Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-27-2017, 10:22 PM   #1
Flames Draft Watcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default Top 23 Centres according to Stats Analysis

Interesting article up on Sportsnet today. All ranking lists are going to have issues but this one is interesting in its methodology. Uses a variety of stats to rank centres over the past 3 years so guys like Matthews aren't included due to shortened sample size. Its not using pure offensive numbers so do read up on what they used.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...three-seasons/

A few interesting notes IMO

23. Stepan - seems like the stats think even more highly of him than I thought would be possible. Should be interesting to see how he does in ARI

16. Backlund - ahead of guys like Benn, Kuznetsov, Pavelski, Draisaitl

13. Trocheck - I wouldn't have expected him to make this list so he was an interesting and surprising inclusion.

8. O'Reilly - A guy I think is underrated by some. He's a hell of a hockey player. Guess the stats recognize it.

3. Barkov - I know we've had a lot of Monahan vs Barkov redraft debates and I've been on the Barkov train. Seems like the stats do back up his franchise centre status.

No Monahan? I'm sure that will bug and annoy some. I can see why using the criteria they've used he doesn't make the top 23. I don't think his transition game is as strong as most of the centres on the list.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Old 09-27-2017, 10:30 PM   #2
GranteedEV
Franchise Player
 
GranteedEV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Honestly? That's a cool list. I feel like it almost matches the eye test better than the usual lists.


But Sid>McDavid
__________________

"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
GranteedEV is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
Old 09-27-2017, 10:39 PM   #3
robaur
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Yeah I don't understand how Big Mac is better than Crosby in his own zone. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't understand why media is so quick to shoot Big Mac to the top of their lists collectively so fast. I mean the kid has another 10-15 years left of elite play. Why can't we just enjoy Crosby's play? The guy has won back to back Stanley Cups and back to back Conn Smyth. That's a remarkable achievement and a lot of media just seems to shrug it off and say...well...moving on...
robaur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 10:56 PM   #4
1qqaaz
Powerplay Quarterback
 
1qqaaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Crosby scored 50% more goals than McDavid. Seems like a fairly important thing to consider. Burns basically scored as many goals as McDavid.

Surprised to see MacKinnon so high. I guess he's still pretty good without the points.

Cool list though. Hard to argue with stats.
1qqaaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 11:04 PM   #5
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robaur View Post
Yeah I don't understand how Big Mac is better than Crosby in his own zone. Maybe I'm wrong.

I don't understand why media is so quick to shoot Big Mac to the top of their lists collectively so fast. I mean the kid has another 10-15 years left of elite play. Why can't we just enjoy Crosby's play? The guy has won back to back Stanley Cups and back to back Conn Smyth. That's a remarkable achievement and a lot of media just seems to shrug it off and say...well...moving on...
I think a big part of their formula includes penalty killing.

Crosby doesn't kill penalties because like Iginla or Karlsson, he's way more valuable on offence. He likely gets a big fat zero on the penalty kill score.

McDavid still kills penalties here and there, but there's no doubt in my mind that in a few years he'll drop off on that too. Still, he probably got a couple points for that front which was basically the difference between the two players.
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 11:29 PM   #6
Hammertime
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Exp:
Default

Why only the top 23? Seems like such an arbitrary number. Was disappointed not to see Mono on the list.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
Hammertime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 05:54 AM   #7
Cali Panthers Fan
Franchise Player
 
Cali Panthers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher View Post
Interesting article up on Sportsnet today. All ranking lists are going to have issues but this one is interesting in its methodology. Uses a variety of stats to rank centres over the past 3 years so guys like Matthews aren't included due to shortened sample size. Its not using pure offensive numbers so do read up on what they used.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/d...three-seasons/

A few interesting notes IMO

23. Stepan - seems like the stats think even more highly of him than I thought would be possible. Should be interesting to see how he does in ARI

16. Backlund - ahead of guys like Benn, Kuznetsov, Pavelski, Draisaitl

13. Trocheck - I wouldn't have expected him to make this list so he was an interesting and surprising inclusion.

8. O'Reilly - A guy I think is underrated by some. He's a hell of a hockey player. Guess the stats recognize it.

3. Barkov - I know we've had a lot of Monahan vs Barkov redraft debates and I've been on the Barkov train. Seems like the stats do back up his franchise centre status.

No Monahan? I'm sure that will bug and annoy some. I can see why using the criteria they've used he doesn't make the top 23. I don't think his transition game is as strong as most of the centres on the list.
This is why I still have such high hopes for the Panthers. Barkov is a stud, and Trocheck is an exceptionally effective player. Add in Bjugstad as your 3rd line center and the team is rock solid down the middle. They have a good young defense core with Ekblad, Matheson, and now McCoshen, supplemented by Yandle (bleh), Pysyk, and Petrovic. They have at least average goaltending with the tandem of Luongo and Reimer.

Now if only they could get someone other than Huberdeau to help out on the wings. Early returns on Dadonov look good. He's had chemistry with Huberdeau and Barkov. Not sure about Haapala, but he's been pretty solid in the pre-season. And then you have Vrbata who will likely score 20 again this year. A mixed bag with some question marks, but there's reason to believe they'll score enough this year.

Boughner's system looks much more aggressive so far, so hopefully this year puts the team back in a playoff spot.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien View Post
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
Cali Panthers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Old 09-28-2017, 07:33 AM   #8
Five-hole
Franchise Player
 
Five-hole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The C-spot
Exp:
Default

Great article, thanks for posting.

See this, it makes me laugh when people mention following the "Pittsburgh model". Sure, if having two of the top-5 centres in the league (and have probably been top 3 for most of that time) for a decade is a "model".

Would be nice to see Sam and/or Mony on this list sooner than later. I would like to see Mony's underlying stats on this compared to his peers. He doesn't play a ton of PK so that may be part of it, but I'm guessing its the transition score where he is noticeably behind.
Five-hole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 08:01 AM   #9
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Monahan being grossly under-rated again. Not surprised, but I see this is a good thing long term. Kind of surprised by the contents of the article, but not really though. Anything based on analytics is ironically bound to be short or reason. Things that jump out at me.

Jordan Staal. Proof that analytics are flawed. Good numbers, but just a bad player. Anyone that would take Staal over Monahan is nucking futz.

Leon Draisaitl. Should a guy play center before being identified as one of the best centers in game? Again, analytics are garbage because they are masking the fact that he rode the tails of the best offensive player in the game and was handed nothing but great opportunities to succeed. Will love to see him play the actual position he's lauded for being of the best in the game at.

Nathan MacKinnon. All that promise, but just not good at his position. The writer needs to get his nose out of Excel and start watching the games with his own eyes. The guy makes bad decisions like Sportsnet makes McDavid references.

Vincent Trochek. Really? In a game where strength up the middle is all but a guarantee of success, how is it possible that the Panthers could be so bad with the likes of Barkov and Trochek in the lineup? Again, anyone taking Trochek over Monahan should have their head examined.

Ryan O'Reilly. See Vincent Trochek. How can Buffalo be so bad with O'Reilly and Eichel in the mix? Something doesn't add up. O'Reilly continues to be one of those over-rated players for some reason.

The crowning glory, McJesus over Crosby, and the kicker is defensive play! If you're looking for proof that analytics are completely flawed - nee garbage - this beauty should tell you that. McDavid can't spell defense, let alone play it, and his numbers are superior to Crosby? Sorry, doesn't pass the eyeball test.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to New Era For This Useful Post:
Old 09-28-2017, 08:32 AM   #10
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammertime View Post
Why only the top 23? Seems like such an arbitrary number. Was disappointed not to see Mono on the list.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
Maybe Monahan ranked 24th and in a conspiracy to underrate him they cut the list to 23. Seriously though you are right as 23 seems like an odd cutoff when you are two spots away from 25 which is more of a standard comparison range.
__________________
RIP Al Davis / 1929 - 2011
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 08:52 AM   #11
Fan69
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Monahan being grossly under-rated again. Not surprised, but I see this is a good thing long term. Kind of surprised by the contents of the article, but not really though. Anything based on analytics is ironically bound to be short or reason. Things that jump out at me.

Jordan Staal. Proof that analytics are flawed. Good numbers, but just a bad player. Anyone that would take Staal over Monahan is nucking futz.

Leon Draisaitl. Should a guy play center before being identified as one of the best centers in game? Again, analytics are garbage because they are masking the fact that he rode the tails of the best offensive player in the game and was handed nothing but great opportunities to succeed. Will love to see him play the actual position he's lauded for being of the best in the game at.

Nathan MacKinnon. All that promise, but just not good at his position. The writer needs to get his nose out of Excel and start watching the games with his own eyes. The guy makes bad decisions like Sportsnet makes McDavid references.

Vincent Trochek. Really? In a game where strength up the middle is all but a guarantee of success, how is it possible that the Panthers could be so bad with the likes of Barkov and Trochek in the lineup? Again, anyone taking Trochek over Monahan should have their head examined.

Ryan O'Reilly. See Vincent Trochek. How can Buffalo be so bad with O'Reilly and Eichel in the mix? Something doesn't add up. O'Reilly continues to be one of those over-rated players for some reason.

The crowning glory, McJesus over Crosby, and the kicker is defensive play! If you're looking for proof that analytics are completely flawed - nee garbage - this beauty should tell you that. McDavid can't spell defense, let alone play it, and his numbers are superior to Crosby? Sorry, doesn't pass the eyeball test.


Agree with a lot of what you said particularly in regards to McKinnon.for the amount of star talk he generated he is falling into RNH territory. Good player but a disappointment compared to draft status.
Fan69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 08:56 AM   #12
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Not sure anyone is being underrated.

The author picked a suite of stats and let the results fall out, there isn't a ploy to eliminate anyone unless he kept changing the parameters and weighting to get Monahan or someone on the outside.

Is what it is.
Bingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 09:40 AM   #13
CsInMyBlood
Franchise Player
 
CsInMyBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hoping Timmy Thomas and The Hockey Gods stop a soccer team from winning The Stanley Cup.
Exp:
Default

Pretty cool ranking system, looks like a solid list to me.

Nice to see Backlund come in at #16. Impressive. His neutral ice play, entering the zone as well as his transition game out of the defensive zone really is elite and often overlooked by Flames fans, never mind the rest of the NHL. He does all the little important things you need to win in this league. He is such a huge part of this team.
__________________

Backlund for Selke 2017 2018
Oilers suck.
CsInMyBlood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 09:42 AM   #14
Geeoff
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Doesn't MacKinnon play a lot on the wing?
Geeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 09:55 AM   #15
GranteedEV
Franchise Player
 
GranteedEV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff View Post
Doesn't MacKinnon play a lot on the wing?
Nope. Plays center with some pretty awful wingers.
__________________

"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
GranteedEV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 10:49 AM   #16
Five-hole
Franchise Player
 
Five-hole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The C-spot
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Monahan being grossly under-rated again. Not surprised, but I see this is a good thing long term. Kind of surprised by the contents of the article, but not really though. Anything based on analytics is ironically bound to be short or reason. Things that jump out at me.

Jordan Staal. Proof that analytics are flawed. Good numbers, but just a bad player. Anyone that would take Staal over Monahan is nucking futz.

Leon Draisaitl. Should a guy play center before being identified as one of the best centers in game? Again, analytics are garbage because they are masking the fact that he rode the tails of the best offensive player in the game and was handed nothing but great opportunities to succeed. Will love to see him play the actual position he's lauded for being of the best in the game at.

Nathan MacKinnon. All that promise, but just not good at his position. The writer needs to get his nose out of Excel and start watching the games with his own eyes. The guy makes bad decisions like Sportsnet makes McDavid references.

Vincent Trochek. Really? In a game where strength up the middle is all but a guarantee of success, how is it possible that the Panthers could be so bad with the likes of Barkov and Trochek in the lineup? Again, anyone taking Trochek over Monahan should have their head examined.

Ryan O'Reilly. See Vincent Trochek. How can Buffalo be so bad with O'Reilly and Eichel in the mix? Something doesn't add up. O'Reilly continues to be one of those over-rated players for some reason.

The crowning glory, McJesus over Crosby, and the kicker is defensive play! If you're looking for proof that analytics are completely flawed - nee garbage - this beauty should tell you that. McDavid can't spell defense, let alone play it, and his numbers are superior to Crosby? Sorry, doesn't pass the eyeball test.
I don't disagree with your points regarding individual players, but I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest all analytics are garbage.

I think it's best to understand this article as presenting a hypothesis. That is, that the best centers in the league are those that are good on offense, defense, and transitioning, all while facing difficult competition. Sure, sounds good. It then goes further and states that those categories consist of a number of stats which are blended, and that there should be a weighted-three year average.

The "experiment" is then run by crunching the numbers, and you test the hypothesis by comparing the results to other "observational evidence" (i.e. the eye test, though I think there's a lot of "reputation" and "intuition" in there as well). As you point out, there are some results that don't cohere with other "observational evidence". As a result, the hypothesis should be tweaked, likely by adjusting the weighting of certain stats.

Throwing statistical analysis in the garbage would be like scrapping the scientific method because one scientist's hypothesis was proven incomplete or incorrect. That misunderstands the whole enterprise.

If nothing else, this kind of article enriches the debate. Otherwise we are simply down to "I think Trochek IS better than Monahan, because my eyes tell me so" vs "that is ridiculous, anyone who takes Trochek over Monahan needs their head examined". I mean, go ahead, but what's the point?
Five-hole is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
Old 09-28-2017, 11:04 AM   #17
The Yen Man
Franchise Player
 
The Yen Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole View Post
I don't disagree with your points regarding individual players, but I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest all analytics are garbage.

I think it's best to understand this article as presenting a hypothesis. That is, that the best centers in the league are those that are good on offense, defense, and transitioning, all while facing difficult competition. Sure, sounds good. It then goes further and states that those categories consist of a number of stats which are blended, and that there should be a weighted-three year average.

The "experiment" is then run by crunching the numbers, and you test the hypothesis by comparing the results to other "observational evidence" (i.e. the eye test, though I think there's a lot of "reputation" and "intuition" in there as well). As you point out, there are some results that don't cohere with other "observational evidence". As a result, the hypothesis should be tweaked, likely by adjusting the weighting of certain stats.

Throwing statistical analysis in the garbage would be like scrapping the scientific method because one scientist's hypothesis was proven incomplete or incorrect. That misunderstands the whole enterprise.

If nothing else, this kind of article enriches the debate. Otherwise we are simply down to "I think Trochek IS better than Monahan, because my eyes tell me so" vs "that is ridiculous, anyone who takes Trochek over Monahan needs their head examined". I mean, go ahead, but what's the point?
But at the same time, this article herald's itself as the "definitive" definition of best centres, which is also laughable IMO. Use statistical analysis as a complementary piece, but don't claim to be the be all in determining who's a better player.
The Yen Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 11:19 AM   #18
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole View Post
If nothing else, this kind of article enriches the debate.
If you say so. I don't agree. I think it introduces garbage statistics into a debate. This is the problem I see with "advanced stats." They aren't advanced, and they aren't real stats. Just because you can come up with a measure does not mean that measure is fair or accurate. Unless the measure is applied consistently and equitably, then the results are neither consistent nor reliable. Also, the stats have to make sense. Putting together two measures and suggesting they are causal in some way has to be bore out by more than a perceived relationship on a spreadsheet. Confirmation through observation is also important in the validity of statistical representation, and the argument presented does not pass the smell test let alone validation through observation. To me, these flawed stats cloud issues rather than present clarity.

Quote:
Otherwise we are simply down to "I think Trochek IS better than Monahan, because my eyes tell me so" vs "that is ridiculous, anyone who takes Trochek over Monahan needs their head examined". I mean, go ahead, but what's the point?
Well, it seems to be a better argument than the questionable content posted in this article. Come on. McDavid is a better defensive player than Crosby? Get serious. You can post all the bogus fancy stats you want, but when the rubber hits the ice, that house of cards quickly comes crashing down. And in what universe would anyone even suggest that Trochek is better than Monahan? Is there a hockey person on this planet that would take Vincent Trochek over Sean Monahan given a choice? That's my problem with this reliance on advanced stats. They rarely pass the smell test and they quickly fall apart when the games are actually played.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2017, 11:46 AM   #19
Cali Panthers Fan
Franchise Player
 
Cali Panthers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
If you say so. I don't agree. I think it introduces garbage statistics into a debate. This is the problem I see with "advanced stats." They aren't advanced, and they aren't real stats. Just because you can come up with a measure does not mean that measure is fair or accurate. Unless the measure is applied consistently and equitably, then the results are neither consistent nor reliable. Also, the stats have to make sense. Putting together two measures and suggesting they are causal in some way has to be bore out by more than a perceived relationship on a spreadsheet. Confirmation through observation is also important in the validity of statistical representation, and the argument presented does not pass the smell test let alone validation through observation. To me, these flawed stats cloud issues rather than present clarity.



Well, it seems to be a better argument than the questionable content posted in this article. Come on. McDavid is a better defensive player than Crosby? Get serious. You can post all the bogus fancy stats you want, but when the rubber hits the ice, that house of cards quickly comes crashing down. And in what universe would anyone even suggest that Trochek is better than Monahan? Is there a hockey person on this planet that would take Vincent Trochek over Sean Monahan given a choice? That's my problem with this reliance on advanced stats. They rarely pass the smell test and they quickly fall apart when the games are actually played.
I see a LOT of rhetoric here, but you've failed to produce even the slightest bit of "evidence" to back up your position. At least the other guy took the time to put something together that is based on more than just what he already believed to be true. You're guilty of confirmation bias, and you're not allowing yourself to let the evidence inform your position.

Listen, I get it, I used to get more bothered by advanced stats because they confronted long held beliefs that I had. So what I did was take into consideration what advanced stats said in terms of carrying the play outside of just putting up goals and assists. I looked at those players that had the better numbers and I realized that they changed the momentum of the game, or at least neutralized the other team from gaining momentum, even when they weren't scoring. While that may not always directly result in a goal on their shift, it helps to prevent goals and gives others on their team an opportunity to score more goals.

Take issue with the way data is gathered all you want, but even if it's flawed, it's flawed across the board around the league so it's a fair comparison. Perhaps this is just the starting point and there will be a better way to INDIRECTLY measure possession. Perhaps they will develop technology that will DIRECTLY measure possession and we will find out that the indirect method was pretty damn close to being exact. What then?

And lastly, I invite you to watch Trocheck more often. The guy is a major momentum changer in games, and when Barkov was out last year, he pretty much put the team on his back. But one player isn't going to fix everything wrong on a team, and the Panthers had a LOT of problems last year. Center wasn't one of them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien View Post
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
Cali Panthers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Old 09-28-2017, 12:08 PM   #20
Calgary4LIfe
Franchise Player
 
Calgary4LIfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

I actually hope that Gulutzan separates the Gaudreau - Monahan combo. I really think that Monahan is a much more effective player when the puck is on his stick more, and he becomes much more creative out there. With Gaudreau, he simply doesn't have to do it himself, and instead is focused on finding the open ice near the net where he is absolutely lethal. I would expect that Monahan actually performs better in all 3 zones (as long as he has decent line mates still).

As for this ranking, I do have a few reservations.

The title:

The definitive ranking of the NHL’s top 23 centres over three seasons

There it is in the same font and size. Notice something? It states for the past 3 seasons. THREE. Numero tres.



First issues I have off the bat is Draisaitl. Should he even be listed? I guess he sort of meets the 3 years requirement, but he hardly plays at center. To me, I could easily argue that his numbers that they based for this ranking is being pumped by being a winger on McDavid's line. He is great at carrying the puck up the ice? Well, he better be, since the opposing team is doing their very best at trying to cover McDavid. Make a bad pass to McDavid? Not to worry, as McDavid will make sure that bad pass works since he can skate like the wind and reach the puck before the defencemen does, so that turnover never ended up happening. I think that Draisaitl is a good talent, don't get me wrong, but I just don't think he is great yet. He needs to prove himself at center way more before I anoint him on any list as something special.


Stamkos so high up was a bit of a surprise to me. The article directly states that he isn't strong defensively.



The McDavid love-affair is at play here IMO again. I really believe he should be third on the list - right behind Crosby and Malkin, but he is the reigning Art Ross winner. Who am I to argue?


Getzlaf seems a bit low for me too. I think he is currently the 4th best center in the league, and I fricken hate the Ducks.


Draisaitl is the only guy that I feel shouldn't 'count' on this list, and there are a handful of guys who I think should move up to #23. Nothing glaringly wrong here otherwise.
Calgary4LIfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016