Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Wingers)
- Thread starter Hawkey Town 18
- Start date
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,811
- 16,548
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I think it's useful to look at them in detail to get the full picture.
1941
Howe |x|x|x|x
Lindsay |x|x|x|x
1942
Howe |x|x|x|x
Lindsay |x|x|x|x
1943
Howe |x|x|x|x
Lindsay |x|x|x|x
1944/45/46 - War years. Abel left for WWII, and Lindsay played partial seasons as a teenager.
Now, obviously this whole picture is complicated by the war. But I think it's reasonable to perceive Abel as a guy who was good for about 20 goals and 30 assists a year at his 'natural' level. By the time Abel returned from the war, Lindsay had worked his way up to a regular role on the team. Howe had just come on as a teenage prospect.
1947
Howe |18|7|15|22
Lindsay |21|27|15|42
^ Note that Abel is right around that same 20-30 mark. The points are slightly more difficult to score in the post-war NHL, but there are 10 more games on the schedule, so it's a wash. Abel's production is basically unchanged.
New coach Tommy Ivan assembles the Production Line for the following season...
1948
Howe |19|16|28|44
Lindsay |22|33|19|52
^ Lindsay is now a couple of years into his prime, 1948 being his best goal-scoring season and his first AS award. Note that Lindsay has very few assists. Abel is still around that same 20-30 mark.
Now, watch what happens to Abel's goal scoring AND Lindsay's point scoring as Gordie Howe matures into his athletic prime.
1949
Howe (40 games)|20|12|25|37
Lindsay |23|26|28|54
1950
Howe |21|35|33|68
Lindsay |24|23|55|78
1951
Howe |22|43|43|86
Lindsay |25|24|35|59
It seems pretty apparent that Lindsay himself wasn't the one who elevated Abel, nor was Lindsay a particularly proficient playmaker when he was the star of his line. It was Howe's presence that elevated both Abel's goal-scoring and Lindsay's assist-scoring, and probably one linked directly to the other.
Interesting observation that helps contextualize the numbers.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,811
- 16,548
Vote about to be cast.
Sergei Makarov will be first. Excelled wherever he could excel for a sustained period, exceeded realistic expectations relative to players of his generation in his 30+ years (notable feat, considering how grueling Soviet training schedule was, and while seasons such as the ones he had wouldn't factor in that much, I'm totally ready to cross the line and say they should, considering his generation and the adaptation period that came with moving in NA), resume doesn’t suffer the same apparent flaws as Kharlamov (see below), stateline looks great in best-on-best situations (maybe not on year-to-year basis, but certainly on a consistent basis).
Guy Lafleur is currently second. The nothing-then-prime-then-nothing argument seemed more and more silly when reviewing how the players of his generation did in their first years in the league. Yes, some did better. But all of those comparables were in a situation to put up numbers that look great on surface. Lafleur was not only stuck behind a guy that was one of the best at its position -- at the moment Lafleur joined and not that much in retrospective -- but he was also on a notoriously conservative franchise. Couldn’t do what Bobby Orr did, but nobody’s being held to those standards at this point. That, added to the fact he’s really the link between Orr and Gretzky, regardless of what ones might think and say, or actually write, and he was the best player on a dynasty (something that needs to be accounted when considering longevity, at least, past the 9-games format), make him stand out here. Why not 1st? Era. It’s one thing to be the best; but being the best in an era where there was really three poles of pro hockey (no offence meant to Swedish, Finnish leagues), in a league that was expanding…you obviously end up facing competition that would be a little weaker that what it should be. Had Lafleur had two elite seasons in the 80ies, as opposed to two merely very good ones, he’d probably be first. Or, actually, fourth last round. Elite goalscorer AND playmaker.
Bill Cook is currently third. Just did too much for too long (considering era) to be put out of the first tier here. Deserves to get some « credit » for time loss due to war, even if most of it is problably useless due to how long his career was to begin with. All-around play too important to ignore. Brought quite a bit aside from scoring. Hart record looks okay considering era. It’s certainly not a flaw. Legitimately has at least two more AST berths at RW, possibly more, as he sometimes got the nod over players outproducing him. Below Lafleur due to somewhat average playoff output, never being considered at any point a Top-2 player in the game (the « 2 » is to include Makarov, as I think a solid argument can be made that he was indeed the 2nd best player of the world for a relevant period, while the first was an outlier). I guess I would have liked him to shine out a lil’ more versus Morenz, and as things are now, it’s not very close. The use of "currently" means I could switch him with Lafleur.
Michael Bossy is fourth. I feel like the whole case for Trottier vs. Bossy was way closer to a wash than to a foregone conclusion in favour of Trottier, which kindsof directly impact Bossy vs. Lindsay. This said, below Lafleur due to playoffs (as good as Bossy was). Career is short, but the same comment as for Lafleur : playing on a dynasty tended to reduce longevity somewhat once the playoff format got bigger. That’s basically a season and a half of playoffs in 10 years. Extremely consistent. What puts him below is non-elite playmaking and somewhat neutral non-offensive game.
Ted Lindsay is fifth. Quite consistent output (no off years in what would be considered his prime), but goalscorer-becoming-playmaker-with-advent-of-best-winger-ever… Yeah, basically. A case of « clearly third best skater » vs. « at worst third best skater » against Bossy, and I’ve made my position clear in Bossy’s part of my explanation. Ooze of intangibles still keeps him ahead of....
Alex Ovechkin. While I vehemently disagreed that he was a bad playoff performer, well, he’s still significantly below everyone ahead but Cook (Makarov obviously doesn’t really count) AND really, didn’t look good overall in international play either (not enough for this level at the very least). Yes, he has the Harts, but we can say A LOT of things on those Harts (this kinda goes against what I said to overpass earlier, but then again, that comment wasn't about injuries, which could explain Hart support). Offensive player pushed to the extreme, and his prime could be over or not, and I prefer to err on the side the prudence with modern players.
Canyon
Conacher and Mahovlich? Not much to say. I think both became available at the right time (as in, I don’t see those players as sticking out like a sore thumb), but is obviously not their turn. Right now, I tend to favor Mahovlich slightly, and I admit to have overrated him earlier. Conacher is a case of simultaneous wow-meh (at least at this level). I figure none of them are relevant at this stage.
Kharlamov? He’s last for me this round. I don’t think he’ll be relevant either, and I’m totally opened to change my views later on. But from my perspective, his case rests a lot on eye-witnessing and accounts. Which is a good basis for a case, except two caveats : depth and firsts. From my perception, he was likely the best, and the flashiest, they’ve seen. First of all, I’m not sure whether it’s attributable to the fact the depth was getting there… progressively… and was not quite there yet. I'd like to have a clearer perspective on this issue next round; again, this is too early for Kharlamov regardless of this. Add to this that his domestic record doesn’t appear to be that impressive vs. easy comparables (3M’s) and that hockey in Soviet Russia might or might not have gotten better (depth actually) between VK, BM, AM, and then Makarov, and you have somebody I'm having a hard-time ranking anywhere else than last, for now. Key word being : for now.
Sergei Makarov will be first. Excelled wherever he could excel for a sustained period, exceeded realistic expectations relative to players of his generation in his 30+ years (notable feat, considering how grueling Soviet training schedule was, and while seasons such as the ones he had wouldn't factor in that much, I'm totally ready to cross the line and say they should, considering his generation and the adaptation period that came with moving in NA), resume doesn’t suffer the same apparent flaws as Kharlamov (see below), stateline looks great in best-on-best situations (maybe not on year-to-year basis, but certainly on a consistent basis).
Guy Lafleur is currently second. The nothing-then-prime-then-nothing argument seemed more and more silly when reviewing how the players of his generation did in their first years in the league. Yes, some did better. But all of those comparables were in a situation to put up numbers that look great on surface. Lafleur was not only stuck behind a guy that was one of the best at its position -- at the moment Lafleur joined and not that much in retrospective -- but he was also on a notoriously conservative franchise. Couldn’t do what Bobby Orr did, but nobody’s being held to those standards at this point. That, added to the fact he’s really the link between Orr and Gretzky, regardless of what ones might think and say, or actually write, and he was the best player on a dynasty (something that needs to be accounted when considering longevity, at least, past the 9-games format), make him stand out here. Why not 1st? Era. It’s one thing to be the best; but being the best in an era where there was really three poles of pro hockey (no offence meant to Swedish, Finnish leagues), in a league that was expanding…you obviously end up facing competition that would be a little weaker that what it should be. Had Lafleur had two elite seasons in the 80ies, as opposed to two merely very good ones, he’d probably be first. Or, actually, fourth last round. Elite goalscorer AND playmaker.
Bill Cook is currently third. Just did too much for too long (considering era) to be put out of the first tier here. Deserves to get some « credit » for time loss due to war, even if most of it is problably useless due to how long his career was to begin with. All-around play too important to ignore. Brought quite a bit aside from scoring. Hart record looks okay considering era. It’s certainly not a flaw. Legitimately has at least two more AST berths at RW, possibly more, as he sometimes got the nod over players outproducing him. Below Lafleur due to somewhat average playoff output, never being considered at any point a Top-2 player in the game (the « 2 » is to include Makarov, as I think a solid argument can be made that he was indeed the 2nd best player of the world for a relevant period, while the first was an outlier). I guess I would have liked him to shine out a lil’ more versus Morenz, and as things are now, it’s not very close. The use of "currently" means I could switch him with Lafleur.
Michael Bossy is fourth. I feel like the whole case for Trottier vs. Bossy was way closer to a wash than to a foregone conclusion in favour of Trottier, which kindsof directly impact Bossy vs. Lindsay. This said, below Lafleur due to playoffs (as good as Bossy was). Career is short, but the same comment as for Lafleur : playing on a dynasty tended to reduce longevity somewhat once the playoff format got bigger. That’s basically a season and a half of playoffs in 10 years. Extremely consistent. What puts him below is non-elite playmaking and somewhat neutral non-offensive game.
Ted Lindsay is fifth. Quite consistent output (no off years in what would be considered his prime), but goalscorer-becoming-playmaker-with-advent-of-best-winger-ever… Yeah, basically. A case of « clearly third best skater » vs. « at worst third best skater » against Bossy, and I’ve made my position clear in Bossy’s part of my explanation. Ooze of intangibles still keeps him ahead of....
Alex Ovechkin. While I vehemently disagreed that he was a bad playoff performer, well, he’s still significantly below everyone ahead but Cook (Makarov obviously doesn’t really count) AND really, didn’t look good overall in international play either (not enough for this level at the very least). Yes, he has the Harts, but we can say A LOT of things on those Harts (this kinda goes against what I said to overpass earlier, but then again, that comment wasn't about injuries, which could explain Hart support). Offensive player pushed to the extreme, and his prime could be over or not, and I prefer to err on the side the prudence with modern players.
Canyon
Conacher and Mahovlich? Not much to say. I think both became available at the right time (as in, I don’t see those players as sticking out like a sore thumb), but is obviously not their turn. Right now, I tend to favor Mahovlich slightly, and I admit to have overrated him earlier. Conacher is a case of simultaneous wow-meh (at least at this level). I figure none of them are relevant at this stage.
Kharlamov? He’s last for me this round. I don’t think he’ll be relevant either, and I’m totally opened to change my views later on. But from my perspective, his case rests a lot on eye-witnessing and accounts. Which is a good basis for a case, except two caveats : depth and firsts. From my perception, he was likely the best, and the flashiest, they’ve seen. First of all, I’m not sure whether it’s attributable to the fact the depth was getting there… progressively… and was not quite there yet. I'd like to have a clearer perspective on this issue next round; again, this is too early for Kharlamov regardless of this. Add to this that his domestic record doesn’t appear to be that impressive vs. easy comparables (3M’s) and that hockey in Soviet Russia might or might not have gotten better (depth actually) between VK, BM, AM, and then Makarov, and you have somebody I'm having a hard-time ranking anywhere else than last, for now. Key word being : for now.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You know, you could have made the "Bossy was a better goal scorer" without taking random quotes of mine completely out of context and twisting them to make it seem like I argued that goal scoring is primary over point production. I've never advocated that goals in isolation tell us more than points. Just that if two players are relatively close in point totals, then it is worth looking for the better goal scorer. Scoring more goals can "bridge the gap," so to speak. You could have just used this to make the case for Bossy (and it's not necessarily wrong), rather than playing some cute "gotcha" game from last round.
You're right - I did emphasize goal scoring last round - because I felt that other voters were starting to overly rely on metrics like VsX, which treats goals as exactly equal to assists in all cases. And i think that's wrong. But it doesn't mean assists don't matter. I mean... take away assists and the only thing Gordie Howe has on Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard is a physical game and some defense, right?
Anyway, your cherrypicking of quotes completely omits any kind of playoff analysis (where Lindsay was much closer to Bossy than Jagr was to Richard). Completely omits any kind of talk about non-offensive ability. Lindsay >>> Bossy there, and while Richard wasn't any kind of defensive great he laps Jagr in leadership. Completely ignores that I (and others) believe that for discreet parts of Jagr's career, he put up empty points. Edit: Note that everything I said about Jagr/Richard here is my own interpretation of the data; I am not interested in re-arguing it, and I realize there are other interpretations of the data. I'm only bringing it up to defend myself against what is basically slander).
Double edit: My god, one of the quotes you are quoting even says that I think goal scorers should get "a little bit of a boost."
: seriously, nice spin job. Oh, and I'm pretty sure in the last thread, I said I'd take Jagr over Richard if we were strictly talking about the regular season, regardless of all the other stuff. I didn't necessarily go into the round with that idea, but I came out of it thinking it. Perhaps you can do another search of my quotes last round to find out for sure?
______________
sorry everyone for taking this off-topic. Just felt the need to defend myself after... that thing of a post.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Who is taking Lindsay's point totals at face value? His point totals fit right in between Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard, whether you use VsX or top 10 finishes. Nobody in this thread thinks he's that good offensively, therefore nobody is taking his point totals at face value.
Also, this is kind of playing Devil's advocate, but are we sure we should take Bossy's point totals completely at face value, considering what happened in 1979-80?
Agree about Red Kelly - frankly, I think he helped Howe's numbers too.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kellyre01.html
Lindsay is a tough player to evaluate, this is definitely true.
The toughest part is that in 48-49, which should have been Lindsay's year (winning the Art Ross by a decent clip with no elite offensive defenseman on the blueline, although Howe and Abel were his linemates and both were very good), Abel is the one who actually won the Hart Trophy.
Last edited:
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
49-50 is the year that Lindsay won the Art Ross, a year in which Kelly jumped up from 16pts the previous year to 40pts. Lindsay did have a solid year in 48-49, finishing tied for 3rd in points with Abel, but 14 off the lead.
In 49-50 (with a prime Red Kelly) Lindsay led the league in scoring by 9pts and the Hart went to goalie Chuck Rayner
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
to meYou're right of course.
I remembered that Abel finished higher than Lindsay in Hart voting the year Lindsay won the Art Ross, and got it mixed up with the year Abel won the Hart.
This was the Hart voting in 1949-50, when Lindsay won the Art Ross:
1949-50
HART: (108/108, 18-18-18)
1. Chuck Rayner, NYR G 36 (8-6-0)
2. Ted Kennedy, Tor C 23 (4-3-5)
3. Maurice Richard, Mtl LW 18 (3-2-5)
4. Sid Abel, Det C 10 (0-3-4)
T5. Bill Durnan, Mtl G 6 (2-0-0)
T5. Milt Schmidt, Bos C 6 (1-1-1)
T6. Edgar Laprade, NYR C 3 (0-1-1)
T6. Ted Lindsay, Det LW 3 (0-1-1)
Sure doesn't make Lindsay look all that good...
Looking through the Hart voting, Lindsay looks like a guy who regularly received 2 or 3 votes but no more. Even his 4th and 5th place finishes were with very few votes.
Yeah... Hart voting definitely doesn't make Lindsay look all that great.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
without taking random quotes of mine completely out of context and twisting them ... rather than playing some cute "gotcha" game from last round. ... Anyway, your cherrypicking of quotes ...
I'm only bringing it up to defend myself against what is basically slander) ...
I'm... kind of surprised by the tone of hostility here.
I got the impression last round that you argued rather explicitly in favor of a player whose scoring was slanted toward goals rather than assists, particularly at playoff time. I mean, you directly stated that goals are worth more than assists, in both that thread and this one.
There's nothing slanderous about that impression. It's just what I thought you were saying. When you said you didn't remember it, I literally just typed the word "goal" with your username into the search function and found the posts that I was referring to.
Maybe I'm stepping on your toes in a way that I don't even realize, for which I apologize if that's the case. I have to admit, I'm a little bit confused about what part of this you found so offensive.
I was kind of hoping you would make a case for Lindsay's playoffs being better than Bossy's, since you made a couple of passing references to that effect. I think Bossy's playoff case is pretty straightforward and not sure what more needs to be added beyond common knowledge.
As far as talking about non-offensive ability -- I wouldn't say it has been omitted at all. I ranked him #1 on the leadership/intangibles list that started this line of discussion, and also put his peak above Bossy's with a specific reference to his all-round game. I'm not sure I've written a post about Lindsay that didn't acknowledge his superior intangibles... not sure what else can be said in this regard?
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Annoyed because of the obvious "call out" nature of the post, and the selective use of quotes.
Anyway, back to the players, I think that just looking at Lindsay's hockey reference profile combined with what we know about his leadership, he's a very good playoff performer - only Richard, Howe, and Geoffrion seem better of his generation. But it's probably not as good as Bossy.
Anyway, all this back and forth between Lindsay and Bossy has convinced me to rank Ovechkin above both of them.
Anyway, back to the players, I think that just looking at Lindsay's hockey reference profile combined with what we know about his leadership, he's a very good playoff performer - only Richard, Howe, and Geoffrion seem better of his generation. But it's probably not as good as Bossy.
Anyway, all this back and forth between Lindsay and Bossy has convinced me to rank Ovechkin above both of them.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
That wasn't what I was trying to do, so I apologize for coming off that way.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
How "extremely pro-modern" of you.
Ranking players on their merits as opposed to just based on when they played, isn't being "pro modern".
Rather than send a silly little snipe in his direction, the honorable thing to do would be to respond to the points made last night. Based on the evidence presented, are you convinced about the wchl? If not, why?
Say Hey Kid
War, it's just a shot away
Ovechkin:
Strengths: Good regular season offense
Weaknesses: Poor defense, poor clutch playoff scoring (not playoff ppg), poor playoff leadership, has never taken a team to the Conference Finals.
Conclusion: There's no way he should go top 18 in this project.
Strengths: Good regular season offense
Weaknesses: Poor defense, poor clutch playoff scoring (not playoff ppg), poor playoff leadership, has never taken a team to the Conference Finals.
Conclusion: There's no way he should go top 18 in this project.
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
I really doubt Kurri would've had a big impact on the all-star selections, unless he had been truly exceptional. Namely, Finland still did poorly at the World Championships in the 1980s - only once we qualified for the final round (1986). It would've been hard to select a player to the all-star team from a team that finished 5th/6th or something like that - unless, like said, he would've been out of this world. But Kurri was usually at least 'good', when he did play for Finland, though.
True, during Kharlamov's prime/peak there were no NHL players at the World Championships, and his biggest rivals were from his own team & Czechoslovakia (aforementioned Firsov, Yakushev plus Kapustin, Jiri Holik etc.). However, those Canadian (super)stars rarely performed at their own level in the WHCs; for example, Guy Lafleur was poor in 1981 (1 point in 7 games, I think). Not all were so impressed even with Wayne Gretzky; when reading some of the old media coverage of the 1982 WHC, the Finnish writers are really hard on him (he underperformed during the first part of the tournament). The tone changed a little bit in the medal round, when Wayner had some big games, but they still opinioned that there were many better Russian players in the tournament. (Gretzky got an all-star berth, but Shalimov was selected as the best forward.)
Sure, a couple of Canadians won the best forward award, but I happen to believe that those selections in 1978 and 1979 (Dionne & Paiement, respectively) were IIHF Directorate's way of kissing Canadian butt for Team Canada's 'good behavior' - in contrast to the crap that happened at the 1977 WHC. That is NOT to say that Dionne and Paiement did not play well, but there's no way Dionne was better than Ivan Hlinka or Helmuts Balderis in 1978 or Paiement as good as Mikhailov and Makarov in 1979. Yes, I'm rewriting history & proud of it!
PS. Seems that Kharlamov doesn't get much consideration during this round. Hopefully there's more discussion on him in the next round.
Last edited:
Ovechkin:
Strengths: Good regular season offense
Weaknesses: Poor defense, poor clutch playoff scoring (not playoff ppg), poor playoff leadership, has never taken a team to the Conference Finals.
Conclusion: There's no way he should go top 18 in this project.
Your bias is cute.
He is also tied for 4th all time - all positions combined - for most hart trophies in nhl history.
The thing is that often people let perception get in the way of the facts.
Guys get reputations, good and bad, and all too often people starting believing in them too much and don't look at the whole picture for them.
This tends to also be more true here of people we never saw play, we can and sometimes do dismiss perception of modern players because our eyes don't register the perception and there is all too much reluctance to use the same bar or "critical eye" on players we have never seen.
Ovechkin:
Strengths: Good regular season offense
Weaknesses: Poor defense, poor clutch playoff scoring (not playoff ppg), poor playoff leadership, has never taken a team to the Conference Finals.
Conclusion: There's no way he should go top 18 in this project.
I love how some people think it only take ONE player to "carry" a team to the Cup, especially in today's 30-team parity ridden league. Hockey is probably the most team oriented sport out there. This isnt the NBA where you play more 95% of the game.
Even then 31G 61 pts in 58GP is over PPG if my math is correct, and pretty damn good considering this is a DPE. Cant blame Ovie for how his team was built (poor D and goaltending).
Ill take him and his 3 Harts over Bossy (who was considered the 3rd best on his team!). Had Ovie played on a dynasty in the 70s/80s he wouldve/would be scoring MORE than Bossy and won 4+ Cups, no question.
Ovechkin:
Strengths: Good regular season offense
Weaknesses: Poor defense, poor clutch playoff scoring (not playoff ppg), poor playoff leadership, has never taken a team to the Conference Finals.
Conclusion: There's no way he should go top 18 in this project.
is about the only appropriate response to the above.Any evaluation of players that doesn't have AO in the top 18 wingers of all time would have serious logical flaws, even if AO had a Marcel Dionne type of playoff metric (which he obviously doesn't).
Obviously Glenn Anderson should be top 10 using your metric eh?
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,811
- 16,548
Once again, the whole 3rd best on team that is repeated like its canon... Is everything but canon. Also, as you said yourself, the Isles were a dynasty, and one of the reasons why they were a dynasty was superior players.
And the whole Isles would have won more cups appears highly speculative, considering which teams they'd have to beat to get those cups...
Again, I'm not saying AO was bad in playoffs. He just wasn't as good as the reminder of the top-10,/Cook and Makarov notwithstanding.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
First of all, it was a joke, so relax.
Second of all, is that what you are really accusing me of? I placed the more modern players high specifically of when they played (even though, to me, Lafleur and Bossy certainly aren't "modern", they're old-timers). Even after I went exchanged several posts with TDMM giving my reasons of why I had the players where I did.
I'm sorry if not going through my reasons again is not honourable. And I don't really appreciate being accused of being biased and not doing my research considering the amount of time of my summer I have already given to this project, and will continue to do so.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Counting
Trophy counting is not part of the process. Al Rollins has one Hart Trophy - more than most goalies on the HOH Goalie list.
PLMK where Al Rollins is ranked either on the list or by you.
Trophy counting is not part of the process. Al Rollins has one Hart Trophy - more than most goalies on the HOH Goalie list.
PLMK where Al Rollins is ranked either on the list or by you.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 5 - Cape Breton Eagles @ Baie-Comeau Drakkar - Baie-Comeau Drakkar leads series 3-1Wagers: 3Staked: $225.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Rochester Americans @ Syracuse Crunch - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 5Staked: $1,285.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
