Loach
Registered User
- Jun 9, 2021
- 3,672
- 2,615
That was a game.
Merilainen needs to start if Ullmark is still injured Thursday.
I expect Zub to be out long term.....Please be ok Ullmark. And Zub.
Nice resilience by the boys. Wacky game. Mac was great. Powerplay buried.
I expect Zub to be out long term.....
He gets concussed a lot.....
In the GDT, we missed youWhere the heck you all been during the game?!
Armani, an hour before yours. Did you take one of those famous "Thanksgiving walks" with the cousins today?Who made it?
We don't have an ECHL affiliate this year, where's soogard gonna go?
Just hoooold on. I'm getting ready to watch the game. No gdt. "Jeez, what's with the gang? They never miss one. I'll make a cheapo one, they can fix it and mock me for a poor effort." is what I thought. Nobody thought to shut it down and let me know there was already one? I see. That's the way it is. Ok. No Christmas cards for the lot of you!Armani, an hour before yours. Did you take one of those famous "Thanksgiving walks" with the cousins today?
I have to think the police that were directing traffic after the home opener are not around todayAlso I thought they did something to enhance the parking lot after the game. Lot 5 is bumper to bumper on the way out. Brutal
No team that has Sogaard in net deserves two points. Good thing we overcame.Deserved two points. Got two points.
So, Moneypuck excludes rebound shots from their model because they said including them was less predictive of wins (the say rebounds are probably more luck based though they might disagree if they watched our backup goalies), but we know rebound shots are very high quality chances. I'd suggest NST might be more accurate in terms of how many quality chances were seen while money puck might be more predictive of future results?NST says we dominated the Kings in xGF%. Moneypuck says we had better xGF%, but only marginally. Which one is actually more accurate?