waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C51CJB.L5z@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umturne4@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Daryl Turner) writes: >They were, and even if Washington might consider Patty a bust, I'd rework >that trade in a minute.  Druce has been a complete and utter bust here, >only 5 goals.  	Well, Druce pretty much sucked when he was with the Caps. He had one good **playoffs** (not season). oh well. The Caps are notorious for making stupid trades anyway, as can be seen with the Cicarelli and Hrivnak trades. Sigh. 	In another note... I'd have to say the Caps biggest surprise was  Cote, as many Caps fans had been expecting a lot from Bondra already.
What about including points?  Probably no goals (at least against opponents) but there have been several assists given.
Caps/Isles Fans,  Anyone interested in catching the games from Nassau Coliseum (hopefully there will be another) can catch the game at North Carolina's Original Sports Bar in Chapel Hill.  I'm pretty sure they carry HTS as well. They had all three games on at the same time last night.  This is the only place I know to catch all of the Stanley Cup action.
In article <22APR93.02956996.0062@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> F1HH@UNB.CA (Patrick Walker) writes:  (much mindless drivel deleted)  >Sorry to ramble.  As you can see I hate Mario. >Pat Walker >UNB  Question to you Canadian folk:  is this University of New Brunswick a branch campus of the Western Business School?  Seems like the same sort of rectal appendage belongs to both of them.
Smythe Division ---------------  Vancouver vs. Winnipeg - Jets in 7 The Jets have played the Canucks tough the last three games.  Everyone is healthy for the Jets.  I'm biased.  :)  Calgary vs. Los Angeles - Flames in 6 From what I have seen, the Kings have looked flat lately.  I just can't see them getting by the Flames.  Final- Jets in 6. The Jets haven't lost to the Flames in '93.  They will, but it will be a close series that will come down to how well Roberts has recovered.  I don't think he'll be 100%, and while it will help, it won't be enough.  Norris Division ---------------  Chicago vs. St. Louis/Minnesota Chicago in 6 against the Blues, 7 against the Stars.    Detroit vs. Toronto - Wings in 6. The Wings should be able to shutdown Gilmour and Andreychuk.  Chelvadae is more experienced than Potvin.  Final - Hawks in 7.  Brutal series.  Probert and Chelios will go at it. Belfour is better than Chelvadae, IMHO.  Conference Final - Hawks in 6.  It hurts, but the Hawks are more experienced, and that will carry them through to the final.  Prince of Wales Conference --------------------------  Adams Division --------------  Boston vs. Buffalo - Bruins in 6. B's can check, Juneau is darn good, and Neely.  The Sabres rely too much on Lafontaine and Mogilny.  Quebec vs. Montreal - Montreal in 7. Classic battle, the inexperience will hurt the Nords, this year.  Final - Bruins in 5.  Habs will be hurting from their series with the Nords, and Boston has been able to control the scorers on the Habs.  Patrick Division ----------------  Pittsburgh vs Islanders/Devils - Pens in 5. One word.  Mario.  Washington vs. Devils/Islanders - Caps in 6 / Devils in 7. I think the Caps can beat the Isles, but not the Devils.  Tabaracci has been strong in goal, and if he plays like last year, he could carry the team. It doesn't matter, though.  Final - Pens in 5.  Two more words.  Stevens.  Jagr.  Cup Final - Pens in 6.  Three last words.  Tocchet.  Murphy.  Barrasso.  The only thing I don't like about this is that the Pens woofers are going to be out in full force again.  (I don't mean the regular Penguin fans...it's just like the bunch around here that if these predictions are true will post like nuts while the Jets are winning, but we won't hear from again when they lose.)  (Oh yeah...next year's Cup prediction...Jets in 7 over the Nords.)
Daryl Turner (umturne4@ccu.umanitoba.ca) wrote: : In article <1993Apr14.193524.25755@news.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Droopy) writes: : > : >ATLANTIC DIVISION : >	 : >	ST JOHN'S MAPLE LEAFS VS MONCTON HAWKS : >	MONCTON HAWKS : >See CD Islanders. Moncton is a very similar team to CDI. Low scoring, : >defensive, good goaltending. John Leblanc and Stu Barnes are the only : >noticable guns on the team. But the defense is top notch and  : >Mike O'Neill is the most underrated goalie in the league. : >  : Bri, as I have tried to tell you since 2 February, Michael O'Neill : might be the most underrated goalie in the AHL, but he ISN'T in the : AHL.  He's on the Winnipeg Jets' injury list, as he has been since : his first NHL start against the Ottawa Senators.  He's out until : next year after surgery to repair a shoulder separation.  : Stu Barnes might be an AHL gun for the Hawks, but he's now the third : line center with the Jets, and has been since mid January or so.  Sorry, my memory is gone. I thought that O'Neill got sent back down in February but I must have been given incorrect info. I guess this says it all about Moncton because Barnes is still one of their top 3 or so scorers even though he's been out since January.
In article <1993Apr16.140953.5025@vax.cns.muskingum.edu>, jbrown@vax.cns.muskingum.edu writes: > The Hawks win!!  Jermey Roenick scored his 50 th goal and the Hawks put the > Leafs in their place, the losers column.  If the Leafs can not even beat the > Hawks in a match that had little or no meaning I will hate to see them against > the Wings.   >  > Oh btw I laugh at rm, that jerky!!! >  > GO HAWKS!!! >  > JB  But I gotta tell ya,  If the Hawks can't beat the Blues in a game that IS significant I can't wait to see how the Blues might do against Toronto ;)  BTW, if you think that the Hawks deserved to win that game I think you were not watching the same one everyone else was.  ROAR'IN LEAF FAN
BLUES PLAYOFF SCORING THROUGH END OF NORRIS SEMIFINALS  ------------------------------------------------------  PS #   NAME                GP   G   A  Pts.   +/-  PIM  PP  SH  GW  EN -- --  ----                --  --  --  ----   ---  ---  --  --  --  -- RW 16  Brett Hull           4   5   3    8    +2    0   4   0   2   0  C 15  Craig Janney         4   2   4    6    +1    0   1   0   2   0  D 21  Jeff Brown           4   1   5    6    +1    4   0   0   0   0 LW 19  Brendan Shanahan     4   2   3    5     0    6   2   0   0   0   C  7  Nelson Emerson       4   1   2    3    +1    2   0   0   0   0 RW  9 *Denny Felsner        4   1   1    2    +2    2   0   0   0   0  LW 10  Dave Lowry           4   1   0    1    +2    2   0   1   0   0 LW 17  Basil McRae          4   0   1    1    +1    2   0   0   0   0 LW 14  Kevin Miller         4   0   1    1    -1    2   0   0   0   0 RW 23  Rich Sutter          4   0   0    0     0    2   0   0   0   0  C 28  Bob Bassen           4   0   0    0    -1    6   0   0   0   0 LW 36 *Philippe Bozon       4   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0  C 18  Ron Wilson           4   0   0    0    -2    4   0   0   0   0  D  5  Garth Butcher        4   0   0    0    +1    2   0   0   0   0  D 33  Stephane Quintal     4   0   0    0    +1    0   0   0   0   0  D 44 *Bret Hedican         4   0   0    0     0    8   0   0   0   0  D 34  Murray Baron         4   0   0    0    -1    8   0   0   0   0  D  4  Rick Zombo           4   0   0    0    -1    10  0   0   0   0  G 31  Curtis Joseph        4   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0  D  6  Doug Crossman        0   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0  C 22  Ron Sutter           0   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0 RW 38 *Igor Korolev         0   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0 RW 39  Kelly Chase          0   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0  D  2  Curt Giles           0   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0  G 29 *Guy Hebert           0   0   0    0     0    0   0   0   0   0  *  Rookie  GOALTENDING -----------                    GP  Min.   GA    Avg.   W   L   EN  SO  SA  SAVE% 31  Curtis Joseph   4  251     6    1.43   4   0    0  2   140 .957  29 *Guy Hebert      0   00     0    0.00   0   0    0  0   00   ---  --------------------------------------------------------------------------  Team Totals        4  251     6    1.43   4   0    0  2   140 .957   SO -- Shutouts ; SA -- Shots Against.  Goals                 13        6  1st Period            4         1  2nd Period            3         4  3rd Period            5         1  Overtime              1         0  Power-play goals      7/29      1/24  Short-handed goals    1         0  Empty-net goals       0         0  Shots                 97        140
As I've mentioned in the rules posting, I will be out of town until the day before the entry deadline, so I won't be able to respond to your messages until April 18.  I would be grateful if someone could repost the rules and instructions for the playoff pool sometime next week, for the benefit of those who missed the first two postings.  Thanks.  --  Andrew Scott                    | andrew@idacom.hp.com HP IDACOM Telecom Operation     | (403) 462-0666 ext. 253
Anna Matyas (am2x+@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote: > Wasn't Ron Francis captain of the Whalers when he was traded to > Pittsburgh?  No.  In what still, IMHO, ranks as the all-time greatest PR blunder (not to mention on-ice blunder) the Whalers ever committed, GM Eddie Johnston and Coach Rick Ley 'decided' that Francis was incapable as a leader and stripped him of the Captain's "C" in December of 1990. The whole organization (read: EJ and Ley, and by default owner Richard Gordon because he was too much of a dupe to know how much he was being blind-sided by EJ) dumped on Francis all season, starting with refusing to sign him to a new contract, publicly  humiliating him, stripping him of the "C", and then trading him that Spring to the Penguins. Classy guy, that EJ.  The loss of Francis (and too a lesser extent, Ulf), was one of a series of decimating player moves by EJ which stripped the personality and fan-awareness from the team that has put them in the precarious position they are in today.  [Gratuitous good EJ note...he did preside over the organization when it acquired Verbeek, Cassels, Sanderson, Poulin, Nylander, etc. He stripped the roster but he DID lay a foundation.]
In article <1993Apr20.085337.27224@leland.Stanford.EDU> terry@garfield.Stanford.EDU (Terry Wong) writes: >I think that Jack Ferreira's firing eventually led to Kingston's >firing.  You mention consistency of vision.  I think the >Sharks lost that with the loss of Ferreira.  There has never >been a 3 headed G.M. that has ever worked.  You need one >person making the personnel decisions at the top, not >management by committee.  The conventional wisdom >from around the league is that Ferreira would have >made the moves that would have fielded a better product >on the ice.  How exactly would Ferreira accomplished this?  The three-headed GM-ship has taken a lot of heat, but nobody's explained how things would have been any different had Ferreira still been there.  Would Ferreira have made more trades?  Who would have he had traded?  Would he have made fewer trades? Who should not have been traded?
In <1993Apr25.220033.7284@math.ucla.edu> dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:  >Jarkko Ketolainen writes:  >>Disaster! Finland was beaten by Czech 1-3 (0-0,1-1,0-2). >>Finland will be 4th of pool B and will most certainly meet Canada in the >>quarter final on wednesday 28th.  >  Look at the situation positively... the Finns can now kick Canada out! :-)  	They did last world cup and eventually lost tp Sweden in the final!
In article 1qmtd1INNr1l@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca, gibson@nukta.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson) writes:  <In response to a debate about who has has a better season- Jagr of Francis>  I think Jagr did he probably had a better point per minute ice time- stats don't exist to properly analyze this and he had a substancially better +/-.   >  Actually, what I think has become more evident, is that you are determined to >  flaunt your ignorance at all cost.  Jagr did not have a better season than >  Francis ... to suggest otherwise is an insult to those with a modicum of >  hockey knowledge.  Save your almost maniacal devotion to the almighty >  plus/minus ... it is the most misleading hockey stat available. > >  Until the NHL publishes a more useful quantifiable statistic including ice >  time per game and some measure of its "quality" (i.e., is the player put out >  in key situations like protecting a lead late in the game; is he matched up >  against the other team's top one or two lines; short-handed, etc), I would >  much rather see the +/- disappear altogether instead of having its dubious >  merits trumpeted by those with little understanding of its implications.  +/- is a useful statistic.  If a player is on the ice when his team scores a lot of goals and only allows a few goals, he must be doing something right. It is especially useful to compare between teammates- as they play for the same team and should have roughly similar +/- ratings if they are equally good players.  It can be adjusted- with varying degrees of success to compare between players on different teams.  I agree it would be nice for the NHL to keep more statistics- but how useful are the ones that you suggest??  Total ice time would be very useful- it is a missing stat in Jagr vs Francis arguments from before.  Somehow measuring the quality of ice time as you suggest would be useless.  It would be a better stat for evaluating coaching- ie are the players given quality ice time actually their talented ones?  A very good player could be given low amounts of quality ice time because of team depth or a stupid coach who doesn't recognize his talent and a very bad player could be given lots of quality ice time because of a lack of team depth or a stupid coach that thinks he is an effective player.  This stat would be much more flawed than +/- and almost no conclusions could be drawn regarding player talent.  +/- is a useful stat.  It is quite useful in evaluating player talent. You are the one displaying ignorance because of your unwillingness to see that being on the ice when goals are scored but not when they are allowed is a very positive thing- and should be evaluated as such.
In article <22APR93.02956996.0062@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, Patrick Walker <F1HH@UNB.CA> writes:   > By the way, I am Canadian, play a little, and watched > Hockey night In Canada, (Never Missed a Show!)  Well that's really great Pat.  I guess since you've played a little you thereby  qualify as an expert.  Especially since you watch all the games on t.v.  All  that qualifies you as is a armchair quarterback or a coach potato  > Not that I condone violence, but I'll make an exception for Mario. Pat Walker
Well, the tentative rules, anyway.  And, of course, since the season is not entirely over, tentative entry form.  But who cares?  The real hockey season is starting!!!!!  Here's the deal:  You email (preferably) or post your predictions, AND the number of games you think each series will go.  Each round will be weighted, so that the Stanley Cup finals will be very important, but the early rounds will still be important.  Here is the scoring:  Pick 1st round winner, way off on games:  2 points Pick 1st round winner, within one game:   3 points Pick 1st round winner, pick # of games:   5 points  Pick 2nd round winner, way off on games:  3 points Pick 2nd round winner, within one game:   4 points Pick 2nd round winner, pick # of games:   6 points  Pick conference champ, way off on games:  5 points Pick conference champ, within one game:   6 points Pick conference champ, pick # of games:   9 points  Pick Stanley Cup champ, way off on games: 8 points Pick Stanley Cup champ, within one game:  10 points Pick Stanley Cup champ, pick # of games:  14 points Pick loser in 7, series goes 7:           2 points Pick loser in 7, series decided in Game 7, OT: 4 points (these last two are sympathy points, probably won't happen anyway)  Obviously, picking the Stanley Cup champion is important.  I will do some tests to see if the format is fair, but probably I will be too lazy to modify it, so the scoring will probably be like this.  As for entry forms, well, this post is getting too long, so see next post.   --     Keith Keller				LET'S GO RANGERS!!!!! 						LET'S GO QUAKERS!!!!! 	kkeller@mail.sas.upenn.edu		IVY LEAGUE CHAMPS!!!!
With the recent demise of the Chicago Blawkhawks (much to my delight) I noticed their 8 (?) game playoff losing streak (4 to the Pens last year, and now 4 to the Blues) and I am wondering what the NHL record for consecutive losses is, if there even is one...  I'm pretty sure that the Hawks have at least a 9 game losing  streak, since they've had to have lost a series since their last championship (whenever that was)  Basically, I need something else to rag on my Hawks-fan friend with :)  Mike, the insomniaced
In article <1993Apr5.195705.29227@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>, maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes: > In <1993Apr5.185633.17843@ists.ists.ca> dchhabra@stpl.ists.ca (Deepak Chhabra) writes: >  >>Implicitly you are assuming that goals scored against Winnipeg with Selanne >>on the ice can be blamed on him...Roger, he is a FORWARD.  Winnipeg has a >>lousy defensive record anyway.  Let's put it another way.  John Cullen's +/- >>is terrible.  What's your excuse for him?  That his powerplay points don't >>count?  Neither do Selanne's...  >  > Are you comparing Cullen to Salami?  I would say that that is valid.  If > Winnipeg is such a lousy defensive team then why the hell does Salami > stand around the other team's blueline when the puck is in his own end?    I thought that he was comparing Cullen to TEEMU SEL[NNE. I always thought   that salami is some sort of sausage, BUT IF YOU, dear Roger, ARE ABLE TO   SEE SALAMI ON THE ICE PLAYING HOCKEY... I don't know what to do, but you   surely should do something and very quickly!!!    Maybe you think that if you keep on talking some rubbish, after some time   everybody will consider it to be really true... You should take care of   your LEAFS, they surely need it more.    >  >>What he does best is score...so I refer you to my comment above. >  > Some of our Finnish friends who have watched him play claim that he > can play a solid two-way game.  I would have to say that this style > of contribution would be more conducive to winning.  Or don't you  > think so?    At least we have seen him playing...  >  >>>As it is now, Selanne >>>is a grandstanding goal suck.  Did you see the way he parades around >>>with his arms outstretched after scoring a goal?  You would think the >>>Messiah had returned...   During the latest Philly game the Leaf players didn't parade... Philly  crunched them 4-0 !!!  Maybe you need some more two way players who can  score, too !!??? >  >  > cordially, as always, >  > rm >  > --  > Roger Maynard  > maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca     just cordially,    Hannu
In <C5pDGI.LJL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu ( Evan Pritchard) writes:  >	I think that you are incorrect, Roger.  Patrick, >Smythe and Adams all played or coached in the league before becoming >front office types.  Hence, they did help build the league, although >they were not great players themselves.    Punch Imlach's contributions as a coach and GM were far greater than those of the above combined.  Should we name a division or trophy after him?  Smythe and Norris and the bunch were honoured purely because they were powerful owners.  As owners they certainly did help to build the league but whether they developed the game is another question altogether. Are we going to honour those who contributed to the league's evolution or are we going to honour those who contributed to the glory of the  sport itself?     >	I agree that a name is a name is a name, and if some people >have trouble with names that are not easily processed by the fans, >then changing them to names that are more easily processed seems like >a reasonable idea.  If we can get people in the (arena) door by being >uncomplicated, then let's do so.  Once we have them, they will realize >what a great game hockey is, and we can then teach them something >abotu the history of the game.    I can't disagree with you here.  >>The history of the names can be put rather succinctly.  All of the aforemen- >>tioned used the game of hockey to make money.  Can you imagine a Pocklington >>division?  A Ballard division?  Or how about a Green division?  >	No, I would not want to see a Ballard division.  But to say >that these owners are assholes, hence all NHL management people are >assholes would be fallacious.  Conn Smythe, for example, was a classy >individual (from what I have heard).   What have you heard?  The Major was the *definitive* little asshole!  He originated the phrase "if you can't beat 'em in the alley you can't beat 'em on the ice."  That was his idea of hockey.  Do you think, by chance, that Don Cherry is a classy individual?  >	Also, isn't the point of "professional" hockey to make money >for all those involved, which would include the players.  What I think >you might be saying is that the players have not made as much money as >should have been their due, and it is the players that are what make >the game great not the people who put them on the ice, so naming >division after management people rather than players is adding insult >(in the form of lesser recognition) to injury (less money than was >deserved).     The money issue is irrelevant to the point that we would agree on, and that is: "it is the players that are what make the game great and not the people who put them on the ice"  Exactly true.  Naming divisions and trophies after Smythe and the bunch is the same kind of nepotism that put Stein in the hall of fame.  I have always thought that this was nonsense.   --
In article <1993Apr18.153820.10118@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:  >>on all replays, joe murphy's goal shouldn't have counted !  >>the game would have ended in 2-2 tie !  >I thought the red light went on...thus, in the review, the presumption >would be to find conclusive evidence that the puck did not go in the >net...from the replays I say, even from the rear, the evidence wasn't >conclusive that the puck was in or out...in my opinion...  I was under the impression that the objective is to find conclusive evidence that the puck _did_ cross the line.  And, the replays I saw showed  fairly conclusively that the puck did _not_ cross the goal line at any time anyway.  Somebody screwed up.
Buffalo fans:  Some people in the discussion group, as well as "commentator Al" on ESPN,  believe that game 3 is critical for the Sabres.  HELLOOOO!!!!! The Sabres  are AHEAD 2 games to 0, not behind.  As a life-long Sabres fan, I am well  aware of their ability to choke, but let's not exaggerate that.  As long as  the Sabres win one of the next 2 games (be it game 3 OR game 4), they are  still in good shape (ahead 3 games to 1), with game 6 to be played at  Buffalo.  If they lose games three AND four, then start worrying.  Game 3 is  critical for Boston, not Buffalo.