Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[hockeydisk] Faceoff rating

Expand Messages
  • nickh68@hotmail.com
    I m on the APBA disk rating review team, but I still have a question considering the faceoff rating. I read something about Francis, but I don t know if you ll
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm on the APBA disk rating review team, but I still have a question
      considering the faceoff rating. I read something about Francis, but I
      don't know if you'll be giving him a 5 on faceoffs because he should
      have it or if he's not getting it because of his faceoff stats in the
      NHL ?
      A guy like Francis should of course have a 5 on faceoffs, but he and
      other great faceoffers might not get the best faceoff rating because
      their NHL faceoff stats were not "great".

      If someone could explain how the faceoff rating is determined, I'd
      greatly appreciate it.
      Also, IF you do go by NHL stats for faceoffs alone when giving out the
      faceoff rating, what is the cutoff for each rating ? (for example, is
      55 % and over a 5 ? 51-54 % a 4 ?)
      And IF you do go by NHL stats for faceoffs, do you also take the amount
      of faceoffs into consideration ? (I think you are, but I want to make
      sure)

      Thanks a lot !

      Nick Houda


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Brett Hall
      ... Judging by his statistics . . . Francis would most likely be given a 4 FO rating. In the past he has certainly been one of the best, and if statistics
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5 Jul 99, at 11:09, nickh68@... wrote:

        > I'm on the APBA disk rating review team, but I still have a question
        > considering the faceoff rating. I read something about Francis, but I
        > don't know if you'll be giving him a 5 on faceoffs because he should have
        > it or if he's not getting it because of his faceoff stats in the NHL ? A
        > guy like Francis should of course have a 5 on faceoffs, but he and other
        > great faceoffers might not get the best faceoff rating because their NHL
        > faceoff stats were not "great".

        Judging by his statistics . . . Francis would most likely be given a 4
        'FO' rating. In the past he has certainly been one of the best, and if
        statistics were not readily available for faceoffs, he would probably
        receive a 5 based upon his reputation. However, a 4 would be the
        'correct' rating.

        You may disagree with this, but permit me to ask you, sir, would
        you rather the players be rated on reputation or how they actually
        performed that particular year? There are players that receive
        tremendous ratings year after year, based on reputation alone.

        Chelios and Messier are good examples. Chelios is still a very
        good defensive defenseman, but has he deserved a 5 'D' and 'CL'
        rating the last couple of years? I would say 'no'.

        Mark Messier is more of a perimeter player now, but continues to
        receive high marks in 'PH' and 'IN' due to his reputation.

        It's really no different than a top scorer having an 'off-year' or a
        mediocre player having a 'career-year'. The idea is for the players
        to perform, as close as possible, the way they did that particular
        year.

        > If someone could explain how the faceoff rating is determined, I'd
        > greatly appreciate it.

        > Also, IF you do go by NHL stats for faceoffs alone when giving out the
        > faceoff rating, what is the cutoff for each rating ? (for example, is 55 %
        > and over a 5 ? 51-54 % a 4 ?) And IF you do go by NHL stats for faceoffs,
        > do you also take the amount of faceoffs into consideration ? (I think you
        > are, but I want to make sure)

        Bruce Carriker could give you the exact cutoff points, as I don't
        remember them. However, the amount of faceoffs is taken into
        consideration when determining the faceoff rating. Someone like
        Francis with a 51% FOW% might normally receive a 3 (or maybe a
        2 if he only took 20 faceoffs or some low figure), however since he
        took almost 30% of his team's faceoffs, he would be raised to a 4.

        Hope this helps.

        Brett

        St. Louis Mustangs (GHMHL)
        St. Louis Sting (WWAHL)
        St. Louis Ice Lords (NWHL)

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
      • nickh68@hotmail.com
        ... around for a couple of seasons, should be given ratings going by reputation, but not reputation only. But when it comes to Francis, you know that he s one
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Brett Hall wrote:

          > Judging by his statistics . . . Francis would most likely be given a 4
          > 'FO' rating. In the past he has certainly been one of the best, and if
          > statistics were not readily available for faceoffs, he would probably
          > receive a 5 based upon his reputation. However, a 4 would be the
          > 'correct' rating.
          >
          > You may disagree with this, but permit me to ask you, sir, would
          > you rather the players be rated on reputation or how they actually
          > performed that particular year? There are players that receive
          > tremendous ratings year after year, based on reputation alone.

          ---> I think that the "veterans" in the league, who have been
          around for a couple of seasons, should be given ratings going
          by reputation, but not reputation only. But when it comes to
          Francis, you know that he's one of the best faceoffers in the
          league, so you give him 4 or 5 on faceoffs instead of maybe 3,
          because of his reputation. That's correct (at least that's my
          opinion). But when we talk about other ratings, such as skating
          or speed, a player can be known for his speed or skating abilities,
          but over the years his age might have caught up with him and he
          shouldn't get 5's on skating and speed anymore.

          So I think that reputation is important, but it depends what
          ratings we're talking about. A guy like Messier is so good
          allround, that he should still have 4's and 5's, but not for
          skating and speed and maybe some other ratings if he's not
          worth them.

          I also think that the players shouldn't be judged by their +/-
          too much. Players in Tampa Bay get very bad +/-, but might
          actually be solid or even good defensively. One good example
          is rookie Pavel Kubina, who had -32. I've seen him play when
          the Czech Republic won the World Championships. I know that
          you can't compare it to the NHL, but he was very impressing
          in his own end and should get 3 on D...I don't know what he'll
          get, but it's not impossible that he'll end up with 2 or maybe
          even 1 because of his poor +/-. He was playing a lot while
          killing penalties, which also proves that he is solid on D.
          There are many examples I could bring up here, but I think
          that Kubina is a perfect example. Bad team, bad ratings.

          > Chelios and Messier are good examples. Chelios is still a very
          > good defensive defenseman, but has he deserved a 5 'D' and 'CL'
          > rating the last couple of years? I would say 'no'.

          ---> True, but I still think that they should stay good, since
          they are valuable to their teams as Captains or veterans
          and they bring leadership. This leadership must be shown in
          the ratings and to give them high D ratings and other important
          ratings, will mean that they help your team in the playoffs.
          (When it comes to Messier and Chelios that is)
          At least I like to think so.

          > Mark Messier is more of a perimeter player now, but continues to
          > receive high marks in 'PH' and 'IN' due to his reputation.
          >
          > It's really no different than a top scorer having an 'off-year' or a
          > mediocre player having a 'career-year'. The idea is for the players
          > to perform, as close as possible, the way they did that particular
          > year.

          ---> I agree, but I also think that when there is a top scorer
          having an "off-year", then he still should recieve the good
          ratings and not get worse. His stats are worse, so he'll perform
          worse. The ratings should be changed when a player goes from 1st
          or 2nd liner to the checking line or 4th line. Or when someone
          has a tremendous year without having done much in earlier seasons,
          then he should get the ratings of a good player or star.

          > Bruce Carriker could give you the exact cutoff points, as I don't
          > remember them. However, the amount of faceoffs is taken into
          > consideration when determining the faceoff rating. Someone like
          > Francis with a 51% FOW% might normally receive a 3 (or maybe a
          > 2 if he only took 20 faceoffs or some low figure), however since he
          > took almost 30% of his team's faceoffs, he would be raised to a 4.
          >
          > Hope this helps.

          ---> Yes, this was what I was looking for, thanks !
          And I'm glad to see that reputation will be considered when it
          comes to faceoffs, something I think is very important in the NHL
          as well as in APBA leagues.

          Once again, thanks Brett.

          Nick Houda


          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
          http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
        • Brett Hall
          ... The thing is, we now have statistics for such things such as faceoffs instead of relying solely on reputation for this and other attributes. Speed and
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On 5 Jul 99, at 14:51, nickh68@... wrote:

            > ---> I think that the "veterans" in the league, who have been
            > around for a couple of seasons, should be given ratings going
            > by reputation, but not reputation only. But when it comes to
            > Francis, you know that he's one of the best faceoffers in the
            > league, so you give him 4 or 5 on faceoffs instead of maybe 3,
            > because of his reputation. That's correct (at least that's my
            > opinion). But when we talk about other ratings, such as skating
            > or speed, a player can be known for his speed or skating abilities,
            > but over the years his age might have caught up with him and he
            > shouldn't get 5's on skating and speed anymore.

            The thing is, we now have statistics for such things such as
            faceoffs instead of relying solely on reputation for this and other
            attributes. Speed and skating are still (and always will be)
            subjective.

            > So I think that reputation is important, but it depends what
            > ratings we're talking about. A guy like Messier is so good
            > allround, that he should still have 4's and 5's, but not for
            > skating and speed and maybe some other ratings if he's not
            > worth them.

            Messier is still good, but he rarely initiates any physical contact
            anymore, so he shouldn't receive a high 'PH' rating. I could live
            with a high 'IN' rating, as if he does decide to hit you, you'll feel it. :-
            )

            > I also think that the players shouldn't be judged by their +/-
            > too much. Players in Tampa Bay get very bad +/-, but might
            > actually be solid or even good defensively. One good example
            > is rookie Pavel Kubina, who had -32. I've seen him play when
            > the Czech Republic won the World Championships. I know that
            > you can't compare it to the NHL, but he was very impressing
            > in his own end and should get 3 on D...I don't know what he'll
            > get, but it's not impossible that he'll end up with 2 or maybe
            > even 1 because of his poor +/-. He was playing a lot while
            > killing penalties, which also proves that he is solid on D.
            > There are many examples I could bring up here, but I think
            > that Kubina is a perfect example. Bad team, bad ratings.

            Agreed, +/- is not always indicative of how a player performs
            defensively. This is still largely subjective, but less so since
            takeaways and other statistics are now available to us.

            > ---> True, but I still think that they should stay good, since
            > they are valuable to their teams as Captains or veterans
            > and they bring leadership. This leadership must be shown in
            > the ratings and to give them high D ratings and other important
            > ratings, will mean that they help your team in the playoffs.
            > (When it comes to Messier and Chelios that is)
            > At least I like to think so.

            That's all well and good, and I'm not saying Chelios is a 2/2 'D'/'CL'.
            A 4/4 is giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I could live with
            that. But to be the best in the league is a bit much, when guys
            like Chris Pronger and Scott Stevens are clearly superior.

            > ---> I agree, but I also think that when there is a top scorer
            > having an "off-year", then he still should recieve the good
            > ratings and not get worse. His stats are worse, so he'll perform
            > worse. The ratings should be changed when a player goes from 1st
            > or 2nd liner to the checking line or 4th line. Or when someone
            > has a tremendous year without having done much in earlier seasons,
            > then he should get the ratings of a good player or star.

            Agreed, but nothing makes faceoff statistics any different than
            goals or assists now that they are tracked. The only thing to really
            take into consideration is how many faceoffs the guy took, so
            players with large amounts of faceoffs would be given the benefit of
            the doubt and be raised a notch perhaps.

            > ---> Yes, this was what I was looking for, thanks !
            > And I'm glad to see that reputation will be considered when it
            > comes to faceoffs, something I think is very important in the NHL
            > as well as in APBA leagues.

            Well, I think everyone takes reputation into account to an extent.
            This is why rookies have tended to get the shaft in the past,
            because they have no reputation to go on.

            If a guy like Messier (yeah, I like the guy, so I use him as an
            example a lot) looks like he's teetering between a 3 or 4 'D' rating,
            more often than not he'll keep the 4.

            Take care.

            Brett

            St. Louis Mustangs (GHMHL)
            St. Louis Sting (WWAHL)
            St. Louis Ice Lords (NWHL)

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------

            eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
            http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
          • Kraus, Jeff
            Yes, the faceoff rating does take into account both his win % and the number of faceoffs he took. But don t look for anything near a 5 for Francis. Whether he
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, the faceoff rating does take into account both his win % and the number
              of faceoffs he took. But don't look for anything near a 5 for Francis.
              Whether he was actually as great as his reputation in the past we'll never
              know because they didn't keep stats back then, but we can safely say it
              doesn't apply to his present performance.

              The fact is Francis won only 51.5% of his draws - a number probably
              statistically indistinguishable from 50% for that size data sample - and
              averaged fewer than 1 draw per minute played. He didn't lead his team in
              either total draws or draws per minute. That implies that Primeau was their
              go-to guy when they needed to win the draw, and I don't think anyone would
              argue that Primeau is among the league's elite. Still, whether he's getting
              the assignments or not, 51.5% is a LONG way off from the 60%+ it takes to be
              in Lindros & Nieuwendyk territory.

              Let's just say that during our testing Francis has consistently been between
              48% and 53%, which means we have him rated accurately. Unfortunately, with
              such a small range of possible values (1-5) it's impossible to give
              consistently greater precision.

              As for +/-, it is certainly a factor but is kept in context. We realize a
              -10 for the Islanders is a lot different than a -10 for Detroit. A -10 for
              a 1st line player is a lot different than a -10 for a pure checking line
              player like Axelsson. A +10 when you're assigned to defend against the
              league's best lines is a lot different than a +10 when you're whisked off
              the ice as soon as Modano and Hull are sent out. All of those things are
              taken into consideration when reviewing the ratings, as is the amount of PK
              time a player gets.

              Jeff

              ------------------------------------------------------------------------

              eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
              http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
            • Tim
              The APBA Disk is a yearly Disk and should reflect how a player played during that year otherwise the ratings would never change and there would be no need
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                The APBA Disk is a yearly Disk and should reflect how a player played during
                that "year" otherwise the ratings would never change and there would be no
                need for a big disk change every year, just a stats updated disk. The Disk
                should
                reflect what that player did during "that" year. Nothing more nothing less.

                Tim Stewart
                SSHL Commissioner
                AHL
                THL
                FHL
                FOHL


                -----Original Message-----
                From: nickh68@... <nickh68@...>
                To: hockeydisk@egroups.com <hockeydisk@egroups.com>
                Date: July 5, 1999 5:51 PM
                Subject: [hockeydisk] Re: Faceoff rating


                >Brett Hall wrote:
                >
                >> Judging by his statistics . . . Francis would most likely be given a 4
                >> 'FO' rating. In the past he has certainly been one of the best, and if
                >> statistics were not readily available for faceoffs, he would probably
                >> receive a 5 based upon his reputation. However, a 4 would be the
                >> 'correct' rating.
                >>
                >> You may disagree with this, but permit me to ask you, sir, would
                >> you rather the players be rated on reputation or how they actually
                >> performed that particular year? There are players that receive
                >> tremendous ratings year after year, based on reputation alone.
                >
                >---> I think that the "veterans" in the league, who have been
                >around for a couple of seasons, should be given ratings going
                >by reputation, but not reputation only. But when it comes to
                >Francis, you know that he's one of the best faceoffers in the
                >league, so you give him 4 or 5 on faceoffs instead of maybe 3,
                >because of his reputation. That's correct (at least that's my
                >opinion). But when we talk about other ratings, such as skating
                >or speed, a player can be known for his speed or skating abilities,
                >but over the years his age might have caught up with him and he
                >shouldn't get 5's on skating and speed anymore.
                >
                >So I think that reputation is important, but it depends what
                >ratings we're talking about. A guy like Messier is so good
                >allround, that he should still have 4's and 5's, but not for
                >skating and speed and maybe some other ratings if he's not
                >worth them.
                >
                >I also think that the players shouldn't be judged by their +/-
                >too much. Players in Tampa Bay get very bad +/-, but might
                >actually be solid or even good defensively. One good example
                >is rookie Pavel Kubina, who had -32. I've seen him play when
                >the Czech Republic won the World Championships. I know that
                >you can't compare it to the NHL, but he was very impressing
                >in his own end and should get 3 on D...I don't know what he'll
                >get, but it's not impossible that he'll end up with 2 or maybe
                >even 1 because of his poor +/-. He was playing a lot while
                >killing penalties, which also proves that he is solid on D.
                >There are many examples I could bring up here, but I think
                >that Kubina is a perfect example. Bad team, bad ratings.
                >
                >> Chelios and Messier are good examples. Chelios is still a very
                >> good defensive defenseman, but has he deserved a 5 'D' and 'CL'
                >> rating the last couple of years? I would say 'no'.
                >
                >---> True, but I still think that they should stay good, since
                >they are valuable to their teams as Captains or veterans
                >and they bring leadership. This leadership must be shown in
                >the ratings and to give them high D ratings and other important
                >ratings, will mean that they help your team in the playoffs.
                >(When it comes to Messier and Chelios that is)
                >At least I like to think so.
                >
                >> Mark Messier is more of a perimeter player now, but continues to
                >> receive high marks in 'PH' and 'IN' due to his reputation.
                >>
                >> It's really no different than a top scorer having an 'off-year' or a
                >> mediocre player having a 'career-year'. The idea is for the players
                >> to perform, as close as possible, the way they did that particular
                >> year.
                >
                >---> I agree, but I also think that when there is a top scorer
                >having an "off-year", then he still should recieve the good
                >ratings and not get worse. His stats are worse, so he'll perform
                >worse. The ratings should be changed when a player goes from 1st
                >or 2nd liner to the checking line or 4th line. Or when someone
                >has a tremendous year without having done much in earlier seasons,
                >then he should get the ratings of a good player or star.
                >
                >> Bruce Carriker could give you the exact cutoff points, as I don't
                >> remember them. However, the amount of faceoffs is taken into
                >> consideration when determining the faceoff rating. Someone like
                >> Francis with a 51% FOW% might normally receive a 3 (or maybe a
                >> 2 if he only took 20 faceoffs or some low figure), however since he
                >> took almost 30% of his team's faceoffs, he would be raised to a 4.
                >>
                >> Hope this helps.
                >
                >---> Yes, this was what I was looking for, thanks !
                >And I'm glad to see that reputation will be considered when it
                >comes to faceoffs, something I think is very important in the NHL
                >as well as in APBA leagues.
                >
                >Once again, thanks Brett.
                >
                >Nick Houda
                >
                >
                >------------------------------------------------------------------------
                >FreeShop is the #1 place for free and trial offers and great deals!
                >Try something new and find out how you could win two round-trip tickets
                >anywhere in the U.S.! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/368
                >
                >
                >eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
                >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                >
                >
                >
                >


                ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
                http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              • D. A. Atkinson
                ... Ah, the goring of the sacred cow. The disk team s sole purpose is to reflect reality, that is, to provide the ratings that will give the players
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  nickh68@... wrote:

                  > I'm on the APBA disk rating review team, but I still have a question
                  > considering the faceoff rating. I read something about Francis, but I
                  > don't know if you'll be giving him a 5 on faceoffs because he should
                  > have it or if he's not getting it because of his faceoff stats in the
                  > NHL ?
                  > A guy like Francis should of course have a 5 on faceoffs, but he and
                  > other great faceoffers might not get the best faceoff rating because
                  > their NHL faceoff stats were not "great".
                  >
                  > If someone could explain how the faceoff rating is determined, I'd
                  > greatly appreciate it.
                  > Also, IF you do go by NHL stats for faceoffs alone when giving out the
                  > faceoff rating, what is the cutoff for each rating ? (for example, is
                  > 55 % and over a 5 ? 51-54 % a 4 ?)
                  > And IF you do go by NHL stats for faceoffs, do you also take the amount
                  > of faceoffs into consideration ? (I think you are, but I want to make
                  > sure)
                  >
                  > Thanks a lot !
                  >
                  > Nick Houda
                  >

                  Ah, the goring of the sacred cow. The disk team's sole purpose is to
                  reflect reality, that is, to provide the ratings that will give the players
                  approximately the same performance as they had during the NHL season.
                  Now that the NHL keeps faceoff stats, I see no reason to use reputation
                  anymore. If we are going to use reputation for things we have stats for, then
                  we might as well pencil Gretzky in for 90 goals and a nice high shooting
                  percentage.
                  I've run a large amount of test seasons on the disk as it stands so far. And
                  Francis hits his FO win % almost perfectly every time, which means we
                  got his rating right. Faceoff reputation was a sacred cow that we knew would
                  get gored. Francis and Gilmour ended up as the martyrs. But at least with
                  the lower (correct rating), their stats come out as they did in the NHL.
                  That's
                  all the disk team wants.
                  The faceoff stats are nice, because it's a pretty accurate indicator. You
                  either
                  win a draw or lose it. And, yes, sometimes your teammates may mess up
                  and you end up with a loss when you won the draw cleanly, but with 1000
                  draws taken, these will statistically even out. Another factor that was taken
                  into
                  account is the number of faceoffs taken. It is assumed that the coach knows
                  his
                  player's abilities better than APBA hockey gamers do (he sees them every day
                  and is paid a ton to know these things). On Carolina, Primeau and Manderville
                  took more FO/min than Francis. With Francis at less than a draw a minute,
                  there is a good chance that he was on the ice while one of these other two
                  took the draw. That fact, combined with the low win% that Francis had, tells
                  me that he is even in the top two in face offs on HIS TEAM, let alone tops
                  in the league. He doesn't deserve a 4 or a 5, if you want to accurately
                  recreate
                  his abilities from the past NHL season. One other factor that was looked
                  at in the ratings is shorthand faceoffs, both win % and number taken. SH
                  situations
                  are pretty critical to winning games, and it all starts with the faceoff.
                  The faceoff stat is pretty cut and dry. Others are not. I've always been very
                  very careful in the application of +/-. I'll look at it, and compare it to the

                  team average and how the player is used (first line, checking line, etc.). But

                  the defensive rating is based only a tiny amount on +/-. Takeaways and
                  time spent on the penalty kill are also factored in. And here, we have to
                  use reputation somewhat.
                  I think Jeff gave a great explanation in his note. I just wanted to reinforce
                  things here, since I knew this would be a touchy subject.

                  Dave




                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
                  http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                • D. A. Atkinson
                  ... One quick note on what Brett says here.......Messier plays more shorthanded minutes per game than any other forward. He would get the bump up in DEF rating
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brett Hall wrote:

                    > If a guy like Messier (yeah, I like the guy, so I use him as an
                    > example a lot) looks like he's teetering between a 3 or 4 'D' rating,
                    > more often than not he'll keep the 4.
                    >

                    One quick note on what Brett says here.......Messier plays more
                    shorthanded minutes per game than any other forward. He
                    would get the bump up in DEF rating in that benefit of the doubt.
                    This is an example of how to use stats carefully for subjective
                    ratings. We took the review comments from many reviewers,
                    and then put such reality checks on the ratings. If Messier
                    came up between 3 and 3.5, we would bump him up to a 4
                    based on this fact.

                    Dave


                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
                    http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                  • Brett Hall
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                    • Kraus, Jeff
                      Manderville is pretty much a shorthanded specialist, spent more than 1/3 of his ice time on the shorthanded unit. That alone should get him a faceoff each
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jul 5, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Manderville is pretty much a shorthanded specialist, spent more than 1/3 of
                        his ice time on the shorthanded unit. That alone should get him a faceoff
                        each shift, and might explain why he took nearly one draw per minute despite
                        a mediocre win %.

                        Jeff

                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
                        http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.