MattPie

I think that's overcorrection. The Bills are terrible and the Cowboys are awesome - everyone Um, wow, the Bills just laid waste to the awesome Cowboys, they must be awesome too! - everyone The truth is in-between, but I think the Ravens are as actually good as people thought the Cowboys were.

Same here. I haven't been to a game in Buffalo since the 90s. I've seen them @ NYR, Philly, DC, and Carolina since then though.

Since I went to a Canes game that one time, this year they've decided to start sending me promo emails. I've been invited to "Skate with the Canes" day where I can go to the rink and skate and whatnot. How do you think they'd feel if I showed up in a Buffalo sweater?

Is there really not a Don Cherry thread yet, or did it get created, heated, and implode?

25-10-47 = 97 points.

I had a friend that ended up the Director of Communications for the Rochester Arts Council that way... Good luck!

I can't believe we're three pages in and no one has mentioned Sabres greats John Scott and Nathan Paetsch.

I suppose it may end up changing the NHL's draft rules though. There's a better path for a player to stick it out in the NCAA for 4 hours and be UFA now. If I'm at year 3 and making some ad dollars, maybe I stick around for year 4 and choose my NHL team. I wonder if the NHL will switch over to something more like the CHL rules for NCAA players.

I hear (that, not our) Taro's not doing well these days; he's barely more than a root vegetable. (I'm here all week, folks!)

If the players are wearing actual play jerseys from the 70s, I can totally see bringing players back too. Eichel and Perrault skating in away and home #11s seems like a slam dunk.

This is correct, for most Cast type models (Chromecast from an app, etc.) your user device (phone, browser) just tells the cast software in the TV/stick what to do. If you're running a duplicate screen via HDMI, Cast Screen, or some wireless screen protocol, your user device is doing the work and just displaying on the TV. Full vs. Sabres shouldn't matter, they're not streaming all the games to you at once. I think think of a few things that may be affecting things, such as some other wifi in your area popped up since then (your neighbor's new super-high-power wifi interfering with things, air traffic control[0], etc.), or the NHL package upped the bitrate on the feed and your internet/wifi/device can't keep up. For intance, maybe the NHL is streaming 60fps or 1080p now and wasn't before. I'd try eliminating pieces to see if you can narrow it down: Try watching on a computer wired to your router (eliminates wifi, casting issues) Try watching on (hopefully the same) computer over wifi (eliminates casting issues) Check if being close or far to the router matters Try a recorded game vs. live (I seem to remember the recorded games working better, probably because they're not trying to keep the feed so close to real time) If there are options for the stream quality, try reducing things. [0] IIRC, some airport systems are next to the 2.4GHz wifi frequency bands so there can be interference.

I'd go all-in and do a third with three of the current logos howling at a full moon.

This seems appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_2008

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!"