MattPie

Check there!

SO much work stress this week, even on a Friday. ;)

I think it started before, but 15 years ago, ESPN could be profitable by just airing sports and showing highlights because there wasn't another way to consume that. Now with Youtube/streaming you don't need to tune into a TV channel to catch a show. So they made it about the people (either their own people or the sports) to men (mostly) can get into their soaps. There's almost surely a link to the Dennis Miller era for Monday Night football too, where media companies decided that people need to be entertained *while* watching sports rather than just getting extra info about the game they're watching.

Interesting article. I don't doubt the conclusion, although I think the method is a little suspect. It calls any game where teams are on opposite sides of .500, which would include a bunch of evenly matched games. Since it's talking football, the example would be a 6-5 team vs. a 5-6 team. This doesn't strike me as a trap. It'd be interesting to re-run the numbers using (say) <.400 teams vs >.600 teams for true mismatches. Additionally, using football with limited numbers of games doesn't seem ideal. Not for statistic issues, but that it seems less likely that the Pats will flub a game against the Dophins since there are only 16 vs. the Sabres flubbing the Rangers tonight in game 12 of 82.

The after has a very Gone with the Wind feel to it for some reason.

FTFY. :)

Buffer Overflow! Without knowing the original title(s), I'd go with "6K 2 A"

I think he's listed as a center, so he gets rated that way even if he's playing wing (my original post was probably wrong). There seem to be a lot more centers than other forward positions, as there are 182 centers and 159 LW and 153 RW [0]. Larsson is the second-lowest LW, BTW. In any case, don't trust me; go look at the numbers and decide for yourself. I don't follow hockey that closely any more, but looking at the first page of forwards I don't see anything out of place by much. We can argue a few places up or down, but I don't have issue with Eichel being #8 or Reinhart being #22 (center). Eichel would be the best center on most teams. If you look at RWs, Reinhart's rating puts him around Kessel and Laine. [0] makes sense, I think the Sabres only have like 2 guys that are RW, Reinhart and Boat being centers. Makes me wonder if all the forwards are rated the same way or if they tweak the weights for center vs wing for things like defense stats.

Well, looking at the actual list I don't see anything out of place. Are you arguing Svobotka isn't the 178th centre in the league? Here's the list, with a link to the detailed rating system: https://www.corsicahockey.com/nhl/players/nhl-player-ratings-rankings

That I don't know. I figure there are a lot of smart people that look at it and it probably bears out results and is adjusted over time to get better.

By some aggregate stat, Boat is #178 in the league for RW. He's lava because generally speaking, if there are 31 teams (and assuming an even distribution of talent), RWs #1 through #31 should be allocated on one per team for the first line, #32 through #62 for the second line, etc. As I understand it, to put it another way your "first line" should be players between 1 and 31, second line between 32 and 62, etc. Having #178 [0] on 2nd line means he's playing on a line well above where his stats say he should (tweener 6th and 7th line). Remember this is small sample size right now, so a couple goals or whatever factors that stat uses probably creates big swings in ratings. If Boat is still 178 in January, there's a question with either his play or how the stat is calculated. [0] If I'm reading right, there are 5.7 RWs in the league *per team* that are better than Boat.

RJ: "Eichel's hanging to the left; now he's swinging around; SCOOOOORRRRREEEEEE!"

Eggplants, which I understand have a slang meaning with the young people.

The web sites don't seem to work well, most try to funnel you into an app. Tanks. I'm surprised the old TuneIn doesn't have it anymore and WGR app is gone? I truly am out of the loop.

SO what's the preferred way to listen on Android these days?

Hey, that's local for me, maybe I'll drive up and scout.

I dig it, I like night modes. If I were tweaking it, I may lighten the background *very* slightly and grey the text a little. White on almost-black is a little jarring.

Yeah, what were Boomers thinking when they came up with that!

This is the first year I didn't buy-in to GameCenter; I barely watched last year, and didn't feel like spending any time on it this year. I'm mildly regretting that decision, but I'm just superstitious enough to wonder if I should subscribe now and jinx them.

Forget you man, 72-0-10 (I don't consider OTLs true losses since they almost maintain playoff pace on points).

That works! I'm not sure how full it'll be. Most of the people are local so they may not be able to hang out 4 times in a week leaving families at home, so I should be left to my own devices some night.

Oops, don't know why Boulder popped into my head. I'm leaving Friday morning, staying in Westminster on the northwest side of town.

Heading out to Denver on Sunday for work (I'll wave at Boulder (?) if I see it @biodork!). This is for some interesting and challenging work, so I'm actually looking forward to it.

I wonder how that differs from the old Run and Shoot, which focused a lot more on the Shoot part of that.

If you're talking about Antonio Brown, no, no, no-no-no.