HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The ripple effect

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2007, 12:04 PM
  #51
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post
As a branch off from there, you get players who put up big offensive numbers, but also give up a lot of goals. And you've also got the classic "checking line players" who don't score much, but don't give up much.

Most teams now stay away from a checking line... simply put, the idea is to not get your ass kicked by their first line, and hope your first line kicks the tar out of their checking line. That's sort of died around the NHL. Now it's more go head to head, and let the depth win.

Anaheim sort of goes away from this. The Pahlsson line generally does a pretty good job of matching up, and then Selanne goes out and beats up on the left overs.
This is also true. Looking at the numbers:

Pahlsson: GF/60 = +2.48, GA/60 = -2.22
Selanne: GF/60 = +3.86, GA/60 = -2.23

As above, Pahlsson faces the other team's first line more often, and so his result indicates stronger defensive performance. Selanne doesn't allow goals any more often, but his line scores a lot more (remember that this is just even-strength situations.)

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 12:08 PM
  #52
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12 View Post
Is it because he's gone?

Or is it because he's gone, and the rest of the team knows he's not coming back?

It's not like this team hasn't been without Smyth's services before, and they managed to at least be competitive.

Part of the reason for that can be attested to the injuries that we have incurred up to this point. With Smyth away for a short period of time, we still had a very productive Stoll/Torres/Pisani line that was sucking up some of the time at ES. Without Stoll in the lineup and Horcoff saddled with Hemsky/Sykora, I don't know if we have one line that can matched at ES. Maybe a Thoresen/Torres - Horcoff - Pisani line might do alright but I don't know how much offense a line like that can create.

At this point, the Oilers have few players they can trust at ES. Horcoff/Stoll/Pisani/Moreau

With Stoll and Moreau out of the lineup, we are paper thin without the services of a guy like Smyth.

momentai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 12:11 PM
  #53
momentai
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post
In terms of who faces the tougher minutes, it's Pahlsson. In terms of who is tougher to play against, it's Selanne.
Clarification here I think is needed:

To an extent, it's tougher to play against Selanne because if you're a good ES player Randy Carlyle is going to have Selanne avoid you like the plague. And if he's always playing against players that aren't as proficient at ES, those minutes are surely goign to be a handful for any opposition's 3rd/4th line.

momentai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 12:17 PM
  #54
RiversQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
My intention of posting in this thread was not to tear down your work (nor have I up to this point) it was simply questioning the reliability of the data you have to work with.

So with that said, this comment is starting to transcend into a topic I had no intention of commenting on.
Ah, so when it comes to the matter of actually finding the error you're going to duck it. You do realize that you didn't answer anyone's questions here don't you? In fact you probably did everybody a disservice by trotting out a single event and overinterpreting it. A little ironic, don't you think? The overinterpretation ball is fully in your court.

RiversQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 12:23 PM
  #55
RiversQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe View Post
You bring up a valid point. I have defined 'quality of competition' as 'does a player face the other team's first line?' or 'does a player face opposing players with the highest +/-?'

Selanne and Jagr will never face each other, so their 'quality of competition' (as defined this way) will be low. That doesn't mean that they don't face a tough checking line - but they don't face a lot of guys who are real offensive threats.
Well, Selanne and Jagr are slightly cherry picked here. Those are the best examples of elite players that are highly sheltered - their coaches expend maximum effort avoiding matchups.

A significant portion of the other clearly elite players do play against each other. I guess by your measure when that happens consistently they hurt each other's results. ie. The players that do this regularly like Richards or Horcoff see their numbers pulled towards even - therefore they don't boost each other's strength of opposition values commensurate with their abilities. Is that fair to say?

RiversQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 12:53 PM
  #56
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiversQ View Post
Ah, so when it comes to the matter of actually finding the error you're going to duck it. You do realize that you didn't answer anyone's questions here don't you? In fact you probably did everybody a disservice by trotting out a single event and overinterpreting it. A little ironic, don't you think? The overinterpretation ball is fully in your court.
Back it up a second.

What question do you want answered?

I believe it was you who asked for the example and I provided one.

If you can accuse me of ducking the issue then I can accuse you of turning a blind eye in an effort to see what you want because nothing has been offered up to contradict me other than a personal belief that all is good.

If anything, my ONE example is more proof that the data is unreliable than anything that has been suggested to the opposite. You can't prove jack all in terms of the shift charts being as accurate as they are being portrayed as. At the very least I provided an example, where's your example?

Further to that, I didn't over interpret dick. I freely admitted that this example is suggestive and not conclusive with the point being that a lack of proof one way or another should at a minimum result in being able to question the accuracy.

I made my point clear, if you are not prepared to consider it then don't read it. If you dispute it then prove me wrong. I am prepared to reconsider my views if you can demonstrate I am wrong but don't be offended that contrary opinion can be made to what you clearly believe is gospel. After all if it's such a slam dunk that this stuff is fool proof you shouldn't have a problem proving me wrong.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 01:27 PM
  #57
LawnDemon
Registered User
 
LawnDemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danger Bay
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,984
vCash: 500
I love people who complain just for the sake of complaining. The best part is when they don't offer any rational commentary or reasonable solutions for their grievances but, rather, continue with comments like "I think what you're doing is great but it doesn't make any sense and is wrong. Keep up the good work".

It seems to me that the people who are questioning the validity of these figures need to develop a better understanding of statistical quality and data analysis. It's pretty easy to get up on a soapbox and spout off about how "them numberisms is the devil's business becausin (gasp) there is ERRORS IN TEH DATA!!11!!1one!11!!OMG".

Don't get me wrong. I certainly agree that the quality of data is something to be considered when debating the merits of a study. However, it is simply ignorant to summarily dismiss a piece of work because the source data isn't 100% accurate. There is no such thing as 100% accurate data when collected over time, specifically when the collection has a human element. Moreover, the statistical process is intended to provide a framework for interpretation and decision making, not a binary representation of a situation. Fortunately there's no better cure for ignorance than a solid, swift kick in the education. This is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_method

LawnDemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 02:18 PM
  #58
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
You are prepared to say that ice time is correctly tracked within a 10% margin of error but don't believe +/- is
Sure. +- gets credited to whoever's on the ice when a goal occurs, and while the + and the - may be more accurate than 10%, the final +- stat doesn't have that accuracy. Make a mistake (or have a line change behind the play) and the "wrong" guy gets credit. It's a binary error, so if it happens 5 times a year to a guy who's a +3 or a +10, it's much more than a 10% error. I just don't know how often that happens.

If we assume a consistent 5-second mistake on head-to-head ice time for on-the-fly changes and no errors on face-off change, then we've got 10% uncertainty on ice time. By looking at the shift charts, that appears to be how good the official scorers are.

Quote:
The question to me isn't what the chances are that Bergeron will ever show up higher than Smith but more so how Bonk is 166 players higher than a guy like Pronger. As suggested by some others here, there are simply too many variables to consider.
Quality of Competition is just one stat:

Bonk: Minutes: 25.7% GF/60: +2.29 GA/60: -2.20 Competition: 0.1815
Pronger: Minutes: 32.2% GF/60: +3.48 GA/60: -2.00 Competition: 0.0441

Pronger missed 9 games, and plays closer to 36% of Even-Strength time. When he's on the ice, the Ducks score way more often than the Canadiens do when Bonk is on. Pronger's unit also gives up goals at a lower rate.

Bonk's only "advantage" is that he gets thrown out almost exclusively against the other team's top line. Pronger 1) has more offensive skill; and 2) plays so many minutes that it's neither smart nor possible to play him just against the other team's top line.

Taken in sum, there's no comparison: Pronger's value is way higher than Bonk's. I am sure that if we only looked at Pronger's tough minutes against the other team's stars, his performance would be better than Bonk's. But he's not a specialist like Bonk, so he doesn't happen to appear at the top of every single list.

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 02:28 PM
  #59
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,820
vCash: 500
Thanks the Rage and gabe for this thread. Its one of the reasons why I was attracted to hfboards in the first place - actually informative threads that made me feel that I've actually gained hockey knowledge from. Instead of threads that make me feel that I've lost hockey knowledge e.g. "Why didn't Low3 trade Prong3r for Bouwmeister?" or "MacT can never coach young guys - he just likes vets who play like him" threads. Sigh....

Master Lok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 02:36 PM
  #60
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiversQ View Post
A significant portion of the other clearly elite players do play against each other. I guess by your measure when that happens consistently they hurt each other's results. ie. The players that do this regularly like Richards or Horcoff see their numbers pulled towards even - therefore they don't boost each other's strength of opposition values commensurate with their abilities. Is that fair to say?
Agreed. Richards and Horcoff face tougher players, which pulls down their +- and makes them appear to be weaker players when in fact they are not:

Horcoff - Icetime: 30.9% GF: +2.97 GA: -3.58 comp: 0.0891
Richards - Icetime: 35.6% GF: +2.45 GA: -2.64 comp: 0.0520

There isn't a simple way to correct for this. I am loathe to calculate the "quality of opponents' quality of competition"!!!

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 03:23 PM
  #61
voxel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 10,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe View Post
Sure. +- gets credited to whoever's on the ice when a goal occurs, and while the + and the - may be more accurate than 10%, the final +- stat doesn't have that accuracy.
Sorry to interject - I was about to same thing and agree with you. The +/- system might be 99% (throwing out a number) accurate but does it "accurately" measure what everybody expects it to mesure? i.e the positve or negative contribution of the player. Didn't the 80s Oiler's defensemen have insane +/- just for watching Gretz + Mess throw in goals at will?

The on-ice / off-ice metric seems to be more "accurate" regardless of errors.

Is everybody using the game stats on nhl.com or do they have another source?

voxel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 04:08 PM
  #62
Showerhead
Registered User
 
Showerhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxel View Post
Sorry to interject - I was about to same thing and agree with you. The +/- system might be 99% (throwing out a number) accurate but does it "accurately" measure what everybody expects it to mesure? i.e the positve or negative contribution of the player. Didn't the 80s Oiler's defensemen have insane +/- just for watching Gretz + Mess throw in goals at will?
You may have an important point with this. Here's a relevant example:

There are a number of ways to coordinate defense pairings with forward lines. Imagine that you've got a rookie 4th line that needs sheltering. If your coaches ensure they've always got a Pronger-Smith type combination backing them up, you've got added insurance. In this situation, however, your elite defense tandem's +/- will take something of an hit relative to other pairings on the team.

There are numerous examples to be made just by rearranging the one I made above. Can anyone address this and gauge its relevance?

Showerhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 05:06 PM
  #63
gabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead View Post
You may have an important point with this. Here's a relevant example:

There are a number of ways to coordinate defense pairings with forward lines. Imagine that you've got a rookie 4th line that needs sheltering. If your coaches ensure they've always got a Pronger-Smith type combination backing them up, you've got added insurance. In this situation, however, your elite defense tandem's +/- will take something of an hit relative to other pairings on the team.

There are numerous examples to be made just by rearranging the one I made above. Can anyone address this and gauge its relevance?
I'm not sure that's going to account for much of a player's ice time. Pronger, for example, plays 79.3% of the time with O'Donnell as his D partner, and then gets the forward lines evenly, with Pahlsson, Niedermayer and Moen the most common.

Smith is all over the map due to Oilers D injuries, but his most common linemates were Tjarnqvist, Hejda, Horcoff and Pisani.

You can take a look here and see if anybody jumps out at you:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/qual_team_by_team.html

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 05:58 PM
  #64
RiversQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Back it up a second.

What question do you want answered?

I believe it was you who asked for the example and I provided one.
No, you questioned the quality of the NHL.com data and I asked you to prove it. Coming up with a single example hardly constitutes proof. So yes you did duck the question unless you truly believe that was an adequate answer. If that is the case and you do believe that was an adequate answer, then you're overinterpreting by a mile.

Saying that the icetime and event stats on NHL.com are "garbage" is a strong assertion. One that requires some actual legwork to prove. If you're not going to take the time to prove such a thing, it's pointless to expect that to have any worth whatsoever.

Essentially, you've said "Here, I found one bad data point." One out of how many? Hundreds of thousands of shifts by all the players in the NHL this year and you found one error and you're hoping people here will take that seriously?!?! Shake your head.

Trust me, we get the original point - there is error in the data. Heck, 90+% of statistical analysis is managing error. However, equating that to "garbage in = garbage out" is a totally uninformed leap in logic.

RiversQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 06:35 PM
  #65
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Coming up with a single example hardly constitutes proof.
Actually it does. Whether or not the errors occur frequently enough to be significant is what he'd have to prove.

If someone (say, I don't know, Einstein) comes along and demonstrates that Newton's Laws of Motion are incomplete, all it takes is a single instance to "prove" it. Granted, the instance must be verifiable (in science this is done through repeating the experiment, as I'm sure you already know), but in this case, it's easy to verify that Tom Gilbert was awarded a shift he could not have been in.


The question (which you are also supporting), is whether or not it's significant. This is pretty much what you were saying in the rest of your post. I'm just feeling anal retentive today and arguing semantics.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 06:40 PM
  #66
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rage View Post
Mudcrutch brough up a good point on his site (mc79hockey.com) about losing Smyth: the ripple effect.

Check out Desjardin's opposition difficulty rankings:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/qual_comp.html

How many offensive superstars are ahead of Smyth on that list? How many of them limit goals against as well? So Smyth is sixth in the league in goals/game since the lock-out, despite playing some seriously tough minutes, AND he doesn't bleed goals against (see Rick Nash). What's going to happen when every other forward on the team has to play tougher minutes? Lower scoring totals team wide, and likely higher goals against as well.

Also: Jason Smith is awesome. 10th toughest minutes in the league and he holds his head above water.
So where was all this statistical analysis when all most everyone was arguing against signing Smyth for 5 million a year before the season started. Mine was a pretty lonely opinion. Guess I was right ALL along!

I was making those same arguments and most were all calling me nuts.

Now all of a sudden we should have signed Smyth to a 5.5 million dollar, five year deal, which almost everyone was against too!

Way to stick to your guns people! It is actually quite amusing and predictable to see all the hypocrisy!


Last edited by hockeyaddict101: 03-02-2007 at 06:49 PM.
hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 06:52 PM
  #67
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Good point...they're just human beings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12 View Post
Is it because he's gone?

Or is it because he's gone, and the rest of the team knows he's not coming back?

It's not like this team hasn't been without Smyth's services before, and they managed to at least be competitive.
I doubt ole 94 gave that many stirring speeches but as a teammate you knew he pretty much gave it all and would to the wall on most if not all shifts to win. And that inspires you. And if you were one of the smarter cats you were on the bench saying, "ha 94's taking on ZBerg and now I get a crack at Robert Lang.""

That's gone now and one of the killers about looking ahead to next year is Riv and I would always spitball and talk about next season start off with the 94-10 combo playing the tough min and hoping that 14-83 PLUS could exploit the soft ones.

This isn't directed to you personally cos I like your take on things but if you look at this Oilers forwards group and see anything great or hopeful when it come to matching up at ES and you don't think 94 takes a huge chunk out of that plan?

Then you sir or madame are a ****** dummy.

Matts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 06:54 PM
  #68
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
My roommate's stepdad made what I thought was a pretty astute observation. This team needs to get on the road.

I have no doubt it's a hard pill to swallow when Ryan Smyth gets traded, but reading and hearing about it 24 hours a day every day certainly isn't going to help things out.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 06:56 PM
  #69
RiversQ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
Actually it does. Whether or not the errors occur frequently enough to be significant is what he'd have to prove.

If someone (say, I don't know, Einstein) comes along and demonstrates that Newton's Laws of Motion are incomplete, all it takes is a single instance to "prove" it. Granted, the instance must be verifiable (in science this is done through repeating the experiment, as I'm sure you already know), but in this case, it's easy to verify that Tom Gilbert was awarded a shift he could not have been in.


The question (which you are also supporting), is whether or not it's significant. This is pretty much what you were saying in the rest of your post. I'm just feeling anal retentive today and arguing semantics.
Yes, well it is all semantics. Your example in this case doesn't really relate at all. First off, he didn't say that this work was "incomplete," he said it was "garbage." Personally, I think that ups the ante considerably.

Secondly, much of what he's complaining about is simply the collection of the raw data itself. Your example consists of proving or disproving a model which attempts to describe physical phenomena. That's a big difference.

RiversQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 07:01 PM
  #70
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
He pointed out an error. The "garbage in = garbage out" is a common term in computing science, refering to how a computer will process any data that is given to it, regardless of whether or not it is correct (or even appropriate).

I think you may be taking the term "garbage" a bit too literally.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 07:05 PM
  #71
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts View Post
I doubt ole 94 gave that many stirring speeches but as a teammate you knew he pretty much gave it all and would to the wall on most if not all shifts to win. And that inspires you. And if you were one of the smarter cats you were on the bench saying, "ha 94's taking on ZBerg and now I get a crack at Robert Lang.""

That's gone now and one of the killers about looking ahead to next year is Riv and I would always spitball and talk about next season start off with the 94-10 combo playing the tough min and hoping that 14-83 PLUS could exploit the soft ones.

This isn't directed to you personally cos I like your take on things but if you look at this Oilers forwards group and see anything great or hopeful when it come to matching up at ES and you don't think 94 takes a huge chunk out of that plan?

Then you sir or madame are a ****** dummy.
I don't think there is one person on this board that doesn't appreciate his value NOW that he is gone.

BUT... there were tonnes of posters that argued against signing him because and I can just go by the opinions in some of the many threads. Here is a sampling.

-There were much better players that could be had for 5 million (I argued with many a poster about that one) The majority seemed to jump on that bandwagon.

-Ryan Smyth doesn't create any offence (all he does is stand in front of the net and get points), A few jumped on that bandwagon.

-A many page thread, very recent (after he had a game where he didn't have any points) showing why Smyth wasn't worth the money and obviously wasn't the face of the franchise and certainly shouldn't be signed for 5 million.

So judging by your posts there must be a lot of dummies on this board but really I don't believe that.

The truth is that a lot of posters just jump on the most popular opinion and few seem to want to be a lone wolf with a differing opinion so they just don't say anything.

hockeyaddict101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 07:30 PM
  #72
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Actually I believe there are:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post

__So judging by your posts there must be a lot of dummies on this board but really I don't believe that___
Me and DB can't agree on anything but I don't consider him a dummy. Other people here? Well they are either dummies, they're afraid that questioning MGMT somehow sullies their record of fandom and they aren't learned enough to form a decent opinion.

I think what we're also seeing is that some people have no value for matchups knowing who plays against who and how guys get their points and just what that makes them worth dollarwise. I won't call those people dummies but I will say they're in for a treat and a whole different way of seeing the game once they open their minds to the whole matchups idea.

I can't say we'll get outscored on average of 4-0 every game down the stretch or anything like that but MacT at home ran 94-10-83 against the other team's top lines and gambled they'd come out no worse than even and then he hoped the 2nd and 3rd liners could outscore the other team's likewise guys. Now with no 94 everything's in chaos and not only are the Oilers not scoring, they're not even getting scoring chances. Sure a lot of it has to do with them lagging mentally knowing their best player's gone but there's also something to be said how this team now matches up.

Matts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 08:13 PM
  #73
Showerhead
Registered User
 
Showerhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post
So where was all this statistical analysis when all most everyone was arguing against signing Smyth for 5 million a year before the season started. Mine was a pretty lonely opinion. Guess I was right ALL along!

I was making those same arguments and most were all calling me nuts.

Now all of a sudden we should have signed Smyth to a 5.5 million dollar, five year deal, which almost everyone was against too!

Way to stick to your guns people! It is actually quite amusing and predictable to see all the hypocrisy!
I'm sure there are those who flip-flop but for the most part people have been pretty stubborn by my eye. I have always just assumed that there are so many posters that this board can seem to turn on a dime even when people are just saying the same things over again. Personally, I defended Smyth in the 5.25 to 5.5 range pretty strongly in recent threads and I would still do so. The only issue for me is term - I'd do a 3 year deal like that in a heartbeat but a 5 year deal with NTC is not something I would do.

I just find your choice of thread to call out hypocrites in to be a little strange, so what am I missing?

Showerhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 09:53 PM
  #74
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyaddict101 View Post

Way to stick to your guns people! It is actually quite amusing and predictable to see all the hypocrisy!
Who is being a hyprocrite?

The Rage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2007, 10:08 PM
  #75
mudcrutch79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
I just want to make a point about this error. There's no doubt that Tom Gilbert didn't have a shift when it says he had a shift. That's an error. You can tell how accurate they are though, just by looking for the guys that you do know play together. Count the 187 line's shifts - it's all there. Look for other lines and see if they've got the players who play together, playing together.

I have a hard time seeing the objection here because so much of it is obviously right. Anyone can pick out the odd error but, as mentioned here, it's hard to say that this is substantially incorrect or anything.

mudcrutch79 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 09:56 PM.

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

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