MattPie

FTFY. :)

Buffer Overflow! Without knowing the original title(s), I'd go with "6K 2 A"

I think he's listed as a center, so he gets rated that way even if he's playing wing (my original post was probably wrong). There seem to be a lot more centers than other forward positions, as there are 182 centers and 159 LW and 153 RW [0]. Larsson is the second-lowest LW, BTW. In any case, don't trust me; go look at the numbers and decide for yourself. I don't follow hockey that closely any more, but looking at the first page of forwards I don't see anything out of place by much. We can argue a few places up or down, but I don't have issue with Eichel being #8 or Reinhart being #22 (center). Eichel would be the best center on most teams. If you look at RWs, Reinhart's rating puts him around Kessel and Laine. [0] makes sense, I think the Sabres only have like 2 guys that are RW, Reinhart and Boat being centers. Makes me wonder if all the forwards are rated the same way or if they tweak the weights for center vs wing for things like defense stats.

Well, looking at the actual list I don't see anything out of place. Are you arguing Svobotka isn't the 178th centre in the league? Here's the list, with a link to the detailed rating system: https://www.corsicahockey.com/nhl/players/nhl-player-ratings-rankings

That I don't know. I figure there are a lot of smart people that look at it and it probably bears out results and is adjusted over time to get better.

By some aggregate stat, Boat is #178 in the league for RW. He's lava because generally speaking, if there are 31 teams (and assuming an even distribution of talent), RWs #1 through #31 should be allocated on one per team for the first line, #32 through #62 for the second line, etc. As I understand it, to put it another way your "first line" should be players between 1 and 31, second line between 32 and 62, etc. Having #178 [0] on 2nd line means he's playing on a line well above where his stats say he should (tweener 6th and 7th line). Remember this is small sample size right now, so a couple goals or whatever factors that stat uses probably creates big swings in ratings. If Boat is still 178 in January, there's a question with either his play or how the stat is calculated. [0] If I'm reading right, there are 5.7 RWs in the league *per team* that are better than Boat.

RJ: "Eichel's hanging to the left; now he's swinging around; SCOOOOORRRRREEEEEE!"

Eggplants, which I understand have a slang meaning with the young people.

The web sites don't seem to work well, most try to funnel you into an app. Tanks. I'm surprised the old TuneIn doesn't have it anymore and WGR app is gone? I truly am out of the loop.

SO what's the preferred way to listen on Android these days?

Hey, that's local for me, maybe I'll drive up and scout.

I dig it, I like night modes. If I were tweaking it, I may lighten the background *very* slightly and grey the text a little. White on almost-black is a little jarring.

Yeah, what were Boomers thinking when they came up with that!

This is the first year I didn't buy-in to GameCenter; I barely watched last year, and didn't feel like spending any time on it this year. I'm mildly regretting that decision, but I'm just superstitious enough to wonder if I should subscribe now and jinx them.

Forget you man, 72-0-10 (I don't consider OTLs true losses since they almost maintain playoff pace on points).

That works! I'm not sure how full it'll be. Most of the people are local so they may not be able to hang out 4 times in a week leaving families at home, so I should be left to my own devices some night.

Oops, don't know why Boulder popped into my head. I'm leaving Friday morning, staying in Westminster on the northwest side of town.

Heading out to Denver on Sunday for work (I'll wave at Boulder (?) if I see it @biodork!). This is for some interesting and challenging work, so I'm actually looking forward to it.

I wonder how that differs from the old Run and Shoot, which focused a lot more on the Shoot part of that.

If you're talking about Antonio Brown, no, no, no-no-no.

Now I'm curious what you use. I have a Netgear Nighthawk something that seems adequate, but I rarely have more than 3-4 things doing something at the same time. Before I bought that, I considered a Juniper SRX300 and access points, but that turned out to be way more for support than I wanted to spend.

Hey, even the Bills in their long, long sub-prime era won a game against the Pats on occasion. #whynotthisyear

Right around 11:00 there's a similar play, huh.

FWIW, my old-ish (2011) Mac Mini (next to the laptop, so ~14ft through a floor to the router) is getting 97Mbit down 83Mbit up on Spectrum's test (Oxford MA) (I'm on FIOS). fast.com reports 78Mbps, although it briefly showed 220. Verizon shows 150/180 from my device and 947/928 from my router to the Verizon's server in NYC. From verizon: What does a “Good” router test result mean? Your router speed: 947/928 Mbps A good result indicates that you are getting a result close to your subscribed speed. The speed to your router indicates the total bandwidth available to all devices combined. For instance, your result of 947 Mbps download bandwidth indicates that you could have 94 devices connected at the same time, each streaming 10 Mbps of content simultaneously.

I'm not in the business, nor have any direct knowledge, but it wouldn't be too hard to set up Quality of Service to prioritize certain types of traffic, such as speed tests. That being said, a lot of peoples network knowledge is up to the person yelling SHOOOOOT during 3-on-3 at center ice, to draw a parallel. It's a bit of both. The speed test is probably a little rigged (or "optimized"), while people think the local network is slow because catvideomp4.org doesn't download at > 90MBytes/s.