I really hope he's gonna explain that. Up until that point, he was the class of French football, and he's been an amazing player. And while that was the best impression of the French team's official animal I've ever seen, I can't fathom that he did it so inexplicably.

what was with the head-butt to the chest? Nice way to end a career, dumbass; by losing on all fronts.

NUMERO CUATRO!

The New Mastercard Logo, Redux:

haha, of course, Par. I know what you mean, I just thought it was interesting to compare the +/- even if you are right, a stat like that, by itself doesn't really mean all that much. And besides which, just because you've got a great +/- doesn't mean you actually contributed to any of it, or vice versa.

besides which someone asked me what, uh, Three-Dot's +/- was, so I had to check anyway.

Man we're analysing (sic) the trades more extensivly (sic) then I analyse wellheads at work.

Hey all - just a reminder about the BBQ of fun and Ed and Mary's tonight!

Come and eat lots of food! Yum!

If you don't know where we live, give us a call - 988-1643.

It is a matter of the minutes you play and the teams you're on, as well. I'm certain that Tarnstrom's +/- is adversely affected by the fact that he was on the Penguins at their worst, and he was one of the go-to defenseman on that team at the time (especially considering the failure of the Sergei Gonchar experiment.)

On the flip side, Staios didn't play as many of the crucial shifts against top lines of other teams last year, and didn't play on the first PK unit (against the opponents' top PP unit.) Not to say that his +/- isn't deserved, it's just hard to make the comparison across teams and situations like that. You'd agree, having seen him play, that Tarnstrom's a better defenseman than his numbers suggest.

I don't really see Three-Dot as a key defenseman as much as a more reliable alternative to a rookie learning on the fly (à la Matt Greene in these past playoffs).

hey, should we be at all worried that Daniel Tjarnqvist's +/- for the past four seasons (most recent first) happen to be: -11, -4, -20 -22 ... and he's a bloody D-Man? and he's 30 this year, so it's not as though we can really expect him to be improving, can we?

by comparison, Steve Staios' last four years (most recent first) 10, 17, 13, 10 make him look like a golden boy, and Spacek 3, 8, -13, -23, and even Igor did better -11, 19, 7, -3. Actually, Staios is starting to look like a hero. and Tarnstrom... I'm a little concerned... had a dismal -37 2003-2004 ...

actually, in my random searching of names, thus far only Jovanovski and Niedermayer had better +/- than Staios... eat that!

so bloody bored... why is scientific research so much about thinking and reading papers... and searching for the friggin' papers? This is so incredibly dull. thank goodness I don't need to be in the lab to do this. ...because I'd be getting even less done.

there's nothing out there... which bodes well for me in terms of publishability, but still... there's nothing out there. How am I supposed to figure out what I'm doing when there aren't any papers to read? stupid aspen trees = weeds mentality... morons! haha