going thru total hockey (1998 ed) i noticed the vast majority of
players who made NHL debuts at age 17 or younger occurred during WWII
(understandably). but a few other players, based on their birthdates
listed in total hockey, also made very early debuts....

total hockey lists tom c. williams of the 71-72 new york rangers as
having a b-day of 2-7-1957, which would mean he would have been all
of 14 years old when he made his nhl debut. anyone know if this is
true (or if it's a total hockey incorrect b-day date)? if so was this
a big deal at the time that a 14 year old was playing in the nhl?...

also dave kryskow made his nhl debut for the 72-73 chicago
blackhawks. his total hockey b-day is listed as 12-25-1957, which
would mean he was 15 years old at the time. anyone know if this is
true and again if it was a big deal at the time?...

plus dave hrechkosy of the 73-74 california golden seals (b-day lised
as 11-01-1957) and chris speyer of the 23-24 toonto st.patricks (b-
day listed as 2-6-1907) would have both been 16 years old. true?...

thanks for any help...

bob chaikin
bchaikin@...

I've never been a fan of Total Hockey because of all the mistakes made
in it.

In some of my older Hockey Registers put out by Sporting news, the
birth dates are as follows:

Tom Williams 2-7-51
Dave Kryskow 12-25-1951
Dave Hrechkosy 11-1-1951

George

--- "bchaikin1 <bchaikin@...>" <bchaikin@...>
wrote:
>
> going thru total hockey (1998 ed) i noticed the vast majority of
> players who made NHL debuts at age 17 or younger occurred during WWII
>
> (understandably). but a few other players, based on their birthdates
> listed in total hockey, also made very early debuts....
>
> total hockey lists tom c. williams of the 71-72 new york rangers as
> having a b-day of 2-7-1957, which would mean he would have been all
> of 14 years old when he made his nhl debut. anyone know if this is
> true (or if it's a total hockey incorrect b-day date)? if so was this
>
> a big deal at the time that a 14 year old was playing in the nhl?...
>
> also dave kryskow made his nhl debut for the 72-73 chicago
> blackhawks. his total hockey b-day is listed as 12-25-1957, which
> would mean he was 15 years old at the time. anyone know if this is
> true and again if it was a big deal at the time?...
>
> plus dave hrechkosy of the 73-74 california golden seals (b-day lised
>
> as 11-01-1957) and chris speyer of the 23-24 toonto st.patricks (b-
> day listed as 2-6-1907) would have both been 16 years old. true?...
>
> thanks for any help...
>
> bob chaikin
> bchaikin@...
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I have no dates for these people, but just want to point out that
although TH does have errors, it is remarkably accurate considering the
amount of data it has. And some of the really old stuff (not these guys)
is very hard to find. I research players from the 20s and 30s, and
they're vital stats can be VERY hard to find. TH isn't all that bad.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: George Lloyd [mailto:gjlhome@...]
Sent: March 1, 2003 10:35 AM
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hockhist] youngest players in NHL


I've never been a fan of Total Hockey because of all the mistakes made
in it.

In some of my older Hockey Registers put out by Sporting news, the birth
dates are as follows:

Tom Williams 2-7-51
Dave Kryskow 12-25-1951
Dave Hrechkosy 11-1-1951

George

--- "bchaikin1 <bchaikin@...>" <bchaikin@...>
wrote:
>
> going thru total hockey (1998 ed) i noticed the vast majority of
> players who made NHL debuts at age 17 or younger occurred during WWII
>
> (understandably). but a few other players, based on their birthdates
> listed in total hockey, also made very early debuts....
>
> total hockey lists tom c. williams of the 71-72 new york rangers as
> having a b-day of 2-7-1957, which would mean he would have been all
> of 14 years old when he made his nhl debut. anyone know if this is
> true (or if it's a total hockey incorrect b-day date)? if so was this
>
> a big deal at the time that a 14 year old was playing in the nhl?...
>
> also dave kryskow made his nhl debut for the 72-73 chicago
> blackhawks. his total hockey b-day is listed as 12-25-1957, which
> would mean he was 15 years old at the time. anyone know if this is
> true and again if it was a big deal at the time?...
>
> plus dave hrechkosy of the 73-74 california golden seals (b-day lised
>
> as 11-01-1957) and chris speyer of the 23-24 toonto st.patricks (b-
> day listed as 2-6-1907) would have both been 16 years old. true?...
>
> thanks for any help...
>
> bob chaikin
> bchaikin@...
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/


To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

George Lloyd wrote:

> I've never been a fan of Total Hockey because of all the mistakes made
> in it.

Putting out such a huge book is an enormous challenge.  To entirely dismiss
it because of the mistakes in it does a disservice to those who undertook
the challenge.  Instead, let the authors know of the errors and future
volumes will be better for it.

It is easy criticize and harder to create.

John Matthew IV

(Bob wrote)
going thru total hockey (1998 ed) i noticed the vast majority of
players who made NHL debuts at age 17 or younger occurred during WWII
(understandably). but a few other players, based on their birthdates
listed in total hockey, also made very early debuts....

---> Hi Bob,

Below in this response I have a list over the 10 youngest NHL'ers ever.
I did an article on rookies for an NHL- magazine over here in Europe
two years ago, so the list comes from my article.

Like George said, the birthdates for Williams,Kryskow and Hrechkosy
were all printing errors in TH. (Williams and Hrechkosy were corrected in TH-2)
George also correctly points out that there were a bunch of errors in TH,
which is understandable given the share volume of the book and all the
stats in it.

I agree with John, it's easy to criticize and harder to create.
When I bought TH I saw that there were a lot of stats missing in the book.
I was one of many people who helped out in the stats department to
improve the second edition of the book.
And if you compare TH and TH-2 then I think it's pretty obvious that many
mistakes were corrected and thousands of new lines of stats were added.
TH-2 is definitely an improvement over the first edition IMO.
James Duplacey and Ernie Fitzimmons did a hell'uva job with the stats.


                                                                           1st
year   Age in 1st NHL game

1.   Armand "Bep" Guidolin (Boston)            1942-43 16 y, 11 m, 3 d

2.   Chris "Duke" Speyer (Toronto St.Pats)   1923-24  17 y, 17 d

3.   Joseph Schmidt (Boston)                         1943-44  17 y, 1 m, 2 d

4.   Harry "Apple Cheeks" Lumley (Detroit)   1943-44   17 y, 1 m, 8 d

5.   Eric "Doc" Prentice (Toronto)                   1943-44   17 y, 2 m, 8 d

6.   Ted "Teeder" Kennedy (Toronto)              1942-43   17 y, 2 m, 23 d

7.   Len Wharton (NY Rangers)                       1944-45    17 y, 3 m, 5 d

8.   Don "Bones" Raleigh (NY Rangers)         1943-44    17 y, 4 m, 9 d

9.   Jack Hamilton (Toronto)                             1942-43    17 y, 4 m,
29 d

10. Ross Johnstone (Toronto)                          1943-44     17 y, 6 m, 23
d

Pat

John Matthew IV wrote:
>
> George Lloyd wrote:
>
> > I've never been a fan of Total Hockey because of all the mistakes made
> > in it.
>
> Putting out such a huge book is an enormous challenge.  To entirely
> dismiss
> it because of the mistakes in it does a disservice to those who undertook
> the challenge.  Instead, let the authors know of the errors and future
> volumes will be better for it.

We (the list) did that, and the resulting TH2 is *much* better than TH,
which is what the original poster was using.  Heck I found a half-dozen
clear errors in my first bathroom sitting with TH.

Marc

let the authors know of the errors and future volumes will be better
for it.

We (the list) did that, and the resulting TH2 is *much* better than
TH, which is what the original poster was using.  Heck I found a half-
dozen clear errors in my first bathroom sitting with TH.

Marc


any chance i could get (or purchase) from you a listing of all the
errors/corrections you and others in this group found in TH 1?
comparing fischler's encyclopedia with TH 1 i've found over a couple
hundred differences (and not always knowing which is correct, if
either is correct), especially in the playoff data for earlier
players. it seems especially for the early seasons (prior to about
1930) there were a number of changes made, particularly in games
played, points scored as either goals or assists (but same total
points scored), and especially in penalty minutes accrued. i'd rather
not have to buy TH 2 and "look" for the changes if someone else has
already done that...

also the TGF / PGF / TGA / PGA listed in TH 1 used to calculate the
+/- stat i have not seen anywhere else. was this info taken directly
from original game sheets or was some other body of work published
that had these stats? if so is this available anywhere (like on the
internet someplace), and especially for the past couple of seasons
since TH 2 came out?..

bob chaikin
bchaikin@...

on 3/1/03 11:25 AM, Marc Foster at mfoster@... wrote:

> Heck I found a half-dozen
> clear errors in my first bathroom sitting with TH.

Indeed, at this point I'm not sure what impresses me more: the improvements
of TH2 over the first edition, or the fact that Marc considers Total Hockey
to be bathroom reading!

Never having been the home-improvement/basement-workshop type, I can only
wonder how long it took to drill a hole through the top left-hand corner of
your copy!

--
Lloyd Davis
Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON  M4K 1P6
416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
ldavis2@...

The Nashville Predators defeat Chicago this afternoon 5-4 in OT.
The Preds are over .500 for the first time since going 4-3-1 in
the first eight games in their history.

The win also comes in the 392nd game in franchise history,
allowing Barry Trotz to break Terry Crisp's record for most
games for the initial coach of an expansion team.

<<LONGEST TENURES AS FIRST COACH OF AN NHL EXPANSION TEAM

Team                Head Coach  Tenure

Nashville Predators Barry Trotz 392 games (1998-present)

Tampa Bay Lightning Terry Crisp 391 games (1992-97)

Mighty Ducks of Anaheim Ron Wilson 296 games (1993-97)

Atlanta Thrashers Curt Fraser 279 games (1999-2002)

Ottawa Senators Rick Bowness 235 games (1992-95)
>>




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

on 3/1/03 4:43 PM, Forever Nineteen Forty at forever1940@... wrote:

> The Preds are over .500 for the first time since going 4-3-1 in
> the first eight games in their history.

The Predators only appear to be over .500 because they have four
participation badges (i.e., points for overtime losses).

To me, a loss is a loss, no matter what time of the game you incur it. In
fact, why should you be rewarded for choking in the clutch late in a game?

The Predators record is REALLY 25-29-9.

And what the bonus point giveth, the bonus point taketh away: while the
25-25-9-4 line in the standings lends Nashville a veneer of competence, it
should also be pointed out that, if it weren't for Edmonton's *eight* OTL
points, the Preds and not the Oilers would be eighth in the Western
Conference right now, and they wouldn't have to worry about refunding all
that money.

I've heard apologists for this standings-distorting nonsense claim it makes
the playoff race more engaging. If it weren't for OTL's, Edmonton and
Nashville would have 59 points, while LA, Phoenix and Chicago would have 58.
As it is, these five teams are separated by a spread of eight points!

--
Lloyd Davis
Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON  M4K 1P6
416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
ldavis2@...

> To me, a loss is a loss, no matter what time of the game you incur it. In
> fact, why should you be rewarded for choking in the clutch late in a game?

Hey Lloyd-- try looking at it this way:

A team isn't being rewarded for losing in overtime. They are being
"rewarded" one point for ending in a tie after sixty minutes.  The real
"reward" goes to any team who scores a goal in overtime.

> The Predators record is REALLY 25-29-9.

So, going by your logic, if an OT loss does not exist, then any OT win is
not really a win, right?
So, what are they?  Bonus participation badges?

Look, ties are boring to a lot of fans.  The OT gives the fan a little more
for his/her money.  So what if they call it an "OT loss"?   You can take the
purist argument to the extreme sometimes.

--Dave Soutter

on 3/1/03 5:34 PM, DAVE SOUTTER at dsoutter@... wrote:

>> The Predators record is REALLY 25-29-9.
>
> So, going by your logic, if an OT loss does not exist, then any OT win is
> not really a win, right?
> So, what are they?  Bonus participation badges?

Please be careful. I did NOT say overtime losses do not exist. I do not deny
that they exist; in fact, my complaint is that they do.

My position is that a loss is a loss is a loss, regardless of when it
happens. And a team that loses 25 times in regulation time and that, on four
other occasions, seems to require additional time to find a way to lose, has
still lost 29 games.

Therefore, if the team has won 25 times, they have lost more times than they
have won. They are NOT, therefore, a .500 team. When someone writes that a
25-25-9-4 team is at .500, THEY are negating overtime losses.

And I share your apparent concern that overtime WINS do not get their due.
Indeed, this afternoon's win over Chicago came in OT. By my count, that is
Nashville's FIFTH overtime win this season. You won't see that in the
standings, of course; I had to go through the Preds' game-by-game log to
find that tidbit.

Therefore, we have a team with 20 regulation-time wins, 25 regulation
losses, 5 overtime wins, 4 overtime losses, and 9 ties. Still not a .500
team, is it?

Back on October 15, they lost 4-3 in overtime to the Islanders. On the 18th,
they lost 3-2 to New Jersey. On October 19, they found a team they could not
lose to in overtime: the Rangers. They emerged with a 2-2 draw. Am I
supposed to accept this as a three-game unbeaten streak? After all, the
record shows they went 0-0-1-2.

You say ties are boring. Again, a more careful selection of words would seem
in order. It might be fair to say ties are *unsatisfying.* I think you would
have to agree that tie games are not intrinsically boring. A 1-1 trapathon,
absolutely dull as ditch water. But what about a 7-7 slugfest? How about a
3-3 result in which each team had plenty of scoring chances but both goalies
happened to stand on their heads?

One of the most exciting games ever played was a little 3-3 saw-off between
Montreal Canadiens and Central Red Army on December 31, 1975.

You argue that overtime "gives the fan a little more for his/her money."
Fair enough. Let's look at these three Nashville games in October again. (I
don't mean to pick on the Preds; maybe I'm just steamed about that gawdawful
game they played here last Sunday -- I mean, 10 consecutive power plays?
Remind me what numbers Dennis LaRue and Shane Heyer wear for Nashville?)

Anyway, in the Oct. 15 game against the Isles, the Predators managed a
whopping 13 shots on goal in regulation time. And not a single, solitary SOG
in overtime. So anxious were they to play NOT TO LOSE in this overtime
period that the refs awarded the Islanders a penalty shot -- in overtime!
Well, at least that -- and Osgood's .769 save percentage on the night --
provided a little extra value for the good fans of Long Island.

> You can take the purist argument to the extreme sometimes.

I hope "you" is being used in the third-person sense and not the second.
Otherwise, you're accusing me of being a purist when, in my third-to-last
post, I had something good to say about shootouts? Indeed.

--
Lloyd Davis
Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON  M4K 1P6
416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
ldavis2@...

Poring over the transactions lists, is that really (original San Jose
Shark) Neil Wilkinson playing in the CHL?  Is that really (original
Florida Panther) Pokey Reddick in the UHL?

Nice to know these guys are still playing 'cause they can't get the
game out of their systems (at least, I hope circumstances are not
such that they need the money!).

Rob Swiniarski -- who could not get the Forum organ rendition of "Les
Canadiens Sont La" (followed by Dutchy's trumpet blast) out of his
head this morning

Brampton ON
francz39@...

On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Lloyd Davis wrote:

> Therefore, if the team has won 25 times, they have lost more times than they
> have won. They are NOT, therefore, a .500 team. When someone writes that a
> 25-25-9-4 team is at .500, THEY are negating overtime losses.

Not necessarily.  If you read it with the implication that "winning
percentage" is the percentage of available points that a team acquires, then
it follows that a 25-25-9-4 team *is* at 0.500.

Furthermore, since the object of regular-season hockey is to acquire as
many points as possible, not to win as many games as possible (although that's
a fine way to go about it), that implication is not only possible, but likely.

Doug

>
> >> The Predators record is REALLY 25-29-9.
>
> Please be careful. I did NOT say overtime losses do not exist. I do not
deny
> that they exist; in fact, my complaint is that they do.

Then what do mean when you say "The Predators record is REALLY 25-29-9"?   I
don't see a column there for OTL.

> My position is that a loss is a loss is a loss, regardless of when it
happens. And a team that >loses 25 times in regulation time and that, on
four
other occasions, seems to require additional time >to find a way to lose,
has still lost 29 games.

It isn't that they require additional time to lose a game.  They have
already gained one point in the standings when after sixty minutes the score
is tied.  OT is just a chance for one team to gain an extra point that the
NHL defines as a win.  I guess we just look at it differently.  I see the
glass as half-full.

> And I share your apparent concern that overtime WINS do not get their due.

And maybe you're right--there should also be a column in the standings for
OTW, but there probably isn't room!

> Therefore, we have a team with 20 regulation-time wins, 25 regulation
> losses, 5 overtime wins, 4 overtime losses, and 9 ties. Still not a .500
> team, is it?

It is if you go by the number of points gained, not wins.  If a team has 50
points out of 100 possible, they are a .500 team, not matter how the record
reads.

> You say ties are boring. Again, a more careful selection of words would
seem
> in order. It might be fair to say ties are *unsatisfying.* I think you
would
> have to agree that tie games are not intrinsically boring.

No, not instrinsically.  Thank you for correcting my careless selection of
words, but I did not mean it in the literal sense.  I just meant that an OT
quite possibly adds a little excitement to a game ending in a tie.  I also
have seen many exciting games that end in a tie.

> You argue that overtime "gives the fan a little more for his/her money."
> Fair enough. Let's look at these three Nashville games in October again.
(I
> don't mean to pick on the Preds; maybe I'm just steamed about that
gawdawful
> game they played here last Sunday -- I mean, 10 consecutive power plays?
> Anyway, in the Oct. 15 game against the Isles, the Predators managed a
> whopping 13 shots on goal in regulation time. And not a single, solitary
SOG
> in overtime. So anxious were they to play NOT TO LOSE in this overtime
> period that the refs awarded the Islanders a penalty shot -- in overtime!
> Well, at least that -- and Osgood's .769 save percentage on the night --
> provided a little extra value for the good fans of Long Island.

Which is not a lot different than the "good old days" when the road team
frequently "played for the tie" when the score was close in the third
period.

> > You can take the purist argument to the extreme sometimes.
> I hope "you" is being used in the third-person sense and not the second.
> Otherwise, you're accusing me of being a purist when, in my third-to-last
> post, I had something good to say about shootouts? Indeed.

Well, you can take it however you want.  The point behind my rebuttal is
simple:  What's wrong with getting an extra point in OT?  I'm not about to
brand you a hippocrate since you like shootouts but dislike the notion of OT
wins/losses.  And, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being a
purist, either.   But the game has evolved over the years and will continue
to do so.

For example, there was a time when the red line did not exist.  Old-timers
used to pine for those pre-red line days, but you don't hear about it too
much any more. We are used to seeing it. Most of us would raise our eyebrows
about how the game was played 80, 50 or even 30 years ago. But back then,
things seemed OK.   I personally don't really care if you get a point after
sixty minutes or sixty-five minutes.  It all comes out in the wash,
pointwise.

--Dave Soutter

on 3/1/03 7:12 PM, Doug Norris at norrisdt@... wrote:

> Not necessarily.  If you read it with the implication that "winning
> percentage" is the percentage of available points that a team acquires, then
> it follows that a 25-25-9-4 team *is* at 0.500.

Fine. But if a team boasts about being .500, the implication is that they
have achieved a benchmark of competence, that they're right down the middle,
even-steven, one-up one-down.

And under the current method of computing standings, that is a false claim.
Under the protocol the NHL used from 1981-82 until 1998-99, the Predators'
results would give them a record of 25-29-9, and a winning percentage of
.468.

As I write this, it is 7:40 p.m. Eastern, and the NHL has completed 1,914
games. Teams have been awarded 2,029 points. This represents 115 overtime
losses -- and counting. It bears pointing out that, in all of last season,
there were only 121 OTLs.

The NHL may well claim this indicates more games are being decided in
overtime. When this press release comes out, I will not strain my eyes to
look for data on how many more games have *gone into* overtime.

Instead, I will go here:
http://www.mgmt.purdue.edu/faculty/abrevaya/overtime.pdf
and read a study that suggests that a game was 12 percent more likely to go
into OT between 1999-2000 and 2001-02 than during the period 1995-96 to
1998-99.

Under the current situation, .500 is a meaningless benchmark. At this
particular moment, .530 is the new .500.

It is not an original idea that the three-point game distorts the standings.
Many others have wondered on what basis a game in which, say, Detroit
clobbers Toronto 7-2 should have fewer points at stake than a turtle derby
between the Predators and Devils.

Why should Nashville "earn" the same recognition in the standings for their
OTL on the 18th as their tie the next night? If a team coughs up a goal in
OT, has it really done as good a job as a team that prevents that goal?

(I realize, of course, it comes down to the question of whether a team is
supposed to score more goals than its opponent -- or simply allow fewer.)

--
Lloyd Davis
Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON  M4K 1P6
416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
ldavis2@...

Hi All,

Just wondering if anyone had The Hockey News Draft Rankings for 1999 and
prior years drafts. Thank you in advance.

Dan Parsons
parsons_dan@...





_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Poring over the transactions lists, is that really (original San Jose
Shark) Neil Wilkinson playing in the CHL?  Is that really (original
Florida Panther) Pokey Reddick in the UHL?

Nice to know these guys are still playing 'cause they can't get the
game out of their systems (at least, I hope circumstances are not
such that they need the money!).

Rob Swiniarski -- who could not get the Forum organ rendition of "Les
Canadiens Sont La" (followed by Dutchy's trumpet blast) out of his
head this morning

Brampton ON
francz39@...

THe NHL is in some trouble, as Frank Deford eloquenty opines..

<<
Ice Guys Finish Last
Myriad Problems Put Hockey's Future in Doubt

By Frank Deford
Sports Illustrated

Invariably, one sport becomes everybody's whipping boy. Usually,
it's baseball. Now, though, it's hockey. The National Hockey
League is attracting so much criticism these days, you would
think it was France. The game is put down as too defensive, all
hooking and holding, and not enough scoring. Its economy is a
mess. Either the players are overpaid or the owners are idiots.
Or, usually, both. Two teams are bankrupt. Ticket prices are too
high, but, on the other hand, too few eyeballs choose free
hockey on TV. And over all this looms labor negotiations, which
could shut down the season that begins in October of 2004. If
that sounds far off, labor and management are already full of
ire, distrust and invective for one another.

Oh yes, and then there's the Canadian dollar.

The easy part should be improving the game. The league has made
rules in the past few years to help increase scoring, but, for
some reason, the referees won't enforce them. I'm sorry, I don't
understand that. Further, it's obvious that the goalies are
larger and more agile but they're all so padded they look like
the Michelin Man. It's a wonder the puck ever makes it between
the pipes. In 1982, Wayne Gretzky scored 92 goals. Could he have
posted half as many in today's conditions? Until the NHL takes
care of its product, it is hard to feel sorry for the league.

For its financial difficulties, however, one must be more
sympathetic. Poor hockey. It really isn't fair. Who would have
ever thought that such a wonderful spectator game would be such
a disaster on television? But so it is. The speed is, somehow,
lost on the screen. The fighting looks slapstick. And the puck.
The puck is too small and too elusive to follow, especially on
those rare occasions when it actually does get into the net.

The only other vigorous 20th century institution that televised
so poorly was Lyndon Johnson.

So, while other sports thrive on TV and dine out on TV money,
hockey lives beyond its means. We have a situation where each
NHL team makes $5.7 million from national TV revenue and pays an
average player salary of $1.6 million, while each NFL team makes
$77 million in national TV revenue and pays an average player
salary of $1.1 million. That is, an NHL team makes barely 1/14
of what an NFL team does from national television, but its
average player salary is 31 percent more than that of the NFL.
This is not a recipe for economic success. Ice guys finish last.


Moreover, the NHL's contract with ABC and ESPN will be up after
next season, and given its ratings, which trail even bowling
now, there's no assurance that the league will even make that
pittance in the future.

As the only major team sport without a salary cap or a luxury
tax on high payrolls, the NHL is still living in a dotcom
economy. Saddest yet, the place that really cares most about
hockey is the place that can least afford it. That is Canada,
where players must be paid U.S. value with a domestic income
based on 65 cents to the U.S. dollar. Ottawa is one of the
bankrupt teams. Calgary and Edmonton might have to move south of
the border . . . well, if any U.S. buyers could be found.

People in hockey are already musing that high definition TV will
make the difference. Oh, please, Mr. NHL, don't kid yourself.
For hockey to thrive again it simply must learn to forget the
siren call of television and operate like a theme park. All live
and raw and noisy.

-----
Frank Deford's column appears every Wednesday at 1PM ET on AOL
Sports.

Sports Illustrated Senior Contributing Writer Frank Deford has
received countless awards in both print and broadcasting. He is
a member of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Hall of
Fame. Besides his work at SI and as a novelist, he is a
correspondent on HBO's "RealSports With Bryant Gumbel," and his
commentaries on National Public Radio can be heard every
Wednesday morning.>>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Lloyd Davis wrote:

> Indeed, at this point I'm not sure what impresses me more: the
> improvements of TH2 over the first edition, or the fact that Marc
> considers Total Hockey to be bathroom reading!

I prefer reference materials - things I can devote to memory through rote
techniques... Not that I've ever been much for fiction - alamanacs and
atlases are definitely at the top of my list.

> Never having been the home-improvement/basement-workshop type, I can only
> wonder how long it took to drill a hole through the top left-hand corner
> of your copy!

I've got some good drills and bits, such that I could probably slap it in my
vise and have a clean hole in thirty seconds flat.  But the stack of
materials on the toilet usually reaches a point every few weeks that the
libr... err, my wife re-stacks them on my bookshelf.

So what I really need is to build some shelves in the bathroom.  :)

Marc

on 3/1/03 8:10 PM, DAVE SOUTTER at dsoutter@... wrote:

> Then what do mean when you say "The Predators record is REALLY 25-29-9"?   I
> don't see a column there for OTL.

You've caught me. I do, however, insist that those OTLs should be considered
losses. They allowed more goals than their opponents. They should, in the
immortal words of Denis Lemieux, have reason to sit alone "and feel shame."

In the first season of the OTL, the NHL would have quoted Nashville's record
this way:

GP  W  L  T  OTL   P
63 25 29  9    4  63

Some found this confusing, especially if their newspaper didn't print the GP
column.

> It isn't that they require additional time to lose a game.

But given a chance, they found a way to lose a game. The point is, they lost
a game.

> And maybe you're right--there should also be a column in the standings for
> OTW, but there probably isn't room!

Yup. See above comment about GP. Some newspapers haven't learned about the
magic of condensed typefaces.

>> Therefore, we have a team with 20 regulation-time wins, 25 regulation
>> losses, 5 overtime wins, 4 overtime losses, and 9 ties. Still not a .500
>> team, is it?
>
> It is if you go by the number of points gained, not wins.  If a team has 50
> points out of 100 possible, they are a .500 team, not matter how the record
> reads.

Yeah, but the existence of three-point games means the number of possible
points is all out of whack. If you win in overtime, you've taken two out of
the three points awarded that night.

Let's say the NHL schedules two games for opening night. For some reason,
they all take place in the Northeast Division: Toronto vs. Ottawa and
Montreal vs. Boston. Buffalo is waiting for a sugar daddy and its fans are
still stewing over the Brett Hull in-the-crease goal tonight.

Ottawa does what it's supposed to do, whipping Toronto 9-1 (because this is
the regular season, after all, not the playoffs). Montreal and Boston battle
to a 2-2 result after 60 minutes, and Joe Thornton goes top shelf at 2:30 of
the extra frame to give Boston a 3-2 victory.

The standings look like this:

      GP   W   L   T  OTL  F   A   P
OTT   1   1   0   0   0   9   1   2
BOS   1   1   0   0   0   3   2   2
MON   1   0   0   0   1   2   3   1
BUF   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
TOR   1   0   1   0   0   1   9   0

A couple of observations:
1) This is as close as Buffalo gets to the divisional crown all year.
2) Ottawa has taken 2 of 2 points awarded in their game. They rightly have a
winning pct. of 1.000.
3) Boston took 2 points, but wait a minute: three points were awarded in
that game. Shouldn't Boston have a .667 WPCT, and not 1.000?

To me, the winning percentage has been rendered useless as a statistic. And
it seems to me that, if you're a fan of the Edmonton Oilers right now, the
point for an OTL is the greatest invention since the Zamboni. But if you're
a fan of the Blackhawks, you're not only very lonely, but your team has less
of a chance at making the playoffs than they would under the old math.

> For example, there was a time when the red line did not exist.

I'd love to see it abandoned again. The narrower neutral zone prevents plays
from getting started. I say that with eyes wide open: I know that, anytime
you introduce an initiative to boost offence, coaches will find a way to
neutralize it through defensive play. But at least for a glowing moment,
you'd see a bit of pond hockey injected back into the game.

--
Lloyd Davis
Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON  M4K 1P6
416 465 6999 /// 416 462 0230 (fax)
ldavis2@...

> > For example, there was a time when the red line did not exist.
>
> I'd love to see it abandoned again. The narrower neutral zone prevents
plays
> from getting started. I say that with eyes wide open: I know that, anytime
> you introduce an initiative to boost offence, coaches will find a way to
> neutralize it through defensive play. But at least for a glowing moment,
> you'd see a bit of pond hockey injected back into the game.

Lloyd:

I agree.  I enjoyed a few glowing moments up close and personal last year
during the Olympics (I was a scorekeeper). I loved seeing the open ice and
all the skating and creativity.  A good offense is entertaining as is a good
defence, but a stifling, trapping defence can get old really fast.   But,
removing the red line would be worth the gamble IMO.

I don't totally disagree with your reasoning regarding OTLs and OTWs. To me,
its the game itself  I pay more attention to, not all the stats, which is
strange since I've worked with hockey stats for a long time!

--Dave Soutter

I don't usually like Frank Deford, but I think he hit the mark here
with one more exception.  The NHL needs to return to intimate barns
instead of faceless arenas.  The charm of Chicago Stadium, not to
mention the noise level, adds to the speed of the game.

Morey

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Forever Nineteen Forty
<forever1940@y...> wrote:
> THe NHL is in some trouble, as Frank Deford eloquenty opines..
>
> <<
> Ice Guys Finish Last
> Myriad Problems Put Hockey's Future in Doubt
>
> By Frank Deford
> Sports Illustrated
>
> Invariably, one sport becomes everybody's whipping boy. Usually,
> it's baseball. Now, though, it's hockey. The National Hockey
> League is attracting so much criticism these days, you would
> think it was France. The game is put down as too defensive, all
> hooking and holding, and not enough scoring. Its economy is a
> mess. Either the players are overpaid or the owners are idiots.
> Or, usually, both. Two teams are bankrupt. Ticket prices are too
> high, but, on the other hand, too few eyeballs choose free
> hockey on TV. And over all this looms labor negotiations, which
> could shut down the season that begins in October of 2004. If
> that sounds far off, labor and management are already full of
> ire, distrust and invective for one another.
>
> Oh yes, and then there's the Canadian dollar.
>
> The easy part should be improving the game. The league has made
> rules in the past few years to help increase scoring, but, for
> some reason, the referees won't enforce them. I'm sorry, I don't
> understand that. Further, it's obvious that the goalies are
> larger and more agile but they're all so padded they look like
> the Michelin Man. It's a wonder the puck ever makes it between
> the pipes. In 1982, Wayne Gretzky scored 92 goals. Could he have
> posted half as many in today's conditions? Until the NHL takes
> care of its product, it is hard to feel sorry for the league.
>
> For its financial difficulties, however, one must be more
> sympathetic. Poor hockey. It really isn't fair. Who would have
> ever thought that such a wonderful spectator game would be such
> a disaster on television? But so it is. The speed is, somehow,
> lost on the screen. The fighting looks slapstick. And the puck.
> The puck is too small and too elusive to follow, especially on
> those rare occasions when it actually does get into the net.
>
> The only other vigorous 20th century institution that televised
> so poorly was Lyndon Johnson.
>
> So, while other sports thrive on TV and dine out on TV money,
> hockey lives beyond its means. We have a situation where each
> NHL team makes $5.7 million from national TV revenue and pays an
> average player salary of $1.6 million, while each NFL team makes
> $77 million in national TV revenue and pays an average player
> salary of $1.1 million. That is, an NHL team makes barely 1/14
> of what an NFL team does from national television, but its
> average player salary is 31 percent more than that of the NFL.
> This is not a recipe for economic success. Ice guys finish last.
>
>
> Moreover, the NHL's contract with ABC and ESPN will be up after
> next season, and given its ratings, which trail even bowling
> now, there's no assurance that the league will even make that
> pittance in the future.
>
> As the only major team sport without a salary cap or a luxury
> tax on high payrolls, the NHL is still living in a dotcom
> economy. Saddest yet, the place that really cares most about
> hockey is the place that can least afford it. That is Canada,
> where players must be paid U.S. value with a domestic income
> based on 65 cents to the U.S. dollar. Ottawa is one of the
> bankrupt teams. Calgary and Edmonton might have to move south of
> the border . . . well, if any U.S. buyers could be found.
>
> People in hockey are already musing that high definition TV will
> make the difference. Oh, please, Mr. NHL, don't kid yourself.
> For hockey to thrive again it simply must learn to forget the
> siren call of television and operate like a theme park. All live
> and raw and noisy.
>
> -----
> Frank Deford's column appears every Wednesday at 1PM ET on AOL
> Sports.
>
> Sports Illustrated Senior Contributing Writer Frank Deford has
> received countless awards in both print and broadcasting. He is
> a member of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Hall of
> Fame. Besides his work at SI and as a novelist, he is a
> correspondent on HBO's "RealSports With Bryant Gumbel," and his
> commentaries on National Public Radio can be heard every
> Wednesday morning.>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Agreed. They also need to stress not gag colorful characters, and
emphasize rivalries better. Fewer teams wouldn't hurt...


-----Original Message-----
From: Morey Holzman <MOREY_H@...> [mailto:MOREY_H@...]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:15 PM
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hockhist] Re: Ice Guys Finish Last

I don't usually like Frank Deford, but I think he hit the mark here
with one more exception.  The NHL needs to return to intimate barns
instead of faceless arenas.  The charm of Chicago Stadium, not to
mention the noise level, adds to the speed of the game.

Morey

--- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Forever Nineteen Forty
<forever1940@y...> wrote:
> THe NHL is in some trouble, as Frank Deford eloquenty opines..
>
> <<
> Ice Guys Finish Last
> Myriad Problems Put Hockey's Future in Doubt
>
> By Frank Deford
> Sports Illustrated
>
> Invariably, one sport becomes everybody's whipping boy. Usually,
> it's baseball. Now, though, it's hockey. The National Hockey
> League is attracting so much criticism these days, you would
> think it was France. The game is put down as too defensive, all
> hooking and holding, and not enough scoring. Its economy is a
> mess. Either the players are overpaid or the owners are idiots.
> Or, usually, both. Two teams are bankrupt. Ticket prices are too
> high, but, on the other hand, too few eyeballs choose free
> hockey on TV. And over all this looms labor negotiations, which
> could shut down the season that begins in October of 2004. If
> that sounds far off, labor and management are already full of
> ire, distrust and invective for one another.
>
> Oh yes, and then there's the Canadian dollar.
>
> The easy part should be improving the game. The league has made
> rules in the past few years to help increase scoring, but, for
> some reason, the referees won't enforce them. I'm sorry, I don't
> understand that. Further, it's obvious that the goalies are
> larger and more agile but they're all so padded they look like
> the Michelin Man. It's a wonder the puck ever makes it between
> the pipes. In 1982, Wayne Gretzky scored 92 goals. Could he have
> posted half as many in today's conditions? Until the NHL takes
> care of its product, it is hard to feel sorry for the league.
>
> For its financial difficulties, however, one must be more
> sympathetic. Poor hockey. It really isn't fair. Who would have
> ever thought that such a wonderful spectator game would be such
> a disaster on television? But so it is. The speed is, somehow,
> lost on the screen. The fighting looks slapstick. And the puck.
> The puck is too small and too elusive to follow, especially on
> those rare occasions when it actually does get into the net.
>
> The only other vigorous 20th century institution that televised
> so poorly was Lyndon Johnson.
>
> So, while other sports thrive on TV and dine out on TV money,
> hockey lives beyond its means. We have a situation where each
> NHL team makes $5.7 million from national TV revenue and pays an
> average player salary of $1.6 million, while each NFL team makes
> $77 million in national TV revenue and pays an average player
> salary of $1.1 million. That is, an NHL team makes barely 1/14
> of what an NFL team does from national television, but its
> average player salary is 31 percent more than that of the NFL.
> This is not a recipe for economic success. Ice guys finish last.
>
>
> Moreover, the NHL's contract with ABC and ESPN will be up after
> next season, and given its ratings, which trail even bowling
> now, there's no assurance that the league will even make that
> pittance in the future.
>
> As the only major team sport without a salary cap or a luxury
> tax on high payrolls, the NHL is still living in a dotcom
> economy. Saddest yet, the place that really cares most about
> hockey is the place that can least afford it. That is Canada,
> where players must be paid U.S. value with a domestic income
> based on 65 cents to the U.S. dollar. Ottawa is one of the
> bankrupt teams. Calgary and Edmonton might have to move south of
> the border . . . well, if any U.S. buyers could be found.
>
> People in hockey are already musing that high definition TV will
> make the difference. Oh, please, Mr. NHL, don't kid yourself.
> For hockey to thrive again it simply must learn to forget the
> siren call of television and operate like a theme park. All live
> and raw and noisy.
>
> -----
> Frank Deford's column appears every Wednesday at 1PM ET on AOL
> Sports.
>
> Sports Illustrated Senior Contributing Writer Frank Deford has
> received countless awards in both print and broadcasting. He is
> a member of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Hall of
> Fame. Besides his work at SI and as a novelist, he is a
> correspondent on HBO's "RealSports With Bryant Gumbel," and his
> commentaries on National Public Radio can be heard every
> Wednesday morning.>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/


To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

That ship has sailed in so many markets. But it would be interesting if, when
the time comes, a Detroit,
Pittsburgh, Long Island or New Jersey would try something different. Not hiring
HOK or its ilk to design
a new building would be a good first step. Although Montreal did that, and they
messed up royally.
Designers must figure out how to keep the ceilings as low as possible while
loading in the luxury
boxes. The lower the ceiling, the more crowd noise reverberates and doesn't
evaporate. And avoid the
cutesy retro touches (like baseball's new outfields which aren't just
asymmetric, they're deliberately
idiosyncratic).

I would also suggest it's the quality of the noise, and not the raw decibel
count, that livens up a game.
As the 16-year-olds sitting behind me in the greys one night at Maple Leaf
Gardens observed, "You
know what sucks about this place? It's where 70s rock comes to die." Does anyone
really think NHL
fans get charged up when they hear Trooper's "Raise a Little Hell"? Could the
NHL fund a music
education program to, say, teach organists the lost art of "Baby Elephant Walk"?

The league should think there's something wrong when the loudest cheers you hear
all night (and I
think they're piped-in, but PR flacks insist it's real, live cheering) is for
the goalie race or the airplane
race or the moving van race or whatever they flash on the scoreboard in your
town.

-- Lloyd "the highlight of any Leaf game is when the organist plays Hava Negila"
Davis

> From: "Morey Holzman <MOREY_H@...>" <MOREY_H@...>
> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:15:00 -0000
>
> The NHL needs to return to intimate barns
> instead of faceless arenas.  The charm of Chicago Stadium, not to
> mention the noise level, adds to the speed of the game.


Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON M4K 1P6
416-465-6999 (tel.) /// 416-462-0326 (fax)
ldavis2@...

Lloyd Davis wrote:

> That ship has sailed in so many markets. But it would be interesting if,
when the time comes, a Detroit,
> Pittsburgh, Long Island or New Jersey would try something different. Not
hiring HOK or its ilk to design
> a new building would be a good first step. Although Montreal did that, and
they messed up royally.
> Designers must figure out how to keep the ceilings as low as possible
while loading in the luxury
> boxes. The lower the ceiling, the more crowd noise reverberates and
doesn't evaporate. And avoid the
> cutesy retro touches (like baseball's new outfields which aren't just
asymmetric, they're deliberately
> idiosyncratic).

Interesting you mention baseball here, Lloyd.  HOK has done most of the new
ballparks too.  I never knew they were into hockey.

John Matthew IV

It is interesting in this respect, baseball has always allowed for each
building to have it's own idiosyncrasies and character. In hockey we
once had that too. Knowing them is a part of home advantage and add a
certain element. In hockey we didn't learn form them. In the 70'd they
went to "cookie cutter" designs and in the end found that fans like the
unique fields. We have went to cookie cutters too!

And I second the noise issue! These places are antiseptic! An
interesting experience here in Philly is to go to the old building and
the new building for games in rapid succession. The old barn isn't the
spacious profit palace that the new one is but it has, CHARACTER! You
are closer to the action and there is NOISE! Even the press box is
better! Sure it has a low ceiling (tough to stand in the second row for
the anthem without bashing your head) but in the new building you are so
high up if the Rangers or Stars are in town good luck reading the
numbers! And in the higher seats you are getting vertigo! All in all
most of us prefer the OLD Spectrum. Come to think of it so may the
Flyers as players. The old building used to be a "mean building". There
was a bit of intimidation to it! Noisy, tight...the new one is about as
scary as Felix Unger's room after a good sanitizing! It is just
dull...And it is so much the same as the other luxury domes out there.
Friends of mine in Montreal tell me that they DESPISE Molson Center for
similar reasons.

And the sad thing is that we are either stuck with these things for
another 20 years or so or else we will be stuck for another big bill for
a profit, not entertainment driven design!

Oh well, at least college, minor pro and junior barns still have
character...

-----Original Message-----
From: John Matthew IV [mailto:john.matthew@...]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:54 PM
To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hockhist] Re: Ice Guys Finish Last



Lloyd Davis wrote:

> That ship has sailed in so many markets. But it would be interesting
if,
when the time comes, a Detroit,
> Pittsburgh, Long Island or New Jersey would try something different.
Not
hiring HOK or its ilk to design
> a new building would be a good first step. Although Montreal did that,
and
they messed up royally.
> Designers must figure out how to keep the ceilings as low as possible
while loading in the luxury
> boxes. The lower the ceiling, the more crowd noise reverberates and
doesn't evaporate. And avoid the
> cutesy retro touches (like baseball's new outfields which aren't just
asymmetric, they're deliberately
> idiosyncratic).

Interesting you mention baseball here, Lloyd.  HOK has done most of the
new
ballparks too.  I never knew they were into hockey.

John Matthew IV


To unsubscribe from this mail list, send a blank message to
hockhist-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Lloyd,
You hit the bullseye on two points.

1.  The generic, cookie cutter way the new buildings look.  Are the colors of
the seats the only way to distinguish different buildings now.

2.  PR flacks.  Why do a majority of PR directors look like they flunked PR
classes?
How many sticky situations keep lingering for way too long due to the PR
flacks       goofing up.  here is an equation:  Ryan Leaf + PR major= PR
curriculum is a joke.

Do PR classes just teach about how to talk for 5 minutes and nothing of
substance is said, how to be a grouch, or how to say "no comment" in 20
languages.

Whatever happened to "I said it. I have to deal with it." There is a right to
free speech, but not everyone will like what is said.  Things come with the
territory, deal with it.

                                                   Ray Sullivan

> From: "John Matthew IV" <john.matthew@...>
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:53:39 -0500
> To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [hockhist] Re: Ice Guys Finish Last

> Interesting you mention baseball here, Lloyd.  HOK has done most of the new
> ballparks too.  I never knew they were into hockey.

Ballparks.com shows they designed the rinks in Toronto, Atlanta, Chicago, St.
Paul, Denver, and
Anaheim.

The other firm whose name comes up a lot, Ellerbe Becket, is responsible for
Philly, Boston, Buffalo,
St. Pete, Washington, Sunrise, Phoenix (the America West, that is), and St.
Louis.

Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON M4K 1P6
416-465-6999 (tel.) /// 416-462-0326 (fax)
ldavis2@...

> From: "William Underwood" <wausport@...>
Of course, a lot of the differences between the old-line (pre-1960) ballparks
were responses to the
challenges imposed by the site. Fenway Park looks like it does mostly because it
had to -- it was on a
weird-shaped plot of land. Even Expectoration Stadium in Toronto had its
site-induced quirks -- the
outfield seats were covered, while the main grandstand wasn't. And for many
years, thanks to the
dimensions of a CFL field, it could claim to own the world's largest piece of
Astroturf.

But I doubt anyone in Detroit said, "Gee, it'd be neat to have a flagpole in
play in centre field." Without
looking into it, my guess is someone decided in the dead-ball era that no one
would ever hit a ball 440
feet, so that was as good a place as any to put it. The vines at Wrigley just
kinda happened. Charlie
Comiskey was ahead of the curve when he insisted on a symmetrical outfield, and
I wonder how much
charm White Sox Park really had before Bill Veeck got a hold of it.

Some of the old rinks developed organically, too. It was a few seasons before
the Spectrum got its
uppermost tier. Before that, the ceiling might not have seemed as low. (Well,
actually, it was pretty
darned low in the winter of '68, but that's another story!) And I believe the
brick was from a
Pennsylvania quarry. The end blues at MLG, which were a great place to watch a
game as long as the
puck wasn't in your end of the rink, were tacked on after the city wouldn't let
Ballard and Staff Smythe
extend part of the building, cantilever-fashion, over Carlton Street.

Maybe, in time, each of the current generation of hyperarenas will acquire its
own touches. But I'm not
optimistic. I believe they sampled the old Barton organ from Chicago Stadium so
that the electronic
keyboard at United Center would have its sound, but what they didn't seem to get
is that, with an organ,
the building itself is part of the instrument. (Nowhere was this more literal
than in Chicago Stadium.)
The siren at the Bell Centre is a nice connection with the Forum. (I like the
buzzer at Madison Square
Garden, too. It has a sound unlike any other I've heard.) I have mixed emotions
about the entrance at
the ACC: it's kind of neat that the building has a lobby, but Toronto already
has too many buildings that
incorporate the facade of the thing they replaced.

Oh, I'd better stop this. I'm sure I seem a curmudgeon (and apparently not for
the first time). There's
one thing I will say about the modern buildings -- they may lack atmosphere, but
at least you don't have
to pee in a trough.



> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:09:38 -0500
> To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [hockhist] Re: Ice Guys Finish Last
>
> It is interesting in this respect, baseball has always allowed for each
> building to have it's own idiosyncrasies and character. In hockey we
> once had that too. Knowing them is a part of home advantage and add a
> certain element. In hockey we didn't learn form them. In the 70'd they
> went to "cookie cutter" designs and in the end found that fans like the
> unique fields. We have went to cookie cutters too!


Lloyd Davis Publishing Services
201-488 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, ON M4K 1P6
416-465-6999 (tel.) /// 416-462-0326 (fax)
ldavis2@...