JJFIVEOH

This year, yes it shows that the more shots a goaltender faces the less likely they are to have a high save percentage. Last year on the other hand was just the opposite. Based on the fact that the trends do not agree with each other and the fact that there is relatively no grouping in the scatterplot tells me that save percentages have little to nothing to do with number of shots faced per game. If I have time I'll put together 2011-12 when there was a full season.

Historical Pics ‏@HistoricalPics On this day in 1960 the 8th Winter Olympics opened in Squaw Valley, USA. Here's the Ice Hockey rink in use: pic.twitter.com/QcvMHo2EY4

If it means anything, here is 2012-13. I included Enroth in both of these all the rest are 50%+ of games played to be included on the list.

Shots per 60 minutes vs. Save percentage of the goaltenders that have played 29+ games.

Yes, Kaitlyn Lawes is very cute!

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say a lot of the male figure skaters probably find that repulsive. :angel:

Not sure, I think they just found this one.

Finally got it, thanks. Ya know it's situations like that which makes it really difficult for me to take them seriously when you see reports come out that they have found a planet 75,000,000 light years away that has the atmosphere of Earth and an average temperature of 71°.

Slooh not working for me. Neither is space.com. WTH

I think we'll need to hit rock bottom in order to realize how much of an impact we actually have on this planet before our species makes and significant changes. I don't see this happening in our lifetime, but in the near future. I just hope the damage is minimal.

The 'outside force' I spoke of was in reference to an event similar to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

Unless there are an inordinate amount of pucks going into the net above a goaltender's head when down in the butterfly, I'm going to guess that the reason goaltenders are around that height isn't necessarily because GM's prefer them, but because of the bell curve of goaltenders heights. Somebody as short an Enroth is as common as Jacob Markstrom is tall.

I don't think that humans are to be considered the "end" of our useful evolutionary lives just because we have advanced exponentially in the short time we have been here. If anything, I think in the long run humans are but a speed bump to Mother Nature's road to perfection because humans are far from it. Evolution doesn't necessarily mean that there is an improvement over the previous species. Many people and many scientists agree that humans are the worst thing to ever happen to the planet and evolution itself. Up until this point Mother Nature has lived in relative harmony, minus outside forces. This was done so because there was no written law. Species improved and evolved by allowing the weak to perish and leaving the strong to survive. This lead to population control and when one species became too overpopulated, another species evolved to counter that particular species. I guess my point is, humans are too smart for our own good. We let emotion get in the way progress and we let greed get in the way of sustainability. We are our own worst enemies, we continue to reproduce at unsustainable rates, and we will arguably become our own demise while most likely leaving a huge scar on the planet that will take hundreds of thousands of years to heal. God or no god, evolution doesn't always work. As you mentioned, the bible speaks of certain apocalyptic events. Could this be one of them? Could the collapse of the human species be the big apocalypse? Depending on which side of the scientific theories you believe, humans are already causing mass extinctions not seen since the last major cataclysmic event. If one were to look at the ongoing debate, one would see the side of the religious vs. the side of the atheists. Evolution, God/supreme being, and the Bible are three completely different entities while most only see two. Evolutionists can believe in a god just like the religious can believe in evolution. Christianity has nothing to do with either. When you look at the timeframe of evolution, the creation of man, and the beginning of Christianity....... Christianity is a grain of sand in a timeline that is miles long. As you mentioned, there is the philisophical side of it which is the side that most believers have chosen. We can go back to the days of ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Romans, etc. and you will find a different story explaining our existence with each place you look. Some include one god, some include many gods and some don't even include a god. The great thing about having such a complex brain is our ability to find enlightenment in countless ways. If everybody were to be forced to find enlightenment in the exact same spot, this planet would be pretty dull. 4.5 billion years isn't quite the timeline of the evolution of man. Complex animals didn't appear until 600-700 million years ago and bipedals/primates much more recent. In terms of real evolutionary definitions, humans have evolved linearally. It just happens that what makes us unique is the evolution of our brain which in evolutionary terms is just one more step, but to us it seems significant because it has lead to a substantial jump in advancements. Evolution takes time and it usually succeeds the most when it happens slowly. If we could look into the future, I think humans will be regarded as the worst thing to happen to Planet Earth. That's not to say that a creature as complex as us is a bad thing, I think it needs to be progressive. The novel 'The Time Machine' holds a tremendous amount of merit.

Technological advances does not equate to future evolution. Forward technological advancement is not correlated to the rate of evolution. Our minds are sophisticated enough that advancement can continue at it's current rate without a significant jump in the evolutionary process. My point, we are not as primitive as you make us out to be. The evolutionary step that lead us to where we are now was followed by technology. Much has been discovered about science and evolution over the last 150 years. The same cannot be said for the thousands of years believers have spent trying to convince people they knew how their god works. If anything, stating that the theory of evolution renders itself meaningless is far from the truth. Based on the fact that as we evolve towards perfection we still have yet to learn anything new about god; while we continue to make giant leaps in the scientific community. If there was anything to learn about God, wouldn't this be the era in which we learned it?

Who are the members?

The sample size isn't big enough. :D

That was weak.

7:30 EST on NBCSN Buffalo Sabres ‏@BuffaloSabres 20m RYAN MILLER TO START IN GOAL FOR #TEAMUSA VS. SLOVENIA. 7:30am ET on @NBCSN. -@USAHockey

Absolutely TERRIBLE scheduling by NBC.

Maxine Nightingale-Right back to where we started from I still use a standard ring tone.

If you guys are so sick of hearing about it, why do you come back? We've got many prospects in juniors and Rochester, that doesn't stop anybody from discussing how good they might become since they haven't had the opportunity to prove it. Don't like a conversation, don't get involved.

Why is it when there are disgareements in these threads that people take them personally and label them as 'tense', or 'uncomfortable', or 'combative'? For the most part I think the people that love to debate Miller and Enroth pretty much keep the topic to their designated threads, yet people still pop in and proclaim their wish that they would end. Nobody is forcing anybody to partake. The title of the threads clearly state what the topic may be about. With the exception of the rare instances of personal attacks, I think these threads are fairly entertaining and informative. I know the few people on here that I no longer take seriously, and I do my part to avoid them. Other than that, I don't see how these two threads are any different. There's not much to talk about, why squelch what little discussion is going on? :thumbsup: By the way, that post wasn't directed at anybody in particular. It was simply a generalized statement based on the few times that ending the thread has been mentioned, along with comfort levels and hatred of players. It can be found all throughout these two threads not just the last several posts.

Would having a save percentage only .003 lower, over the last three years combined, while riding the bench for weeks at a time and playing mostly away games........ be considered 'meeting the bar'? I'm with you, I'm looking forward to seeing him have a full workload for a season. None at all my friend. Simply noting the double standard. :flirt: