May 24, 2004

CBC Hockey Pool Standings...after 3 rounds...More inside...

posted by MeatSaber to navel gazing at 10:02 AM - 24 comments

I didn't know who was who, so I just copied and pasted... RANK MEMBER NAME POINTS 512 SEAN MONKMAN 165 597 STEVE MERCER 164 3296 CHRIS HARRINGTON 146 7976 NO MICH 114 9067 MICHAEL HUNTER 106 9863 Q BERT 101 10829 WAYNE FRAZER 96 11004 STEVE BLAYNEY 95 11593 GRAHAM HUDSON 92 11993 CHICO BANGS 90 14895 ALAN LINQUIST 72 16220 NICK TAYLOR 61

posted by MeatSaber at 10:04 AM on May 24, 2004

that's me leading. for the moment. benefitting from some lack of attention by others further down the list.

posted by gspm at 11:16 AM on May 24, 2004

You know...I completely and utterly forgot about that pool. D'oh!

posted by grum@work at 01:10 PM on May 24, 2004

can anyone select St.Louis? He doesn't seem to appear in the roster selections. just curious if my internet is different from your internet. i blame sorrow and disenchantment for my hiatus.

posted by garfield at 02:11 PM on May 24, 2004

garfield... I don't seem to be having trouble selecting him. If you're having trouble *finding* his name (like I did for a minute), he's the last player on the first list...

posted by MeatSaber at 02:20 PM on May 24, 2004

really? i thought each team had a slot across the three columns. Marty Cibak ss a strange selection for the first batch of players, so i thought there was an entry error. but, alas, its just an operator error. thanks saber.

posted by garfield at 02:41 PM on May 24, 2004

the players are organized in each list alphabetically by team. if that helps. TB players are (near or) at the bottom, CAL players are near the top.

posted by gspm at 03:27 PM on May 24, 2004

there are actually more than one flame of bolt to choose from in each 'pool'

posted by garfield at 03:40 PM on May 24, 2004

they musta changed it. but they seem to have added in players below the vancouver choice so it was team alphabetical. but for some reason there are some additional pilly players added to the mix for some reason. why they didn't add a flames alternative to group 5 (mcammond is injured) is a mystery if they were adding people. in any case, I am winning. neener neener.

posted by gspm at 01:21 AM on May 25, 2004

You had an amazing round 3, gspm, and I had a shitty one (damn Marleau!). I assure you, I intend to make up for that in round 4.

posted by rocket88 at 01:30 PM on May 25, 2004

*whistles* Uhh, no, I didn't totally forget about this pool. *whistles*

posted by Succa at 02:55 PM on May 25, 2004

Me too, Nick.

posted by Samsonov14 at 03:39 PM on May 25, 2004

Well, I'm cruising on my first round picks, 'cause I haven't had a look at this site since drafting. Which explains my poor performance. Although it's not as bad as in the baseball leagues.

posted by qbert72 at 09:02 PM on May 25, 2004

mainly i was just looking at grum not changing his picks because everyone wants to beat him and he didn't even have the courtesy to lose properly.

posted by gspm at 01:21 AM on May 26, 2004

so, if we accept that the winner will be one of me, rocket88 or maybe Meatsaber... we can compare our picks and figure out what will really matter when it comes to picking a winner. with a limited number of choices in the pool we obviously ended up with lots of picks cancelling out. My master plan to pick all the same players as rocket88 and thus preserve the one point lead did not come to fruition. For rocket88 to win... a net of two points out of: 1. St Louis over Iginla. 2. Sydor over Leopold 3. Simon over Kubina. Our other picks cancel out. I thought Simon was injured but I see he played the whole series against SJ so his scoring pace might have him come out a point or two ahead of Kubina. and for Meatsaber to have a chance at winning: He can gain on rocket88 (but not me) with: 1. Iginla over St Louis 2. Leopold over Boyle And he can gain on me (not not rocket88) with: 3. Simon over Kubina. And he can gain on both of us with: 4. Conroy over Richards 5. Sydor over Nilson. errr, not that I nerded out to come up with this info or anything.

posted by gspm at 07:12 AM on May 26, 2004

If you nerd out about hockey, is it really nerding out?

posted by 86 at 08:44 AM on May 26, 2004

mainly i was just looking at grum not changing his picks because everyone wants to beat him and he didn't even have the courtesy to lose properly. Sorry, man. Including the CBC pool, I'm in a grand total of 7 playoff pools (only 3 for money), and the CBC one is the only one that allows you to switch players after each round. So I simply forgot about it. I promise to try next year. :)

posted by grum@work at 08:59 AM on May 26, 2004

This is nothing...ESPN had a playoff game last season where you could change your players daily, depending on who was playing the following wanna talk about nuts...

posted by MeatSaber at 11:08 AM on May 26, 2004

and this year they didn't offer squat.

posted by garfield at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2004

I can't remember who Mercer is, but check the stats're ranked #1 for round 4. congrats! Thats awesome.

posted by garfield at 08:39 AM on May 28, 2004

I figured Mercer was rocket88 due to his earlier comment and the name on his profile page being recorded as Steve. Just a guess (which was included in my "who's gonna win" analysis above). If that is the case then St Louis, Sydor and Simon are outfantasyscoring Iginla Leopold and Kubina by 7 pts. I feel it slipping away!

posted by gspm at 09:05 AM on May 28, 2004

Yes, that's me! My #1 overall didn't last long,'s down to 2,571 today. Damn Kipper!

posted by rocket88 at 02:56 PM on May 31, 2004

Spoke too soon....back to #1. Yay 'Bulin!

posted by rocket88 at 08:37 AM on June 01, 2004

I checked the standings and it seems like you share first place with (at least) 280 other people (including one in the spofi group). And probably a couple of dozen or more have the same picks as you. A great set of picks of course but it remains to be seen what kind of claim can be made on first place. (and Boo Bulin. Kipper only surrenders one goal and that being on a 5-3 -- where you'd have to think the Lightning have at least a good a chance as not of scoring-- and the Flames can't take advantage of goaltending/defence of the quality (on the scoreboard at least) that was good enough to win games 1 and 2).

posted by gspm at 09:24 AM on June 01, 2004

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.