[Points Game] 2016-17 Standings

[26CornerBlitz]

Well let me know when you do those standings that take no effort for a stupid game.

You are such a child. What I said was that it hadn't taken any time when I objected to you acting like a jerk because people were still adjusting to what you laid out because you hadn't tabulated results yet. Grow up.

 

[LaxSabre]

I am also 1 of 2 people to have a 4+ point game (1 coming tonight when I chose Carter who got 2 goals).

Update - Three people now with a 4+ point game as I choosed Eichel for tonights Kings game and he had two goals and one assist which is five points.

 

[ThunderD]

Update - Three people now with a 4+ point game as I choosed Eichel for tonights Kings game and he had two goals and one assist which is five points.

Nice catch Lax. Actually there are 12 people with a 4+ point game. What I meant to say is that I am 1 of 2 people with TWO 4+ games, the other being VaporTrail. I just point that out as VaporTrail is in 5th, I am in 1st, so between having the fewest 0 point games and multiple 4+ point games it shows why we are near the top of the standings. VaporTrail is also around 6th for fewest 0 point games. Lax, you are right behind VaporTrail for 0 point games and to no surprise 1 spot behind him in the standings.

 

[Jame]

The guys who are always starting the threads and/or getting the first few choices, also have the fewest zero point games? Shocker.

 

[ThunderD]

The guys who are always starting the threads and/or getting the first few choices, also have the fewest zero point games? Shocker.

Yeah you can put that theory to sleep. I had a feeling someone was going to accuse me of that so when I did the last standings I looked at my last 10 games. Granted I had the one good Eichel game (while you picked 1st overall for TB). In the other 10 games, I got 0 points in 3 games. Here are the other 7 games and who I picked and in which position I selected. See all the way to the right. Only once did I pick 4th and I took Frolik who wouldn't be most people's first choice. The rest of the time I was picking 8th - 13th and I got points in those 7 games with the guys I picked in those low spots.

Now go back and look at those games. In the 2nd NJ game, Stl, TB & BOS I picked after you.

In the first NJ game & Pit I picked ONE SPOT ahead of you.

What were you saying about a shocker?

 

[ThunderD]

The guys who are always starting the threads and/or getting the first few choices, also have the fewest zero point games? Shocker.

Jame, since I looked at the last 10 games above, I decided to also look at the first 10 games of the season. There were 3 times in which you got a 0 and I scored a point for the night. Granted in one of those games I did pick first (CAL), but you picked 5 spots later. In the other 2 games (MTL & the first MIN game) I picked 13th both times. So I'm not sure you can complain that the reason that I have fewer games with 0 points is because I am always starting threads.

 

[Jame]

Jame, since I looked at the last 10 games above, I decided to also look at the first 10 games of the season. There were 3 times in which you got a 0 and I scored a point for the night. Granted in one of those games I did pick first (CAL), but you picked 5 spots later. In the other 2 games (MTL & the first MIN game) I picked 13th both times. So I'm not sure you can complain that the reason that I have fewer games with 0 points is because I am always starting threads.

Maybe next time, you'll just look at all the games....

I don't care about how many times you had zero point games.

Since you've got it all in a spreadsheet, what's everyone's average draft position?

 

[ThunderD]

Maybe next time, you'll just look at all the games....

I don't care about how many times you had zero point games.

Since you've got it all in a spreadsheet, what's everyone's average draft position?

So I looked at 22 out of 28 games and you still are whining. You don't care about how many times I had zero point games but that's what your original complaint was about. Put some time in yourself and tell me what you have instead of me running around in circles and trying to prove something that we don't even know if it exists.

 

[Woodhouse]

The guys who are always starting the threads and/or getting the first few choices, also have the fewest zero point games? Shocker.

Seeing as these standings say I'm second in both points and games-with-zero, I'll chime in here and bet that the thread starters each probably have more firsts than I have picks combined in the first six. From memory, I'd say I have zero firsts, missed at least one game, and only a handful of early picks, one being C.Schneider since I wanted to remember to get a pick in ahead of going to that game in Newark.

EDIT: I can confirm zero firsts, one miss, and only four picks in the top-six, so "or" doesn't apply to me, but anyone's still welcome to think that those darn early picks (Okposo at two and six, C.Schneider at three, and Shattenkirk at four) are to blame I guess.

***

Regarding the rules, I do think firsts should be capped at something like eight to spread that opportunity around more, but I'm also not one of the ones particular about needing an early pick to participate either. Before ThunderD took the prerogative to update the standings regularly, I was beginning to think that firsts should tally the results for that particular game and failure to do so before the next faceoff would invalidate any points earned with that entry, plus a two-point penalty, and it'd still count towards their firsts allotment.

 

[ThunderD]

Seeing as these standings say I'm second in both points and games-with-zero, I'll chime in here and bet that the thread starters each probably have more firsts than I have picks combined in the first six. From memory, I'd say I have zero firsts, missed at least one game, and only a handful of early picks, one being C.Schneider since I wanted to remember to get a pick in ahead of going to that game in Newark.

EDIT: I can confirm zero firsts, one miss, and only four picks in the top-six, so "or" doesn't apply to me, but anyone's still welcome to think that those darn early picks (Okposo at two and six, C.Schneider at three, and Shattenkirk at four) are to blame I guess.

***

Regarding the rules, I do think firsts should be capped at something like eight to spread that opportunity around more, but I'm also not one of the ones particular about needing an early pick to participate either. Before ThunderD took the prerogative to update the standings regularly, I was beginning to think that firsts should tally the results for that particular game and failure to do so before the next faceoff would invalidate any points earned with that entry, plus a two-point penalty, and it'd still count towards their firsts allotment.

You've missed one game and yeah you haven't started any threads. The whining is a little ridiculous here. Yeah I have started threads, but as already shown I have a lot of games that I got points picking around 13th or slightly higher. As for the threads I started, what am I supposed to do, keep hitting refresh and wait all night until someone else starts the thread?

 

[ThunderD]

Seeing as these standings say I'm second in both points and games-with-zero, I'll chime in here and bet that the thread starters each probably have more firsts than I have picks combined in the first six. From memory, I'd say I have zero firsts, missed at least one game, and only a handful of early picks, one being C.Schneider since I wanted to remember to get a pick in ahead of going to that game in Newark.

EDIT: I can confirm zero firsts, one miss, and only four picks in the top-six, so "or" doesn't apply to me, but anyone's still welcome to think that those darn early picks (Okposo at two and six, C.Schneider at three, and Shattenkirk at four) are to blame I guess.

***

Regarding the rules, I do think firsts should be capped at something like eight to spread that opportunity around more, but I'm also not one of the ones particular about needing an early pick to participate either. Before ThunderD took the prerogative to update the standings regularly, I was beginning to think that firsts should tally the results for that particular game and failure to do so before the next faceoff would invalidate any points earned with that entry, plus a two-point penalty, and it'd still count towards their firsts allotment.

It's kind of hard for you guys to complain about "spreading the firsts around more" when it's already over 2 hours past the 24 hour start time for the thread, multiple people who play the game have posted on other threads (yourself included Woodhouse) but no one will start the points game thread.

 

[ThunderD]

 

[ThunderD]

I am the only one with less than 20 games of 0 points as well I am tied with VaporTrail for the most 4+ point games.

 

[VaporTrail]

Wow I'm surprised I'm usually picking near the bottom...I'll take it, lol

 

[ThunderD]

Wow I'm surprised I'm usually picking near the bottom...I'll take it, lol

Its funny because eveyone seems to think they're the only person picking near the bottom. Lots of people at the top have had picks outside the top 10 yet keep on picking up points.

 

[Jame]

What are the point totals

 

[ThunderD]

What are the point totals

You tell me.

 

[Jame]

You are such a child. What I said was that it hadn't taken any time when I objected to you acting like a jerk because people were still adjusting to what you laid out because you hadn't tabulated results yet. Grow up.

You were right

 

[ThunderD]

You are such a child. What I said was that it hadn't taken any time when I objected to you acting like a jerk because people were still adjusting to what you laid out because you hadn't tabulated results yet. Grow up.

You were right

Really Jame? You sit on your @$% and do nothing but call names? I got an idea, I'll stop doing the updates and Jame and 26CornerBlitz can do the standings from now on.

 

[Jame]

Really Jame? You sit on your @$% and do nothing but call names? I got an idea, I'll stop doing the updates and Jame and 26CornerBlitz can do the standings from now on.

Yea, really.
Why are you doing the point updates, and refusing to give the point updates? You've refused multiple times. It's just another column in all the hard work you've done.

Are you hiding something or just being a ******? I see 26cornerblitz still isn't in your standings, so it's safe to say it's the later.

 

[DJN21]

Yea, really.
Why are you doing the point updates, and refusing to give the point updates? You've refused multiple times. It's just another column in all the hard work you've done.

Are you hiding something or just being a ******? I see 26cornerblitz still isn't in your standings, so it's safe to say it's the later.

Top 20 for like 4 Posts lol I'll take it. Do people really get upset about this stuff?!

 

[ThunderD]

Yea, really.
Why are you doing the point updates, and refusing to give the point updates? You've refused multiple times. It's just another column in all the hard work you've done.

Are you hiding something or just being a ******? I see 26cornerblitz still isn't in your standings, so it's safe to say it's the later.

The only thing I'm hiding are all the private messages that 26CornerBlitz sent me that I didn't care for where he called me all sorts of names and so I refuse to acknowledge him. All because he didn't use the format that I asked for even though I am the only guy doing any work on these. FWIW, he's not winning this thing anyway.

But, since you seem to know better then add up the previous 46 games that have been played so far and show everyone what it is that I am hiding or you just want to accuse people of being a ********. I won't hold my breathe waiting for your update that will probably never come.

All future updates can be handled by you Jame as well since you know what everyone is hiding or you want to call the only guy doing any work for free a *********.

 

[Jame]

You're a stubborn little wiener shnitzel.

 

[ThunderD]

You're a stubborn little wiener shnitzel.

Whatever guy, just let everyone know when you update those standings.

 

[B U F F A L O]

You're a stubborn little wiener shnitzel.

That's actually a delicious meal!

Last season was so much better when everyone pitched in every couple of games to update this thing, what happened? We also had the results out and in the open in every update.

New rule for next year, whoever starts the thread has to update the standings for that game, or forfeit points. Whoever mentioned that in this Baghdad bombed thread had a good idea.