Eleven

It's $32 for a twelve-pack of soda? They have it at Wegmans. I didn't find it to be anything special. But yes, very very sugary.

They're playing this over and over tonight again.

I don't hate those, but I like a so-called "traditional" veggie burger, like a black bean burger or something, better. Lots of flavor there if it's done right. It's just not beef flavor.

I'm glad to have something to do, because my brain won't shut down... 1. Miller was MVP of the tournament, not the gold medal game. He started six games. Not too far from how many Crozier started in the playoffs in 1966. 2. I don't care if it came at the age of 95. No star's rookie year is their best, whether it be Roger Crozier or Ryan Miller. 3. Miller would have won Vezinas in the 60s and 70s. There's no way Crozier would have done the same in Miller's era (to use a comparison that you proposed) and certainly Crozier didn't back then. 4. Yeah, when it took four wins to get there, not twelve. 5. Crozier led his team to the finals once, not twice, and it only took four wins to get there. Miller won more games in that Olympics that you discount than it took Crozier to get the Red Wings to the finals. The other time Crozier went to the finals was in Buffalo, and he played roughly 28% of the available minutes in the playoffs. Desjardins led that team in that playoffs. Crozier was a heck of a goalie. Miller was better. There's no way I can look at a Miller highlight reel and even imagine Crozier doing the things Miller did. Anyway. I'm probably up for a little while longer if you want to go another round!

That's why I'm leaving it up.

Oh! I thought you meant the last question about O'Reilly. If you mean Crozier's Conn Smythe on the losing side, well, can't help you if you want to get back into that. Miller was a better goalie, and also managed to win two playoff series as a starter in two different seasons, something Crozier never did. A Calder is immaterial if we're talking about a player in his prime, and Crozier's losing-side Smythe is equalled by Miller's losing-side MVP in the Olympics. Crozier also never managed to win a Vezina, even in a six team league. And Miller would win that trophy ELEVENTY million times in Crozier's day. So yeah, it seems like nostalgia to me.

Well, it was a different question last time, but I still voted O'Reilly:

I don't know how I did this, but I nailed one of them. Even checked my work. Must have been burned into my brain long ago or something.

Question 1: Foligno is such a nice sentimental favorite, and Briere was magic so many times, and O'Reilly was a Conn Smythe winner in his prime, if he's even peaked yet. Tough calls there. And Peca could crush people and still score 20+ regularly, too. It's probably going to be O'Reilly because he is/was a Conn Smythe winner in his prime. That's kind of a big deal. Question 2: Dumont and Vaive is another tough choice. Leaning Vaive; will sleep on it whenever my body decides to actually let me sleep tonight. Question 3 is the only easy one. It's going to be Kozlov.

That's a nice tandem.

What a complete idiot.

Here's one: https://www.buffalobills.com/video/highlight-john-brown-makes-one-handed-grab He threw a good ball in the playoffs too!

Miller would have won about ninety million Vezinas in Crozier's era. Maybe even a hundred million.

If saying that everyone should be working together for a cure has become unacceptably political, well, we (as people, not as SabreSpace) have really crossed a line. But thank you for the explanation; I do not share the same view, but thank you nevertheless.

Yeah, someone else had mentioned Edwards.

Why? Many of them were not political, such as the posts I responded to and my response to them.

Why we're not sharing research is the real question. This is so stupid.

Hold up there; the slug was a Quinn product.

It's actually recognition of false nostalgia for Crozier/Edwards/etc., combined with the recognition that offenses in 2005 are different than they were in 1970, that would lead one to vote Miller. It's pretty much the exact opposite of recency bias. Those guys were pretty great goalies. They also didn't play against anyone nearly as fast as Ovechkin or Crosby. And who is to say whether Miller would have been a butterfly goalie (he wasn't here, anyway--he was a hybrid) or not? And why would that matter?

Hey. I have friends who have a Festivus party every year. It's usually a really good time. Especially the airing of grievances--and yes, that actually happens, but via unsigned notes folded and dropped in a bowl.

The nostalgia for Crozier et al. notwithstanding, there is no way, in their primes, that they would have stopped the offenses Miller had to face, in his prime.

You are correct. Frank will.

It's in the episode itself. Festivus was born from Frank's violence in a toy store, wherein he was trying to buy a doll for his son. The use of the word "doll" was especially funny, but not sufficiently punctuated with recorded laughter.

Isn't that easier? He's waiting for Adam Silver to make a decision.