Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Mike Smith Goal

 NOTICE!! This forum allows Anonymous Posting.
 Registered members please login above or input your User Name/Password before submitting!
Screensize:
Authority:  UserName:  Password:  (Member Only !)
  * Anonymous Posting please leave it blank. your temporary AnonyID is
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature. (Member Only !)
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
markliso Posted - 10/20/2013 : 02:46:41
Wow, what a shot.

The guy in first place in our pool just racked up 50 points for that goal (regular goal is worth 2 points for any other player).
19   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
fanoleaf Posted - 11/01/2013 : 16:49:24
How many people chose Smith over Giroux...

Ryan Dixon - Sportsnet "Captain Claude Giroux is being outscored by Pheonix goalie Mike Smith this season"

just a little humour....

Giroux is off to a slow start
markliso Posted - 10/28/2013 : 20:44:16
wow, I forgot I started this thread... and then it went crazy!

Anyway, we used to do 10 points one year, then 25 points the next, and then decided on 50. We have plenty of bonus points incorporated thanks to PUH (SHG, PPG, GWG, SO, Hat Tricks, etc) so we thought maybe we would throw in another bonus.

Luckily, I've almost made up the ground lost on that 50! But we have a monthly bet too and I don't think i'll be winning this month because of that goal :(
admin Posted - 10/25/2013 : 13:00:54
Let's keep this thread on topic fellas, and everyone avoid the personal digs please.
Alex116 Posted - 10/23/2013 : 12:18:22
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I thought you argued before on this site that injuries are mostly just chance - bad luck.

So you contradicted yourself there.

Your top drafted players are absolutely a MUST to stay healthy to win a pool - everyone knows that! And we also ALL know by now, that once in a while . . . someone totally gets burned when their top player gets injured for most of the season, killing all chance at a win.

How is that not luck?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



I believe Beans, who shockingly i've been agreeing with a lot lately , said that he likes the idea of pools being based moreso on skill than luck. Clearly there's always going to be some luck involved, as there is in pretty much ANY sort of gambling!

Slozo, here's the thing with your comparison. The goalie goals are extremely flukey/lucky, no? Agree? Injuries, i guess we'd have to consider UNlucky, however, same thing in this case really, right? However, there are few, if any, means in place to alleviate the damage done by a serious injury to one of your top picks. There is however, a way of minimizing the luck/fluke factor involved in goalies scoring a goal and that of course is not to award them ridiculous bonus points!!! Pretty easy don't ya think?

I prefer straight up points pools but can deal with bonuses for GWG, SHG, even points for shots, hits, etc though there's a lot more research needed to guage one guy to the next. Thing is, you can in fact predict to some degree these stats. If there are bonuses to GWG's, obviously you may favour Couture over Thornton or Daniel over Henrik as they score more goals. Same goes for pools with PIMs included. Cory Perry's value shoots up real nicely as does Milan Lucic. These things are realistically predictable, far more so than goalies scoring goals.

Whatever, to each their own. I just can`t say i`d be ok with losing a pool based on a guy having a goalie score a goal, something that only 11 goalies have EVER done at the NHL level i believe.



I don't know Alex, why are you asking me if every goalie goal is a fluke or not . . . look it up, do your own research, then come back to me with an observation-based opinion mired more in fact than in fantasy.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



Dude, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? WTF? Okay, maybe you misunderstood what i was saying. I guess saying a goalie scoring is flukey/lucky is wrong really, you win. I mean, they, most of the time, are trying to score when they do it. So yeah, they're not flukey. So, just for you and your nitpicking, i'll reword what i was saying, even though i shouldn't have to. Let's try this again............

Fact - NHL goalies scoring a goal is extremely rare. *Note, if you want stats to prove this you can look'em up yourself. Seeing as goalies scoring is extremely rare, we can deduce that it is very difficult to predict which goalie, if any, will score a goal in any given season. Because we can come to this conclusion, i think it's fair to say that there is an extremely high element of luck involved in having ridiculoulsy high points given in a hockey pool for a goalie scoring a goal.

Is that simple enough for you Slozo? BTW, saying that you picked Brodeur over other goalies because you felt he had a better chance is laughable. He'd have been the top goalie in most pools anyway at that point in his career!!!

Whatever. Your attitude in your post earlier is pathetic in saying "whatever, get over it" and such. A question was asked, people answered and because someone disagrees with you, they need to "get over it"?
JOSHUACANADA Posted - 10/23/2013 : 12:10:50
A lot of hockey pools give a large stat increase for a goalie which can sway a hockey pool greatly. Some pools excessively so. I was in a pool with 4 points for a win -1 point for goal scored against and .1 points per shots faced with a 10 point shutout. I remember losing a pool I was handily winning based on goalie stats, wherein the guy who won had goalies with a few shutouts to end the season. I remember thinking goalie stats where the worst luck contributor to that particular hockey pool. Had I lost it to the 50 points for a goalie scoring, by less than 50 I would have cursed above the pg 13 rating. Yet had I won on the same circumstances I might have been overjoyed. 50 seems like a lot though. 5 to 10 maybe.
leigh Posted - 10/23/2013 : 11:13:47
I'm with you Alex116, I would prefer, for the most part, a skill based pool. Having said that, I do like handing out a few points for a goaltender goal, say 3 if he is credited with the goal as the last player on that team to touch the puck, and maybe 5 if he actually shoots it like Mike Smith did.

All pools have some element of luck in them and I think a modest reward for a special moment is a good thing. Besides, all pool teams have the same chance with that luck - admitedly some goalies do take more shots so there is some prognostication required...but these same goalies take more risks handling the puck more. Smith's shot could just as easily backfired and went in his own net and he might have lost in OT or the shootout. So it really does balance out.
leigh Posted - 10/23/2013 : 10:45:53
In case anyone wants to see the goal again...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB6TEDp94-k
slozo Posted - 10/23/2013 : 08:40:16
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I thought you argued before on this site that injuries are mostly just chance - bad luck.

So you contradicted yourself there.

Your top drafted players are absolutely a MUST to stay healthy to win a pool - everyone knows that! And we also ALL know by now, that once in a while . . . someone totally gets burned when their top player gets injured for most of the season, killing all chance at a win.

How is that not luck?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



I believe Beans, who shockingly i've been agreeing with a lot lately , said that he likes the idea of pools being based moreso on skill than luck. Clearly there's always going to be some luck involved, as there is in pretty much ANY sort of gambling!

Slozo, here's the thing with your comparison. The goalie goals are extremely flukey/lucky, no? Agree? Injuries, i guess we'd have to consider UNlucky, however, same thing in this case really, right? However, there are few, if any, means in place to alleviate the damage done by a serious injury to one of your top picks. There is however, a way of minimizing the luck/fluke factor involved in goalies scoring a goal and that of course is not to award them ridiculous bonus points!!! Pretty easy don't ya think?

I prefer straight up points pools but can deal with bonuses for GWG, SHG, even points for shots, hits, etc though there's a lot more research needed to guage one guy to the next. Thing is, you can in fact predict to some degree these stats. If there are bonuses to GWG's, obviously you may favour Couture over Thornton or Daniel over Henrik as they score more goals. Same goes for pools with PIMs included. Cory Perry's value shoots up real nicely as does Milan Lucic. These things are realistically predictable, far more so than goalies scoring goals.

Whatever, to each their own. I just can`t say i`d be ok with losing a pool based on a guy having a goalie score a goal, something that only 11 goalies have EVER done at the NHL level i believe.



I don't know Alex, why are you asking me if every goalie goal is a fluke or not . . . look it up, do your own research, then come back to me with an observation-based opinion mired more in fact than in fantasy.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Alex116 Posted - 10/22/2013 : 16:30:46
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I thought you argued before on this site that injuries are mostly just chance - bad luck.

So you contradicted yourself there.

Your top drafted players are absolutely a MUST to stay healthy to win a pool - everyone knows that! And we also ALL know by now, that once in a while . . . someone totally gets burned when their top player gets injured for most of the season, killing all chance at a win.

How is that not luck?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



I believe Beans, who shockingly i've been agreeing with a lot lately , said that he likes the idea of pools being based moreso on skill than luck. Clearly there's always going to be some luck involved, as there is in pretty much ANY sort of gambling!

Slozo, here's the thing with your comparison. The goalie goals are extremely flukey/lucky, no? Agree? Injuries, i guess we'd have to consider UNlucky, however, same thing in this case really, right? However, there are few, if any, means in place to alleviate the damage done by a serious injury to one of your top picks. There is however, a way of minimizing the luck/fluke factor involved in goalies scoring a goal and that of course is not to award them ridiculous bonus points!!! Pretty easy don't ya think?

I prefer straight up points pools but can deal with bonuses for GWG, SHG, even points for shots, hits, etc though there's a lot more research needed to guage one guy to the next. Thing is, you can in fact predict to some degree these stats. If there are bonuses to GWG's, obviously you may favour Couture over Thornton or Daniel over Henrik as they score more goals. Same goes for pools with PIMs included. Cory Perry's value shoots up real nicely as does Milan Lucic. These things are realistically predictable, far more so than goalies scoring goals.

Whatever, to each their own. I just can`t say i`d be ok with losing a pool based on a guy having a goalie score a goal, something that only 11 goalies have EVER done at the NHL level i believe.
slozo Posted - 10/22/2013 : 11:00:40
And let's take the luck thing further,

If a goalie scores a goal once every two, three years say . . . how lucky does that make me for winning my annual bet 4 years in a row? Is that just luck, or are starting to get into "I'm just better than you" territory . . .?

Just curious Beans - especially so, since we not only talked ad nauseum about this year's bet during the summer, but you actually apologised for being late on it and promised to offer terms for this year's bet two weeks ago. But still, so much nothing . . .

. . . and of course, with the Leafs hot start, and now Hall out, you have a further hedge on bets that would SURELY have been taking a beating already if the wager had been properly set before the season.

Anyways, I guess I digress . . . tell me again about luck?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
slozo Posted - 10/22/2013 : 10:50:13
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

I like the idea of hockey pools/fantasy football etc being based more on skill than luck. I can appreciate losing if I drafted a good player and they get injured. I can't apprecaite losing if it's based on a fluke play that literally happens 1 every 5000 or so games.

I like bonus points for things like GWG or shutouts, not for a goalie scoring.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong.







I thought you argued before on this site that injuries are mostly just chance - bad luck.

So you contradicted yourself there.

Your top drafted players are absolutely a MUST to stay healthy to win a pool - everyone knows that! And we also ALL know by now, that once in a while . . . someone totally gets burned when their top player gets injured for most of the season, killing all chance at a win.

How is that not luck?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Beans15 Posted - 10/22/2013 : 10:46:20
I like the idea of hockey pools/fantasy football etc being based more on skill than luck. I can appreciate losing if I drafted a good player and they get injured. I can't apprecaite losing if it's based on a fluke play that literally happens 1 every 5000 or so games.

I like bonus points for things like GWG or shutouts, not for a goalie scoring.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong.



nuxfan Posted - 10/22/2013 : 08:56:16
One of the pool's I'm in grants 10 points for a goalie goal. However, only 1 person had Smith (box-style pool, Smith not the obvious choice from that bos), so no real harm.

I like pools with bonus points like that - so long as they're not too much, 50 seems high.
Alex116 Posted - 10/22/2013 : 08:10:05
Slozo, fair enough. I guess my competetive nature would leave me far more frustrated than you if i lost in that manner. I mean, all my hours and hours of research, errrrr, i mean, all my few mins of reading a couple of predicted scoring lists, would be gone to waste due to a total fluke / unpredictable thing? I dunno, it just seems silly to me that a guy in last place all season with a terrible team, could win a pool on the last night of the season because his goalie is creditted with a goal?

Just not my cup-o-tea.......
slozo Posted - 10/22/2013 : 06:58:41
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

I get it Slozo, but tell me you won't be pissed if you lose your pool's top prize this season by a couple of points to the guy who owns Mike Smith? Sure, it's a bonus / lottery win, but there's no skill whatsoever in picking this to happen! Heck, most pools i go in only count goalie wins and shutouts (don't even get G's and A's).

Tell me this, have you EVER been in a pool such as the one you're in where there's points awarded for goalie goals and picked 1 goalie over another due to the fact you thought there was a better chance he's score a goal than the other???



Back in the Day, yes - I picked Brodeur thinking it was a possibility, at least a highly elevated possibility, of a goalie goal. He was the best all-time at it, after all.

I would have no problem losing a pool against a team with the goalie that scored . . . why would I have a problem with that? I don't really get it, that's the rule, it's a bit of a flukey extra point thing, but it is what it is, and I'd be happy to get it, sore to lose out to it, get over it! You know?

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
FutureKesler Posted - 10/21/2013 : 22:38:31
In my pool it was 99.99, so....

Ryan Kesler is a BEAST!
Alex116 Posted - 10/21/2013 : 11:59:57
I get it Slozo, but tell me you won't be pissed if you lose your pool's top prize this season by a couple of points to the guy who owns Mike Smith? Sure, it's a bonus / lottery win, but there's no skill whatsoever in picking this to happen! Heck, most pools i go in only count goalie wins and shutouts (don't even get G's and A's).

Tell me this, have you EVER been in a pool such as the one you're in where there's points awarded for goalie goals and picked 1 goalie over another due to the fact you thought there was a better chance he's score a goal than the other???
slozo Posted - 10/21/2013 : 10:56:05
I have a 25 point bonus in my pool for a goalie goal, as opposed to 2 pts for a forward or defenceman.

Hey, I think of it as a lottery win . . . if some guy gets lucky, all the best to him. It happens once every 2 or 3 years maybe, that's it . . . so might as well make it memorable. I agree that 50 points is too much however, that might be overdoing it IMHO.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Alex116 Posted - 10/20/2013 : 10:50:25
50pts? That's quite a bonus. Maybe too much even. That's a big bonus for a guy who may finish 2nd by 20pts and end up winning because of this? Personally I don't like bonuses like that. Far too unpredictable / flukey. Hope it doesn't screw you!

Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page