Fun With Numbers
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 11:30 AM EST
84 comments
Actually, that's a lie. None of this will be fun. Or maybe it will if you're into that kind of self-flagellation thing which, if you're a Leafs fan, is likely. Anyway, without further ado, more from the king of stats and the newest member of the Barilkosphere judging by how much he's been willing to work on their numbers. First up, how the Leafs have managed to outshoot their opponents:
Their goaltending has indeed been poor in tie games - with a 934 save percentage, they're 28th in the league. But the real culprit has been a miniscule shooting percentage - just two goals on 245 shots, or a 0.82% shooting percentage. Yes, you read that right. The Leafs have scored on less than 1% of their shots at even-strength when the game was tied. This is simply unheard of: when the Leafs have been down, their shooting percentage is 5.4% this season; when they're up, it's 10%.
So if the Leafs ever get a lead they'll blow the opposition out! Gabe summed it as the Leafs' bad luck meeting goaltenders good luck meeting to create a crushing reality from which there is no escape. Just kidding, I added that last part. He actually says, as he has maintained, that it will eventually even out. I am looking forward to that happening sooner rather than later.
A visit from our favourite author comes after the jump.
Next up, laughing at the Toronto media! Obviously, we missed this article because we hardly regularly read anyone in the Toronto establishment anymore other than Mirtle and Cox (yes, Damien "The Omen" Cox) but apparently Dave Feschuk took a dip in that stats game (Leafs chances of getting to playoffs? 1.7%) with predictable results:
If you want to estimate a team's chance of making the playoffs this early in the season, you have to take its current record and regress very heavily to the mean. And, in the case of Toronto, who have outshot their opponents and have been without their presumptive #1 goaltender for much of the season, you should probably expect them to play over .500 hockey the rest of the way.
But it's nicer to think that the Leafs have just a 1-in-60 chance of making the playoffs, isn't it? Because then you "don't need to think too much" and you can just beat up on Brian Burke for being such a crappy GM.
Oh, and if anybody out there wants to give me the Leafs at 60-1 to make the playoffs, I'll take it.
To be fair, the legion of anti-Leafs that will beat us over the head with that 1.7% figure wouldn't be able to find flaws in Sportsclubstats methodology either. Hell, I was already measuring the height of the ceiling beam before I read that post. To top things off, Illegal Curve points out this gem:
The biggest flaw in Feschuk’s story was that he took the 1.7% chances and said that the Bruins would now have a 98.3% chance of a lottery pick—which is ridiculous because he is citing a stat that speaks to the team’s chances of making the playoffs. The stat doesn’t attempt to predict where the Leafs would finish in the standings (between 16th and 30th). Toronto would have to be among the worst six teams in the NHL to have their pick be part of the lottery.
Oh Feschuk, always look on the dark side of life eh?
And while I'm lauding the work of a Queen's grad, congratulations to the 2009 Yates Cup Champion Golden Gaels. You can read more about the game from fellow Golden Gaels Neate Sagerand Andrew Bucholtz or just bask in the picture:
The Mitchell Bowl (or national semi-final) goes Saturday at 1pm on TSN against the Laval Rouge et Or juggernaut. Good luck Golden Gaels!
0 recs |
84 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
1.7%
PLAYOFFS!!!1
A Toronto sports blog, where unabashed homerism is alive and well...
by eyebleaf on Nov 17, 2009 11:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Don’t ever change.
leaf fan stuck in ottawa, still. Now truculently rebranded!
by stucky on Nov 17, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank goodness we have Gabe and his numbers.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Nov 17, 2009 11:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I will now set myself on fire.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on Nov 17, 2009 11:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think the shooting percentage will just even out on its own. The problem is that when the Leafs are down, they lose their confidence, and Jason Blake starts taking wrist shots from centre ice. The only way it will even out is if they a) stop giving up the lead so early over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…… and over again, and b) when you do get behind, start forechecking aggressively and getting in the opposing goalie’s face. There’s no reason Ponikarovsky can’t do what Holmstrom does; park his ass in front of the net and dare the opposition to try and get rid of him. But apparently he’s too nice a guy. Doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by, say, scoring on them, or making them win fewer games. What a stand up guy. And Blake? I’m sure that opposing goalies send him thank you cards on a weekly basis for inflating their save percentages. Oh my, I’ve gone and angered up my blood again…
by Pal Hal Pall on Nov 17, 2009 11:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Poni’s on pace for 32 goals.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, he is, but the Leafs need timely goals. When they need a goal, there’s nobody in front of the net to deflect Jason Blake’s 3 mph wrist shot. And he’s a streaky player; I don’t expect that he’ll actually hit 32 goals.
by Pal Hal Pall on Nov 17, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He really isn't that streaky
He hasn’t gone more than 6 games without a goal this season… and that was his longest stretch. Aside from that one pause in his goal scoring he hasn’t gone more than 2 games without a goal.
Last season he had 2 stretches of 6 games without a point (his longest), 1 stretch of 9 games without a goal (his longest), and 1 stretch of 7 games without a goal. The 9 point goal less stretch and one of the 6 game pointless stretch coincided.
He really isn’t that inconsistent compared to many NHLers.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve@Leafs.HockeyAnalysis.com on Nov 17, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he’s just not one of those players who seems to be able to score on will.
Although that goal in Montreal to tie it up when the Habs fans were singing Goodbye was heartwarming.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Nov 17, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that was Poni, karina.
I am Mikhail Grabovski's smirking revenge.
by kidkawartha on Nov 17, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Every team starts shooting more when they are down. When you’re up, you have more leisure to wait for exactly the right shot.
If you are the bruins, you take that leisure even when you shouldn’t
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, shooting percentage will just even out on it’s own.
If you roll the dice enough times, you’ll get the number you’re looking for.
Jason Blake will not finish the season with a 3.3% shooting percentage (just as Rosehill isn’t going to maintain a 20% shooting percentage at the NHL).
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
by mf37 on Nov 17, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Take solace TOR fans
That 1.7% number is crap (for now). It’s a weighted average based on the Leafs play early in the season.
i.e. it assumes for every game for the rest of the season that the Leafs will be as bad as they were in the previous games. The sample size is too small to determine how good/bad the Leafs are, and assuming that the Leafs are genuinely as bad as their record (which is what the Weighted assumes) is a preposterous assumption (and Sports club stats knows this, which is why they publish 50/50 & weighted.). The weighted number should be used late in the season when there’s a bigger sample size, and a teams record is a more accurate reflection of exactly how good they are.
In other words: The weighted stats assume Toronto has a 16% chance of winning every game, and only a 37% chance of getting at least a point. It’s worse than that against teams with top records at this point. Even if Toronto is a bad team they still have a better than 16% chance of winning.
The better number to use at this point is the one for 50/50, which gives TOR a 12.5% chance. Not great, but certainly more reasonable.
This is a case of:
a) the journalist not understanding statistics at all
b) using a preposterous number to make an even more absurd column
c) all of the above.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2009 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it struck me how irresponsible it is on the part of the author to throw those numbers around when he clearly doesn’t understand how they work. But that’s Toronto media for you.
by koopa kid on Nov 17, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you switch it over to 50/50 chances instead of weighted the number jumps up to 12.5%
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was what I was trying to say. Sorry If I was unclear.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The better number to use at this point is the one for 50/50, which gives TOR a 12.5% chance. Not great, but certainly more reasonable.
Psht, who reads?
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Really I should have said “here’s the link to the ”http://www.sportsclubstats.com/NHL/Eastern/Northeast/MapleLeafs2.html" target="new">50/50 chances if you want to look at it"
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I give up.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hows your sad sack Grief franchise doing?
LOL. Move this team to a city where fans are knowledgeable about hockey, like Portland Oregon
by greg122 on Nov 17, 2009 12:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The leafs may be losing (and that’s great for the Bruins) but you’re not even a good troll.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d love to see a team in Portland.
Don’t blame the fans for the media.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Nov 17, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Lame troll is lame
Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That
by JaredFromLondon on Nov 17, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also
an islanders fan? really?
Puns, Innuendo and Bad Spelling, Yes We Got That
by JaredFromLondon on Nov 17, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL. He even trolled … SBN’s Islanders site! Yep, don’t make ’em like they used to. I blame the water.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
by Dominik on Nov 17, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s the laziest troll in SBN history. I blame Sarah Palin for inspiring him to continually quit.
I am Mikhail Grabovski's smirking revenge.
by kidkawartha on Nov 17, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, guy!
I feel much better about my crappy day now, just by knowing that I’m not you.
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HAHAHA
Enjoy watching Tavares in Kansas City lame troll.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Other brilliant comments:
On the rangers site: “1940”
On the Bruins site: “Krejci didn’t play well last night”
Here: well, you can see.
WAIT
I just got it! “Grief” is supposed to stand in for “Leaf!” hahaha, that’s ridiculous.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They just don’t make trolls like they used to. I blame the economy.
I am Mikhail Grabovski's smirking revenge.
by kidkawartha on Nov 17, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Troll Fail
Space Weed Says The Steve Ott of Hockey Blogs
"DO NOT get stuck behind Kyle Wellwood in the buffet line. This isn't really etiquette, but it will prevent you from starving to death"- Down Goes Brown on Etiquette for Jason Spezza's wedding
by Space Weed on Nov 17, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Enjoy Tavares while you still can...
Once the Isles start sucking, and the fans turn on him he’s out. Just you watch.
Failure troll is failure.
Junior Director of Anti-Bandwagoning, PPP Amalgamated Heavy Industries
Truculence is Everything: Blogging Leafs Nation's Emotions, Because We Care.
by Kavel Pubina on Nov 17, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I'm wrong
But do not all teams missing the playoffs actually take part in the lottery? In which case Feschuk’s 98.3% would be accurate. It’s just that if you win the lottery, you can only move up 4 picks, meaning for Boston to get the #1 pick we’d have to finish bottom 5, and there is NOT a 98.3% chance of that happening (yet anyway).
by lordosis on Nov 17, 2009 12:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah. It’s incorrect of Feschuk (quickly becoming my least favourite Toronto media member) to equate “leafs miss the playoffs” with “Leafs finish bottom 5”, particularly because the 1.7% figure comes from the supposed odds of the Leafs finishing 1-8 in the East, rather than 1-25 in the NHL.
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Draft lottery odds
Yes, all 14 non-playoff teams get are included in the draft lottery, but the team that wins the lottery can only move up a max of 4 slots.
Another thing to keep in mind is that It’s a weighted lottery. Here are the odds:
25.0% – 30th place team
18.8% – 29th
14.2% – 28th
10.7% – 27th
8.1% – 26th
6.2% – 25th
4.7% – 24th
3.6% – 23rd
2.7% – 22nd
2.1% – 21st
1.5% – 20th
1.1% – 19th
0.8% – 18th
0.5% – 17th
Bitter Leaf Fan: because sometimes there's no option but to be bitter...
by mf37 on Nov 17, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that’s correct. The number was flawed to start on so many levels. However, if you look at the 50/50 page the Leafs are still 25% likely to finish 15th in the conference and 20% likely to finish 14th. Carolina is at 35% finishing 15th, as well. The Ducks are the third-most-likely-to-miss-the-playoffs.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Technically
Yes but he’s implying the lottery for the first overall pick.
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Toronto is 7 games under .500
If we can somehow figure out how not to lose close games, and if we can consistently maintain a record of 3 wins and 2 losses every 5 games for the next 35 games, that will put us at 24-24-5 (53 pts) with 29 games left.
That is just a rough example, but it seems like a somewhat realistic goal, does it not?
If they could just go 3 and 2 every 5 games (or better, of course) that would put them in striking distance of making a run at 8th, even with a head-slappingly terrible start.
by TMLSiegeinVancouver on Nov 17, 2009 12:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Remember
Nobody ever went to journalism school because they were good at math.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 12:34 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
rec’d.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Nov 17, 2009 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did Feschuk go to J-school? I can’t find any information one way or the other.
by Hawerchuk on Nov 17, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I assume so. Don’t they all?
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t actually know.
I did, though, and have stories to back up my earlier comment. :)
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m good at math. But majoring in that seemed, uh, boring. And unlikely to lead to a career in hockey.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Nov 17, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s 20th century thinking James!
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That was mostly my logic as well.
Unfortunately, I later found out I didn’t want to major in Journalism either….
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably because you saw what they make in the first few years. And you were good at math…
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Nov 17, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They told us up front that most would be doing something else by 30. I was a quick learner. :)
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Meh, I’ve got a degree in English literature somewhere in my closet.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Nov 17, 2009 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they ever create a specialized degree in sports journalism, a course in statistics and probability should be mandatory.
Either that, or a few hundred thousand hands of poker. Either one.
Down Goes Brown - Unapologetically nostalgic for the past. Brutally realistic about the present. Grudgingly optimistic about the future.
by Down Goes Brown on Nov 17, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In which you are required to have money on the line
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
by Wan Ihite on Nov 17, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love how Feschuk
somehow gets in a Schenn quote from last week and ties it in to his insane math. And by “love”, I mean “absolutely hate”.
Junior Director of Anti-Bandwagoning, PPP Amalgamated Heavy Industries
Truculence is Everything: Blogging Leafs Nation's Emotions, Because We Care.
by Kavel Pubina on Nov 17, 2009 1:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
GOLDEN GAELS!
Wuck Festern!
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
:(
Well done to Queens, they played great. It was an epic matchup. As Tim Micallef said on the broadcast, I don’t think there was a loser in that game, just time ran out.
On the other hand, there goes possibly the only chance for a while to see a team I support win a championship. FML.
leaf fan stuck in ottawa, still. Now truculently rebranded!
by stucky on Nov 17, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Western will re-load. They definitely have enough money. Won’t matter though. Laval is a juggernaut :(
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brock Football
Undefeated since 1964. Woo!
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Truer words were never spoken re: Laval. What a freakin’ football factory they’ve become.
leaf fan stuck in ottawa, still. Now truculently rebranded!
by stucky on Nov 17, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of Fun With Numbers,
I just read Damien’s article about Wilson, and I honestly can’t decide which of these posters is more hilariously stupid. Not to steal kidk’s schtick, but…
Actually in the last 100 games there have been 218 points available (with 18 overtime games)
I know that the NHL has screwed around with the point system in recent years, but I don’t remember them going to a system where a win suddenly became worth 2.18 points.
Hey Damian,
37 wins in 100 games is a 46% winning percetage?
And here’s the fourth and fifth paragraph of the article.
If you’re keeping score at home, that’s 63 losses for Wilson during his Leaf tenure against 37 triumphs. Of those 63 defeats, 18 have been through either overtime or a shootout.
Of a possible 200 points, Wilson has achieved 92 for a “winning” percentage of .460
Stay in school, kids.
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 2:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I rest your case.
I am Mikhail Grabovski's smirking revenge.
by kidkawartha on Nov 17, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can't make this stuff up.
Actually in the last 100 games there have been 218 points available (with 18 overtime games)
The person who posted that goes by the handle “Math Guy.”
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 3:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The entire comment:
Actually in the last 100 games there have been 218 points available (with 18 overtime games) so the leafs have 92 of 218 points for a percentage record of 42.2% (.422). Sorry, it’s worse than you think.
Boggles the mind.
Also – reply fail above. Bleh.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
People don’t get into commenting on Damien Cox’s columns because they are good at math…
Pension Plan Puppets: A Toronto Maple Leafs blog and a group therapy session.
by PPP on Nov 17, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, usually just takes 5 words.
Totally agree with you, Damien.
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m still trying to understand how they arrived at that number…
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Nov 17, 2009 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't
It’ll just end with someone having to clean pieces of your head off the walls and ceiling, and nobody wants that.
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's very sad, but:
Of the 100 games, 18 went into OT. That means there were 218 points allocated out of the 100 games.
“Math Guy” mistakenly believes that in a three-point game, the Leafs could somehow wind up with all three points, so he adds the 18 “thanks for coming out” points to the total points available to the Leafs. Thus he turns 92/200 (.460) into 92/218 (.422).
“It’s worse than you think,” he says. Yeesh.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If there was a way for one team to get 3 points in a game Betteman would have made sure Crosby found it by now.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 17, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My thought on this is that they are saying that the 18 OT games were worth 3 points total, which is true, even though no one team can get 3 points in a game, rendering their point invalid.
Join me on the Hockey Blog Adventure! (or Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)
by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Nov 17, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s pretty much where they got the number. But you would think that somebody who goes by mathboy would understand the mathematics involved in calculating basic points percentage.
Resident Capologist
by clrkaitken on Nov 17, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MathMan would...
I have nothing interesting to say.
by blurr1974 on Nov 17, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s weird how constant losing turns normally sane Leaf fans into idiots.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Nov 17, 2009 3:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
When you look at the comments that get posted on their stories/blogs and infer the likely contents of their inboxes, you sort of understand how they could come to view “Leafs Nation” (as opposed to Leafs RAUP, which is totally cool and hip) as a bunch of drooling morons.
Leaf, the universe and everything.
by 1967ers on Nov 17, 2009 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh yes, for sure.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
by Karina on Nov 17, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No comment.
Blogging on hockey at fromtherink.com
by James Mirtle on Nov 17, 2009 7:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i have a .460 winning percentage
of understanding the comments on Cox’s blog ftw?
Tanking by accident?
by Haeyena on Nov 17, 2009 4:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I ‘dunno. I’ll give you a shootout win on that one…
by Hawerchuk on Nov 18, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
StatCounter
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
