ATD 2011 Draft Thread III

[seventieslord]

I guess the end game would be to show that scoring finishes are not really the best way to compare players from different eras. Instead we should be looking at how that player is doing compared to some kind of league standard. What that standard is would be up for debate. A simple example might be to calculate the number of first liners and make the standard an average of whatever the 2-3 guys right in the middle scored (In the O6 it would be the 8th, 9th, and 10th place point totals, while today it would be the 44th, 45th, and 46th place point totals).

Don't worry. Very few people here want to strictly use points finishes anymore. I think that for the majority of post-expansion to post-expansion, and pre-expansion to pre-expansion comparisons, they still work very well as a starting point and usually get the point across. If you're trying to compare a pre-expansion player to a post-expansion player then bringing out the percentages is the fairest way to go. At the same time, adhering too close to the percentages will see you overrate a modern player. If a 15th-place guy in one season today out-percentages a 5th-place guy from a season in the 50s, I still want the guy in the 50s because there's something to be said for being among the top-5 in the best league on earth.

If peer comparison is the best way to rank players, isn't this a much more accurate picture of a players peers?

Here is how the original comparison I posted looks for years 60-62 and 08-10.

1959-60: 5th place: 73pts, 10th place: 66pts
1960-61: 5th place: 72pts, 10th place: 62pts
1961-62: 5th place: 71pts, 10th place: 62pts

2007-08: 25th place: 75pts, 50th place: 65pts
2008-09: 25th place: 75pts, 50th place: 65pts
2009-10: 25th place: 71pts, 50th place: 62pts


I know this is very simple, but doesn't this start to show that compared to his peers, the 50th place guy today is doing just as well as the 10th place guy back in the 60's (offensively at least)? They are both in the same percentile when compared to peers that play similar roles.

Yes, it appears that the difference from 5th-10th is similar to the difference from 25th-50th. But why are 5th and 25th the benchmarks? there's no way 5th in 1960 is equivalent to just 25th today, so naturally the 50th-place player today will look equal to the 10th from 1960, because they are being compared to very different things!

 

[BillyShoe1721]

If that's the way it seemed, that was not my intention.

 

[overpass]

- Was THE powerplay quarterback on one of the most efficient units in the league for 11 years

Not quite, unless you're talking about the WHA.

Tremblay scored a total of 10 power play points from 1960-61 to 1964-65. Not a power play quarterback.

From 1965-66 to 1969-70, he played on the PP, but I don't think he was the PP quarterback.

Montreal Canadiens power play points, 1966-1970
Cournoyer: 124
Undrafted: 114
Beliveau: 104
Tremblay: 59
Laperriere: 51
Undrafted: 44
Richard: 34

Among defencemen, Tremblay was barely ahead of Laperriere on the power play. One of the forwards listed ahead of him played the point, and was probably more of a PP quarterback.

In Tremblay's defence, during these years there weren't really any defenders putting up a lot of points on the power play. Almost every team played at least one forward on the point, many played two. No defenceman stayed out for most or all of the power play, except for Orr and maybe Pilote at the beginning of this time.

In 69-70 and 70-71, Tremblay was a legitimate #1 PPQB, scoring 33 and 28 power play points on Montreal's superb power play. In those two seasons, Montreal had their two best power play seasons between the late 50s and late 70s dynasties. So maybe Tremblay should have been back there all along. But for whatever reason, he wasn't.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Don't worry. Very few people here want to strictly use points finishes anymore. I think that for the majority of post-expansion to post-expansion, and pre-expansion to pre-expansion comparisons, they still work very well as a starting point and usually get the point across. If you're trying to compare a pre-expansion player to a post-expansion player then bringing out the percentages is the fairest way to go. At the same time, adhering too close to the percentages will see you overrate a modern player. If a 15th-place guy in one season today out-percentages a 5th-place guy from a season in the 50s, I still want the guy in the 50s because there's something to be said for being among the top-5 in the best league on earth.

If peer comparison is the best way to rank players, isn't this a much more accurate picture of a players peers?



Yes, it appears that the difference from 5th-10th is similar to the difference from 25th-50th. But why are 5th and 25th the benchmarks? there's no way 5th in 1960 is equivalent to just 25th today, so naturally the 50th-place player today will look equal to the 10th from 1960, because they are being compared to very different things!

I chose to use 5th rather randomly. I didn't want to use the first few spots because those numbers can be skewed by the freaks (just like any statistical extreme really). 25th is the equivalent because in a 30 team league there are 5x as many 1st liner players than a 6 team league.

You say 5th and 25th are not equivalent, but in terms of where that player ranks amongst first line players in the NHL they are equivalent. The 5th ranked player is in the 72nd percentile among 18 first line forwards, and the 25th ranked is in the same spot among 90 first line forwards. When comparing to their peers, they are in the exact same spot.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

I guess my point is that HHH is pointing him out to be this ridiculously good playoff player, whereas Beliveau blows him out of the water 11-6. I'm not trying to punish him for not scoring well against players, I'm saying that in comparison to his relative position, Tremblay was top 10 6 times. In Beliveau's position, he was top 10 11 times. I think it's a pretty fair comparison.

I'm not painting him inaccurately what-so-ever, he is quite clearly a ridiculously dominant playoff performer, it's clear as day and not even arguable.

Maybe you should have actually read the bio and developed a more informed opinion before you responded. I apologize if you actually did read the bio, but it just doesn't seem like it because I don't see how anyone with an informed opinion would have responded with the tone of dispute that you did.

I didn't just throw that little bit in there whimsically; if you had read the bio, you would have seen the plethora of quotes, stats, and accomplishments that set him out as an elite playoff performer, and you would have seen how the argument developed in context (Struminator's quote under the playoff section).

A concentrated version of the bio pertaining to playoff performance:

Tremblay established his reputation as a great in the playoffs, where he was a tremendous performer, seemingly able to turn up his game like flicking a switch. He scored 14 goals, 51 assists and 65 points in 108 games, helping the Montreal Canadiens to 5 Stanley Cup championships. -Joe Pelletier

A regular season stalwart, Tremblay took his game to another level in the playoffs. -Canadiens Site

But it was in the playoffs where J.C. really shone, scoring 9 points in 13 playoff games. With the Canadiens up 3 games to none in the finals against the Blues, the Canadiens were trailing 2-1 in the third period. At 7:24 of the third, J.C. set up Henri Richard for the tying goal, and four minutes later scored the Stanley Cup winning goal. -"The Forgotten Habs" Series

Top-10 Playoff Scoring Amongst All Skaters x3 (2nd, 6th, 7th)
*Including Hull, Howe, Mikita, Delvecchio, Ullman, H. Richard, Bathgate, Mahovlich, etc...

Top-10 Playoff Scoring Amongst Defensemen x6 (1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 5th)
*Including Pilote, Kelly, Gadsby, Orr, Park, etc...

Stanley Cup Champion x5 (1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1971)

*Was robbed of a Conn Smythe trophy in 1966

The year is 1966. Ace defenseman Jean-Claude Tremblay is the key player as the Montreal Canadiens defend their Stanley Cup championship. Tremblay leads all Canadiens players in point scored during these playoffs, tallying 11 points including 1 goal and 6 points in the finals against Detroit. His defensive effort was also supreme. He seemed to always be on the ice for the many crucial situations faced in a playoff game.

--> He played the role of #1 d-man for the Canadiens, anchoring the defense and playing in every situation necessary
--> While ALSO leading the ENTIRE TEAM in playoff scoring and finishing 2nd amongst ALL SKATERS in scoring.
--> The award was controversially given to the goalie of the losing team

It's worth noting that Montreal was able to win Cups over this period without Laperriere in the playoffs, but the one year that Tremblay got hurt (69-70), they did not even qualify for the postseason. Over the span of Tremblay's peak years in Montreal (1965-72), he scored 60 points in 85 playoff games, an absolutely ridiculous pace for that era, and didn't have a single poor performance. The 2nd place scorer among defensemen over this period (XXXXXX) has barely more than 50% of Tremblay's total, with 32 points. J.C. Tremblay was quite clearly the dominant postseason defenseman of his era, and quite possibly the single best postseason player of his era, as well. -Sturminator

 

[Sturminator]

60 points in 85 playoff games for a defenseman in Tremblay's era is ridiculous, and he played very well defensively in all of those Cup runs. People seem to think that he was weak in his own end (I'll admit that he was soft, which is a major drawback in the ATD), but he was far from it. J.C. was a money player any way you slice it.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I chose to use 5th rather randomly. I didn't want to use the first few spots because those numbers can be skewed by the freaks (just like any statistical extreme really). 25th is the equivalent because in a 30 team league there are 5x as many 1st liner players than a 6 team league.

You say 5th and 25th are not equivalent, but in terms of where that player ranks amongst first line players in the NHL they are equivalent. The 5th ranked player is in the 72nd percentile among 18 first line forwards, and the 25th ranked is in the same spot among 90 first line forwards. When comparing to their peers, they are in the exact same spot.

To elaborate...the next step would be to compare the differences across eras to show competition level. In the example I gave, the percentage differences were virtually identical. This tells me that the competition level is near the same in those two eras.

On the other hand, if the current day numbers showed a much bigger percentage difference between the 25th and 50th than the O6 numbers did between 5th and 10th then you would be able say that the modern era is not as competitive as the O6 was.

(Obviously this would need to be much more complex, and use multiple spots as comparisons if you really wanted it to be accurate)

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Not quite, unless you're talking about the WHA.

Tremblay scored a total of 10 power play points from 1960-61 to 1964-65. Not a power play quarterback.

From 1965-66 to 1969-70, he played on the PP, but I don't think he was the PP quarterback.

Montreal Canadiens power play points, 1966-1970
Cournoyer: 124
Undrafted: 114
Beliveau: 104
Tremblay: 59
Laperriere: 51
Undrafted: 44
Richard: 34

Among defencemen, Tremblay was barely ahead of Laperriere on the power play. One of the forwards listed ahead of him played the point, and was probably more of a PP quarterback.

In Tremblay's defence, during these years there weren't really any defenders putting up a lot of points on the power play. Almost every team played at least one forward on the point, many played two. No defenceman stayed out for most or all of the power play, except for Orr and maybe Pilote at the beginning of this time.

In 69-70 and 70-71, Tremblay was a legitimate #1 PPQB, scoring 33 and 28 power play points on Montreal's superb power play. In those two seasons, Montreal had their two best power play seasons between the late 50s and late 70s dynasties. So maybe Tremblay should have been back there all along. But for whatever reason, he wasn't.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, overpass, I don't have the sort of experience and knowledge you do with PP numbers, and threw the comment in there sort of whimsically based on this:

A mobile defenseman with a smooth skating stride, Jean-Claude Tremblay sparkled as the team's power play quarterback for 11 seasons in Montreal.

He quarterbacked the most potent power play in the league... -The official Canadiens heritage site

Now that I think of it, I guess they meant he sparkled as the team's powerplay quarterback (referring to 69-71) , (and played in Montreal) for 11 years. That makes a lot more sense haha.

Regardless, I took your post as mostly positive. Tremblay wasn't really an established defenseman pre-1965 so it's expected that he wasn't doing anything during those years. But he was playing on the powerplay (though not as QB, but you said that was normal for defensemen) after 1965 and scoring more than any other defender on the team. And then for a couple years he did QB the PP and that corresponded with the emergence of the unit's dominance. Which is a very good sign, and that experience + his skill-set indicates that he is obviously a good PP quarterback.

 

[seventieslord]

I chose to use 5th rather randomly. I didn't want to use the first few spots because those numbers can be skewed by the freaks (just like any statistical extreme really). 25th is the equivalent because in a 30 team league there are 5x as many 1st liner players than a 6 team league.

You say 5th and 25th are not equivalent, but in terms of where that player ranks amongst first line players in the NHL they are equivalent. The 5th ranked player is in the 72nd percentile among 18 first line forwards, and the 25th ranked is in the same spot among 90 first line forwards. When comparing to their peers, they are in the exact same spot.

the problem with that line of thinking is that it implies by being in that spot on the roster, they are that good.

Talent pool size has increased, yes. A 5th today is better than a 5th 50 years ago. You can probably get away with saying that 5=10 and 10=20 if we're going that far back, but there is simply no way that 5=25.

I'm going to take this to the most micro level to demonstrate that it's incorrect. 1967 expansion - league doubles in size. Based on what you're telling us, a 5th in 1967 is only as good as a 10th in 1968. Why would that be? The talent pool didn't double in size - only the league did. And the ten best players before were the ten best after.

60 points in 85 playoff games for a defenseman in Tremblay's era is ridiculous, and he played very well defensively in all of those Cup runs. People seem to think that he was weak in his own end (I'll admit that he was soft, which is a major drawback in the ATD), but he was far from it. J.C. was a money player any way you slice it.

There's no doubt that he was a top playoff performer; those point totals are too great to ignore.

BTW, as far as where Tremblay ranked on the depth chart accorting to TOI estimates:

1968: 2nd ES, 2nd PP, 1st PK, 1st overall
1969: 1st ES, 1st PP, 1st PK, 1st overall
1970: 5th ES, 3rd PP, 5th PK, 5th overall
1971: 2nd ES, 1st PP, 3rd PK, 1st overall
1972: 2nd ES, 1st PP, 2nd PK, 1st overall

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

BTW, as far as where Tremblay ranked on the depth chart accorting to TOI estimates:

1968: 2nd ES, 2nd PP, 1st PK, 1st overall
1969: 1st ES, 1st PP, 1st PK, 1st overall
1970: 5th ES, 3rd PP, 5th PK, 5th overall
1971: 2nd ES, 1st PP, 3rd PK, 1st overall
1972: 2nd ES, 1st PP, 2nd PK, 1st overall

Interesting, where does that information come from? And I'm assuming those totals are amongst all Canadiens' Skaters (or is it the NHL and/or just defensemen?)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1968: 2nd ES, 2nd PP, 1st PK, 1st overall
1969: 1st ES, 1st PP, 1st PK, 1st overall
1970: 5th ES, 3rd PP, 5th PK, 5th overall
1971: 2nd ES, 1st PP, 3rd PK, 1st overall
1972: 2nd ES, 1st PP, 2nd PK, 1st overall

That just doesn't add up to me. How can he go from their #1 guy to their #5 for just one season?

Edit: Oh, he was injured in 1970. Is that TOI per game or TOI total?

 

[overpass]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, overpass, I don't have the sort of experience and knowledge you do with PP numbers, and threw the comment in there sort of whimsically based on this:



Now that I think of it, I guess they meant he sparkled as the team's powerplay quarterback (referring to 69-71) , (and played in Montreal) for 11 years. That makes a lot more sense haha.

Regardless, I took your post as mostly positive. Tremblay wasn't really an established defenseman pre-1965 so it's expected that he wasn't doing anything during those years. But he was playing on the powerplay (though not as QB, but you said that was normal for defensemen) after 1965 and scoring more than any other defender on the team. And then for a couple years he did QB the PP and that corresponded with the emergence of the unit's dominance. Which is a very good sign, and that experience + his skill-set indicates that he is obviously a good PP quarterback.

Sure, I don't mean to say that he's not a good PP option. I'm just presenting the historical record. There's definitely a strong case to make that the historical record underestimates his power play skills.

It comes back to the whole debate about hockey numbers. They just show the results for a player in a specific situation and with specific opportunities. The ATD allows us to imagine that player in a new situation.

I actually hadn't realized before I looked it up how good the Canadiens were in 1970-71 and 1971-72 on the power play compared to surrounding years, and that's definitely a point in Tremblay's favour. I don't have the power play numbers for his playoffs, but in any case his playoff scoring was extremely impressive.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Dawson City is pleased to select, from the Buffalo Sabres, Gilbert Perreault.

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting, where does that information come from? And I'm assuming those totals are amongst all Canadiens' Skaters (or is it the NHL and/or just defensemen?)

It's from a spreadsheet that I have. It's based on the GF/GA. Based on the situational totals and the time that the team spent in each situation, a complex model is able to determine the players' icetime going back to 1968 with reasonable accuracy. (I thought the correlation between the model and real results was 90% but someone corrected me the other day on the HOH board and said it was 94%.)

Who was responsible for it? I forget. I think it was one of those stats bigwigs, like Alan Ryder or Ian Fyffe... if not them, then someone who runs with that crowd.

Those were based on on Montreal only, however, in the four years that he was their #1 he was very close to the top of the league:

1968: 1st
1969: 1st
1971: 2nd (orr)
1972: 5th

That just doesn't add up to me. How can he go from their #1 guy to their #5 for just one season?

Edit: Oh, he was injured in 1970. Is that TOI per game or TOI total?

That is TOI per game. He likely played less per game when he was healthy. Or he may have played a lot less per game in games where he was just coming back from injury, or playing hurt.

If he did in fact play #1 minutes and the model's not recording it, it means that a crapload of expected goals, both for and against, did not happen.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

the problem with that line of thinking is that it implies by being in that spot on the roster, they are that good.

Talent pool size has increased, yes. A 5th today is better than a 5th 50 years ago. You can probably get away with saying that 5=10 and 10=20 if we're going that far back, but there is simply no way that 5=25.

I'm going to take this to the most micro level to demonstrate that it's incorrect. 1967 expansion - league doubles in size. Based on what you're telling us, a 5th in 1967 is only as good as a 10th in 1968. Why would that be? The talent pool didn't double in size - only the league did. And the ten best players before were the ten best after.

That is where the whole level of competition part of it factors is. To properly rank a player you would not only need to know what percentile they fell into, but also what the competition level was at the time.

Using the same VERY rough example I did before:

1960-1962: average difference between 5th and 10th: 87.9%
2008-2010: average difference between 25th and 50th: 86.9%
1968-1970: average difference between 10th and 20th: 85.3%


As we would expect, the O6 era is the most competitive, followed by current day, and then immediate post-expansion years.


Note: I would bet the differences would be even larger if we compared higher end 1st liners to lower end 1st liners or even 2nd liners (the numbers above compare the higher end 1st liners (72nd percentile) to about average 1st liners (45th percentile).

 

[Sturminator]

Dawson City is pleased to select, from the Buffalo Sabres, Gilbert Perreault.

Nice pick, and excellent value at this point. This tier will self-destruct in 3 seconds...

 

[overpass]

That just doesn't add up to me. How can he go from their #1 guy to their #5 for just one season?

Edit: Oh, he was injured in 1970. Is that TOI per game or TOI total?

In an article about Laperriere being suspended:

Veteran Jean Claude Tremblay, used only sparingly at Chicago in his second game back from a month-long wrist injury, will attempt regular turns.

He may have spent part of the season playing lower minutes while recovering from injury.

If you look at his hockey-reference page, you can see his on-ice goals (TGF and TGA) were way down that year.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Glad you made that pick. He's not a guy I felt I needed, but, I wasn't sure if I could pass on him.

 

[seventieslord]

That is where the whole level of competition part of it factors is. To properly rank a player you would not only need to know what percentile they fell into, but also what the competition level was at the time.

Using the same VERY rough example I did before:

1960-1962: average difference between 5th and 10th: 87.9%
2008-2010: average difference between 25th and 50th: 86.9%
1968-1970: average difference between 10th and 20th: 85.3%


As we would expect, the O6 era is the most competitive, followed by current day, and then immediate post-expansion years.

I am completely befuddled by the above. I have no idea what the purposes of 10/20, 25/50, and 10/20 comparisons are. Can anyone else please make sense of this for me?

I will say this, Johnny: The relative values of players further down the pecking order can be variable, but one thing has been pretty constant - top-end talent. There have not been many times in history where we can say the best 2-3 players in the world are significantly better or worse than at other times. This is why BM67's "vs. #2" comparisons have been championed by me in the past year and why a few others have started to catch onto it.

I just don't see how this relates to what you're doing, at all.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Nice pick, and excellent value at this point. This tier will self-destruct in 3 seconds...

Glad you made that pick. He's not a guy I felt I needed, but, I wasn't sure if I could pass on him.

Well I was lacking in the "First Line Center" department, and Perreault's got a pretty solid resume. Was considering another center but felt Perreault's longevity and playoff numbers gave him the edge needed to make the Nuggets.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've become convinced Perreault's offense is better than his regular season numbers indicate, because a player like him who relied on speed and puck skills was definitely held back by playing his home games on Buffalo's smaller ice surface.

I think this is the big disconnect between his stats and observations of those who saw him play.

I'm assuming the ATD is played on standard NHL sized rinks? In that case Perreault wouldn't be as good as his international stats indicate, but better than his NHL stats (since half of his games were played on the small rink).

Not all players are affected by rink size, but Perreault definitely was.

 

[Derick*]

I think his point is that all the percentage differences are around 85%, yet the number of positions differences keeps growing, so a position difference lower down is less than an equal position difference higher up.

Someone who finishes 1st, 5th, 5th, 5th and 9th is better than someone who finishes 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th and 5th because the difference between 1st and 5th is greater than the difference between 5th and 9th, even though they're both four spots apart.

The fact that he changes both era and sample of positions, though, is confusing. If you want to do this scientifically and draw a point you need to isolate the variable that you're changing. Changing them together makes it unclear what's causing the change in results.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Seventieslord:
I am completely befuddled by the above. I have no idea what the purposes of 10/20, 25/50, and 10/20 comparisons are. Can anyone else please make sense of this for me?

I will say this, Johnny: The relative values of players further down the pecking order can be variable, but one thing has been pretty constant - top-end talent. There have not been many times in history where we can say the best 2-3 players in the world are significantly better or worse than at other times. This is why BM67's "vs. #2" comparisons have been championed by me in the past year and why a few others have started to catch onto it.

I just don't see how this relates to what you're doing, at all.

The 5th and 10th O6 spots were completely chosen at random just to use as an example. The spots for the other eras are 5th and 10th with an adjustment for bigger league size. This way they are comparing the same percentile rank of 1st line forwards.

If this study were to really work, one would have to do a large amount of comparisons like the one I did above. Obviously comparing 5th and 10th alone tells us nothing.

I'm doing a bad job explaining this, and all in all, it's too big a project for me to actually do, so we might as well stop talking about it. Although, I think in theory it would work.

 

[seventieslord]

I think his point is that all the percentage differences are around 85%, yet the number of positions differences keeps growing, so a position difference lower down is less than an equal position difference higher up.

Someone who finishes 1st, 5th, 5th, 5th and 9th is better than someone who finishes 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th and 5th because the difference between 1st and 5th is greater than the difference between 5th and 9th, even though they're both four spots apart.

In theory, in the exact same seasons, with all things being equal, yes, the guy who was 1st once and 9th another time would have done better on the aggregate (i.e. maybe he finishes 25 points ahead of 5th when he's 1st, but just 12 points behind 5th when he's 9th) - but I also don't think that was the point he was trying to make at all... at least I hope not. What an awful thing to argue about !

The 5th and 10th O6 spots were completely chosen at random just to use as an example. The spots for the other eras are 5th and 10th with an adjustment for bigger league size. This way they are comparing the same percentile rank of 1st line forwards.

If this study were to really work, one would have to do a large amount of comparisons like the one I did above. Obviously comparing 5th and 10th alone tells us nothing.

All in all, it's too big a project for me to actually do, so we might as well stop talking about it. Although, I think in theory it would work.

I don't think it would. You need to compare everything to a known value and not change the goalposts year by year. I could select random placements from different generations too, and show that they are all exactly 70% away from eachother but I have better things to do - like pick my nose.

Probably the best thing you can do is put it into practice. Next time you need to compare your player to someone else's, try out what you're saying. I think it would be a mess. When you're done that, try using a comparison to #2 as a benchmark. You'll like it a lot better, I reckon.

 

[Derick*]

In theory, in the exact same seasons, with all things being equal, yes, the guy who was 1st once and 9th another time would have done better on the aggregate (i.e. maybe he finishes 25 points ahead of 5th when he's 1st, but just 12 points behind 5th when he's 9th) - but I also don't think that was the point he was trying to make at all... at least I hope not. What an awful thing to argue about !



I don't think it would. You need to compare everything to a known value and not change the goalposts year by year. I could select random placements from different generations too, and show that they are all exactly 70% away from eachother but I have better things to do - like pick my nose.

Probably the best thing you can do is put it into practice. Next time you need to compare your player to someone else's, try out what you're saying. I think it would be a mess. When you're done that, try using a comparison to #2 as a benchmark. You'll like it a lot better, I reckon.

Yeah really. That's basically what I said in the last paragraph of my post. That made it incredibly confusing.