     
2013    X
2014 XXX 
TOTALS1111161420

Caveat: I did this by hand, and there may be errors.

So save percentage is a greater predictor than the other traditional goaltending statistics, but not to any real degree - particularly recently.

My own metric (goals above replacement) is better, and obviously voters aren't looking at that to make their decisions.
What GP cutoff are you using?

If you used the sv% leader among goalies to play 60+ games, how accurate is it now (Rask being the notable exception here...)? What about sv% among goalies who played within 10 games of the highest GP in the league?

2014 Rask: Led in sv%
2013 Bobrovsky: Led in sv%
2012 Lundqvist: Led in sv%
etc.

I think its a fairly accurate indicator in recent years but don't know about the past.

Eric Sachs is offline  
Old
07-09-2014, 08:39 PM
  #52
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Last I checked, the data is inconclusive as to whether Florida over counted shots (which would make Luongo's save percentage a fraud), but we know for sure that NJ was under counting shots.
I agree that the Devils undercounted shots - my point was more of a general one. It's an oft-repeated claim that goalies who face fewer shots are penalized in terms of save percentage, but (as far I know) nobody has demonstrated showed that this is true (or false).

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
07-09-2014, 09:12 PM
  #53
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Sachs View Post
What GP cutoff are you using?
As I mentioned, I used everyone who received at least one Vezina vote in my sample set (primarily out of laziness, since I had that pre-chewed on my website).

Since goals above replacement is a combination of time played and save percentage (relative to league norms), it's probably doing about what you suggested above.

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-09-2014, 09:15 PM
  #54
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I agree that the Devils undercounted shots - my point was more of a general one. It's an oft-repeated claim that goalies who face fewer shots are penalized in terms of save percentage, but (as far I know) nobody has demonstrated showed that this is true (or false).
In post #10 of this thread:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1632645

I did a rather coarse analysis that shows a small (*small*) positive correlation between shots faced and save percentage.

My conclusion there was the the differences were caused by score effects (mostly) and shot count biases (somewhat).

I'd welcome alternate theories.

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-09-2014, 09:35 PM
  #55
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,010
vCash: 500
Thanks for the link- I must have missed this when it was first posted.

The numbers suggest that goalies who face 8 to 16 shots in a game generally have worse-than-expected save percentages. Perhaps goalies become unfocused or rusty when facing so few shots, which would support the "goalies who face few shots are at disadvantage" theory.

On the other hand, there may be another variable impacting the data. When a goalie plays particularly poorly, the coach often replaces him. This generally happens early in the game (within the first two periods) to allow him to rest for the next game, and to give the team a chance to mount a comeback. So the data might, at a first glance, suggest that goalies allow more goals than expected because they face fewer shots. In reality, the impact might work the other way - since the goalies played poorly, they're pulled earlier in the game, resulting in them facing fewer shots. (In other words: poor performance/save percentage is driving the number of shots faced, rather than the number of shots faced driving save percentage).

I won't have time to run the numbers over the next few days, but I'd be interested in seeing the results if we filter the data so that only games where a goalie played a minimum of, say, 50 or 55 minutes are included. This would (presumably) eliminate the impact of goalies who played poorly and get pulled mid-game.

(Another point, this one more technical - even if there's a negative correlation between shots/game and save percentage, even after accounting for the phenomenon I described above, it wouldn't be difficult to build a basic regression model to quantify the impact. If it's found that an extra shot per game impacts save percentage by, say 0.1%, then we could make a more fair and meaningful comparison between goalies - in other words, instead of simply saying "Goalie A is disadvantaged", we could quantify that. We might conclude that a goalie with 91.0% save percentage who faces 25 shots per game is equal to a goalie with a 91.5% save percentage who faces 30 shots per game - all other things being equal of course).

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
07-09-2014, 10:45 PM
  #56
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Last I checked, the data is inconclusive as to whether Florida over counted shots (which would make Luongo's save percentage a fraud), but we know for sure that NJ was under counting shots.
Roberto Luongo was a .935 on the road...

quoipourquoi is online now  
Old
07-09-2014, 11:30 PM
  #57
Oscar Acosta
Registered User
 
Oscar Acosta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,884
vCash: 1083
Who are they playing? Good teams or Edmonton 7 times a year?

Oscar Acosta is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 05:44 AM
  #58
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Thanks for the link- I must have missed this when it was first posted.

The numbers suggest that goalies who face 8 to 16 shots in a game generally have worse-than-expected save percentages. Perhaps goalies become unfocused or rusty when facing so few shots, which would support the "goalies who face few shots are at disadvantage" theory.

On the other hand, there may be another variable impacting the data. When a goalie plays particularly poorly, the coach often replaces him. This generally happens early in the game (within the first two periods) to allow him to rest for the next game, and to give the team a chance to mount a comeback. So the data might, at a first glance, suggest that goalies allow more goals than expected because they face fewer shots. In reality, the impact might work the other way - since the goalies played poorly, they're pulled earlier in the game, resulting in them facing fewer shots. (In other words: poor performance/save percentage is driving the number of shots faced, rather than the number of shots faced driving save percentage).

I won't have time to run the numbers over the next few days, but I'd be interested in seeing the results if we filter the data so that only games where a goalie played a minimum of, say, 50 or 55 minutes are included. This would (presumably) eliminate the impact of goalies who played poorly and get pulled mid-game.

(Another point, this one more technical - even if there's a negative correlation between shots/game and save percentage, even after accounting for the phenomenon I described above, it wouldn't be difficult to build a basic regression model to quantify the impact. If it's found that an extra shot per game impacts save percentage by, say 0.1%, then we could make a more fair and meaningful comparison between goalies - in other words, instead of simply saying "Goalie A is disadvantaged", we could quantify that. We might conclude that a goalie with 91.0% save percentage who faces 25 shots per game is equal to a goalie with a 91.5% save percentage who faces 30 shots per game - all other things being equal of course).
The table shows shots/60 and not just shots/GP, so being pulled isn't the factor limiting the number of shots faced.

BM67 is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 06:51 AM
  #59
Pegi90*
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Sachs View Post
What GP cutoff are you using?

If you used the sv% leader among goalies to play 60+ games, how accurate is it now (Rask being the notable exception here...)? What about sv% among goalies who played within 10 games of the highest GP in the league?

2014 Rask: Led in sv%
2013 Bobrovsky: Led in sv%
2012 Lundqvist: Led in sv%
etc.

I think its a fairly accurate indicator in recent years but don't know about the past.
last 6 years actually a potential vezina winner, who played more than just a backup minutes had highest save % in the league.

trend has been pretty obvious coming from the 90s to this day, save % plays the biggest role.

varlamov faced 32 shots per game, of course it looks good on the paper and gets the image how he played his lights out but imagine if he faced just 23 shots a game, he would have 91% and would he even be nominated? i don't think so.

save % plays too big of a role nowdays vezina vote, it wasn't same in the 80s and such but nowdays hockey, it certainly does.

Pegi90* is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 07:08 AM
  #60
Pegi90*
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Is there any evidence that goalies who faces fewer shots have lower save percentage? It should be fairly easy to confirm or disprove that empirically.
well technically when you think, the gga plays the big role there considering the fact which is league average. you can have 93% and so what, team can still score 3 goals on you per game but if you wanna have 93% with 20 shots faced, your gga would be 1.40 which aint possible in this league. so basically having 93% save with facing low shots ins't technically possible just because of the gga, allowing 70 goals in those 50 games you play is just something, i mean i bet there's 10 games where you allow 3 or more goals and rest of then 40 games you could allow 20 goals, just won't happen. average gga in this league is about 2.20 and best goalis having it around 2.00 which is pretty much what you can get over long period of time, having under 2.00 in a certain season is very possible but having it after 10 years, it changes it.

well there aint any "real evidence" but there's alot of examples.

miller/sabres faced alot of shots, had excellent save % then with the st louis he had barely 90%.

hasek with the sabres always faced 29-34 shots a game, had ridiclous save % but when he went to the red wings, he couldn't even get over 92% due the face he faced low amount of shots.

luongo with the panthers had his career high save % due the amount of shots he faced, never got that high with the better canucks team.

oh well, even bryzgalov and his vezina contender year he faced 31.25 shots a game with the coyotes and had his career high save %.

even jonathan quicks career high save % came from facing 27 shots a game compared to nowdays 24 he faces.

martin brodeur faced low amount of shots when niedermayer, daneyko and stevens were playing, once they left he faced 27 and 28 shots a game and recorded 92.2% and 92.0%, like out of sudden and won most of his vezinas during that time.

there's so many examples and i think it's pretty clear that facing more shots it gives you a chance to have higher save %. also that technical part of it when it comes to gga speaks behalf of it.

Pegi90* is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 07:20 AM
  #61
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Roberto Luongo was a .935 on the road...
And Brodeur was .927 on the road...

Here are the shots for both teams in Florida and New Jersey home and road games in 2003-04.

TeamHomeRoad
Fla26382463
NJD21012333

4.27 more shots per game at home for Florida. 5.66 fewer shots per game at home for NJ.

Brodeur faced 17.77% more shots/60 on the road than at home, while Luongo faced only 1.96% more. League average was 8.20% more.

The Devils were in a division with teams with more GF (862-817), more SF (9197-8941) and a higher S% (9.37-9.14) than Florida.

There are a large number of factors that have to be considered, some which have sizable impacts on SV%.

BM67 is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 09:30 AM
  #62
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegi90 View Post
well there aint any "real evidence" but there's alot of examples.
It's amazing how all you find are examples if all you're looking for are examples. There's also lots of counterexamples, of course. Just to pick a few of the larger counterexamples over the past few years...

James Reimer's shots per game went from 32.2 (last year) to 36.8 (this year). His save percentage dropped from 92.4% to 91.1%

Jimmy Howard saw his shots per game go from 30.4 (2010-11) to 26.7 (2011-12), and his save percentage went from 90.8% to 92.0%

Ondrej Pavelec's shots per game went from 35.0 (2009-10) to 31.7 (2010-11), and his save percentage went from 90.6% to 91.4%.

Chris Mason's shots per game went from 29.0 (2009-10) to 31.5 (2010-11), and his save percentage went from 91.3% to 89.2%.

Here's a fun one - Miikka Kiprusoff saw 29.3 shots per game in 2008-09 with a 90.3% save percentage. In 2009-10, his shots faced went down to 23.3 and his save percentage went to 92.0%. In 2010-11, his shots faced went back up to 27.9, and his save percentage went back down to 90.6%.

I've picked some of the more extreme examples, however it happens a lot. There were seven goaltenders who played at least 30 games apiece in 2012-13 and 2013-14 whose save percentage was higher in the season where they faced fewer shots (there were only five whose save percentage was lower in the season where they faced fewer shots).

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 10:09 AM
  #63
Pegi90*
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
It's amazing how all you find are examples if all you're looking for are examples. There's also lots of counterexamples, of course. Just to pick a few of the larger counterexamples over the past few years...

James Reimer's shots per game went from 32.2 (last year) to 36.8 (this year). His save percentage dropped from 92.4% to 91.1%

Jimmy Howard saw his shots per game go from 30.4 (2010-11) to 26.7 (2011-12), and his save percentage went from 90.8% to 92.0%

Ondrej Pavelec's shots per game went from 35.0 (2009-10) to 31.7 (2010-11), and his save percentage went from 90.6% to 91.4%.

Chris Mason's shots per game went from 29.0 (2009-10) to 31.5 (2010-11), and his save percentage went from 91.3% to 89.2%.

Here's a fun one - Miikka Kiprusoff saw 29.3 shots per game in 2008-09 with a 90.3% save percentage. In 2009-10, his shots faced went down to 23.3 and his save percentage went to 92.0%. In 2010-11, his shots faced went back up to 27.9, and his save percentage went back down to 90.6%.

I've picked some of the more extreme examples, however it happens a lot. There were seven goaltenders who played at least 30 games in 2012-13 and 2013-14 whose save percentage was higher in the season where they faced fewer shots (there were only five whose save percentage was lower in the season where they faced fewer shots).
i have said that once you face more shots, YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE to have higher save %.

now those first 4 goalies you picked up, do you consider them as a elite or even good?

if you are good at something, would you rather have more chances when variance/error isn't that high or have just 3 pucks to save, you either save 2 of them which makes it 66% or all which makes it 100%, neither of those aren't making the justice.

got a phone call, gotta go. ill come back on this later.

Pegi90* is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 10:12 AM
  #64
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegi90 View Post
i have said that once you face more shots, YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE to have higher save %.
Well, of course. You will also have a chance to have a lower save percentage.

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 11:29 AM
  #65
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
And Brodeur was .927 on the road...
Which is .008 lower than Luongo and does nothing to prove that Luongo's save percentage was inflated - the issue to which I was responding. Saying that his save percentage is fraudulent because of home shot-counting when he's a .935 on the road, while just a play off the name of the thread, is so blatantly wrong that it warranted a response.

More than that, even if Brodeur faced the same amount of shots at home as he did on the road, he let in 10 more goals at home in just 48 extra minutes. He was a worse goaltender at home, even if you try to account for a difference in shots. And he was still worse than Luongo on the road. He just wasn't as good that year, but he played for a better team, collected his Wins as usual, and he got a trophy out of it.

quoipourquoi is online now  
Old
07-10-2014, 12:55 PM
  #66
Boom Boom Bear
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Coast Salish lands
Country:
Posts: 1,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
My own metric (goals above replacement) is better, and obviously voters aren't looking at that to make their decisions.
awesome. your site needs to be the go to site when these goaltender discussions come up.

Boom Boom Bear is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 01:03 PM
  #67
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Bear View Post
awesome. your site needs to be the go to site when these goaltender discussions come up.
Nah, if my metric already predicts what the voters are thinking, then they don't need my help (assuming that they already know what they're thinking ).

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 03:59 PM
  #68
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,271
vCash: 500
I do find it slightly ironic that people will argue more shots against inflates SV percentage, and then turn around and say teams like the 2011-12 Blues were the reason their goalies had such high save percentages.


Last edited by GuineaPig: 07-11-2014 at 01:39 AM.
GuineaPig is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:00 PM
  #69
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I do find it slightly ironic that people will argue more shots against inflates SV percentage, and then turn around and say teams like the 2011-12 Blues were the reason their goalie's had such high save percentages.
That's not rare to HFBoards - people will generally argue out of whichever side of their mouth supports their preconceived notions and biases.

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:20 PM
  #70
Pegi90*
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupa Batman View Post
Well, of course. You will also have a chance to have a lower save percentage.
yes of course those elite goaltenders will have a chance to have a lower save % but when you are elite goaltender they will benefit from it due the fact, they are just that good that it's better to face more shots. you don't even need to be an elite from benefitting from it in a single season or two, we have seen these bryzgalov's and such getting some vezina recogniztion from those years they faced high amount of shots and turned into completely burden to their organization's later.

i'd say that 70-80% of the last 20 vezina winners have faced 28-34 shots a game, martin brodeur of course making the exception with the 2 wins in early 2000s and few others but that's about it.

the direction we are going nowdays with the vezina vote and such, just removes the chance from certain guys such a jonathan quick. well, of course he has a chance but putting up 94% isn't something he's going to do and even then, he will be product of defense and some other guy from a team who has 93.1% wins the vezina due the fact "he had worse team in front of him".

as i said earlier, i wouldn't give much value to any voting based trophy for obvious reasons.

Pegi90* is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:25 PM
  #71
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegi90 View Post
yes of course those elite goaltenders will have a chance to have a lower save % but when you are elite goaltender they will benefit from it due the fact, they are just that good that it's better to face more shots.
You still haven't proven this.

I've taken a lot of time and effort to provide data and numbers to back up my claims. It'd be awfully nice if you'd at least provide *something* other than wild speculation on your end.

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:27 PM
  #72
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I do find it slightly ironic that people will argue more shots against inflates SV percentage, and then turn around and say teams like the 2011-12 Blues were the reason their goalie's had such high save percentages.
On an individual level, some goalies tend to perform better when they face more shots. I mean, we all remember Luongo struggling when he first got to Vancouver before he asked his team to please let me see more easy shots early in the game to get into it, right?

Overall, I would say that certain teams have characteristics - coaching strategies, strong crease clearing defensemen (probably not as big a factor post-2005), or shot counting bias - that affect save percentage.

I realize the data is far from conclusive for Florida, but I am not the only one to notice that their goalies tended to have excellent save percentages for quite some time.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:27 PM
  #73
Pegi90*
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I do find it slightly ironic that people will argue more shots against inflates SV percentage, and then turn around and say teams like the 2011-12 Blues were the reason their goalie's had such high save percentages.
well they both played about 50% of the games, same with the josh harding played about 20-30 games this year but keeping that same pace for 70 games instead of 20-40 is whole different story.

there's facts from the past and present that facing more shots giving you a chance to have higher save %, just demanding you to save those shots but being an elite goaltender it shouldn't be an issue.

you can have better save % and gga with the shorter periods of time by facing less shots, such a playoffs and stuff but over full season, playing 70 games and doing it constatly, not just a season or two, it won't happen.

Pegi90* is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:28 PM
  #74
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegi90 View Post
you can have better save % and gga with the shorter periods of time by facing less shots, such a playoffs and stuff but over full season, playing 70 games and doing it constatly, not just a season or two, it won't happen.
Prove it. Provide some actual evidence other than cherry-picked outliers.

Bear of Bad News is offline  
Old
07-10-2014, 04:29 PM
  #75
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,201
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
On an individual level, some goalies tend to perform better when they face more shots. I mean, we all remember Luongo struggling when he first got to Vancouver before he asked his team to please let me see more easy shots early in the game to get into it, right?
Agreed - I have a theory that there are good "good team goaltenders" and good "bad team goaltenders", and that some do better in each scenario.

It's certainly not a general rule as some are claiming.

Bear of Bad News 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 11:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.