Toggle sidebar

Remembering some guys through Puckdoku

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Puckdoku 5.png
 
As a fan of a former AHL team who was affiliated with 4 of these teams. I think I had an advantage of remembering a few obsolete random names of guys and being able to get my 1st 0.0% guess Being a Bruins fan helped me with the B's column.

Screenshot_20230816_194801_Chrome.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teemu
Puckdoku Game 47 - 9/9🏆:

7 Uniqueness
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩

www.puckdoku.com

Puckdoku

Guess NHL players based on team, season, and stats. Choose wisely, as you only get 9 shots to fill the board.
www.puckdoku.com www.puckdoku.com
1692239009913.png
 
Puckdoku Game 48 - 9/9🏆:

12 Uniqueness
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩

www.puckdoku.com

Puckdoku

Guess NHL players based on team, season, and stats. Choose wisely, as you only get 9 shots to fill the board.
www.puckdoku.com www.puckdoku.com
1692277950351.png
 
I had some that I was really proud of today - Bunny Larocque for Blues/Flyers, Craig Janney for Blues/Coyotes, Jacques Plante for 200+ Blue, Phil Myre for Canadiens/Flyers, David Aebischer for Canadiens/Coyotes, Rogie Vachon for Canadiens 200+ winner.

Unfortunately, I was too damn dumb and thought I was entering Aebischer in the right spot but wasn't paying attention enough, so I crapped out.
 
ViD said:
Looking up players anywhere but in your head
Click to expand...
Fair enough. My personal rules are that I only look anything up if I have a player in mind for a square already, and just need to verify that I'm right, rather than take the risk. This is especially necessary for categories like "200+ career goals" or "200+ PIMS single season". It wouldn't be fun if you get a square wrong because the lesser-known enforcer you thought of had a career high of 199 PIMS (that actually happened to me a few games back).

There are just some squares that no one could reasonably hit at a low % without getting lucky or checking up on the player's profile, so it's more fun to do it this way, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stive Morgan
kvladimir said:
Fair enough. My personal rules are that I only look anything up if I have a player in mind for a square already, and just need to verify that I'm right, rather than take the risk. This is especially necessary for categories like "200+ career goals" or "200+ PIMS single season". It wouldn't be fun if you get a square wrong because the lesser-known enforcer you thought of had a career high of 199 PIMS (that actually happened to me a few games back).
Click to expand...

That's part of the game. Do you take the risk on a less-popular choice with a chance that you are wrong, or do you go for a safer option?

If you really want to "verify that you're right", the game offers an option for that, and will tell you whether you're right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HabsQC and Chuck Norris Trophy
Chuck Norris Trophy said:
Many people Google these, it's super obvious. There's even a site that gives you the right answers.
Click to expand...
Like I said above, I check once I have a player in mind to make sure I don't throw away a correct answer, but aside from that, I just spend way more time thinking about each square than a sane person should... :boredom:
 
While sleepy at work, I entered two correct answers in the wrong space.

1692310847351.png

As far as the cheating goes, I think the people that are older and have been fans longer are able to recall players from the past that gives them a low uniqueness score. However, I see some results that I often think, "that dude knows too much about hockey" or "that must have been looked up".

A strategy I use is older well known players who towards the end of their careers (or sometimes beginning) played on another team for a short stint before moving on from the NHL. My issue is that I often get a wrong answer, but I keep playing.
 
Last edited:
kvladimir said:
Like I said above, I check once I have a player in mind to make sure I don't throw away a correct answer, but aside from that, I just spend way more time thinking about each square than a sane person should... :boredom:
Click to expand...

Still cheating. I won't write out my response again since you ignored the first one, but it's still cheating.
 
kvladimir said:
I mean, I can try it this way, no big deal, it's just a fun game, but I feel like this would make it less fun? We'll see... :badidea:
Click to expand...

You can play it any way that you'd like to play it - but if you're going to compare scores with anyone (including on here), you need to disclose that you're playing with help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kvladimir
Today was the easiest so far, at least for me, this was also the second 9/9 i got.

Puckdoku Game 49 - 9/9🏆:

163 Uniqueness
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩

GonXxRR.png

I was a bit surprised Brayden Point was only 1%

edit. And yes, I know my score isn't that good even though it was easy :D
 
Last edited:
Ok, starting today, no hockeydb confirmations... we'll see how this goes :help:

Today I did very well, but got too cute on TBL/SJS (Ty Wishart, who I'm guessing never played for SJS before getting traded... pretty sure I was thinking of a different defenceman.... no not Matt Carle or Dan Boyle)

Puckdoku Game 49 - 8/9:

107 Uniqueness
🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩

Screenshot (75).png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News
I also got too cute today, thinking that

Al Montoya must have backed up a few games in Dallas or something. But no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom