New Statistic - The Clutch Factor

[calfan 0]

An interesting article and an interesting analysis. It's easy to see who's ringing up the points, but who's scoring those key goals and assists when it really counts and who's just padding their totals. It would be better to see the details of the analysis because if I read this correctly, I believe a dominant team's players (Wings) will score lower because they never play a better team. That may partially explain why Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom don't fair well in this analysis. I say only partially because there are many other measures and this one area may not count against them too much. Here's the link.

The Clutch Factor

[BeeRYCE 2]

They say Alfredsson and Zetterberg are amongst the least clutch players... I'm not down.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

That is a truly horrible stat. It makes no sense.

No goals are "padded" goals. Every goal counts. Same goes with assists.

[Mudvayneowns91 0]

it kinda seems like to me that they are dogging us because we dominate.This is the scale they use.

Goal Elements: Goal Differential at the time the goal is scored ,Manpower,Period of game, Empty Net, Overtime.

Game Elements: Home versus Away, Divisional, conference, or inter-conference opponent, Strength of opposing team, Defense of opposing team, Time of season.

This is my problem with it. The Wings score a lot because we have a lot of quality players (manpower) that chip in. Our leads go from 1 or 2 or 3, so the goal differential stat gets worse the more we score. Secondly, the Wings are often in the lead during the third period. That means we get a lot of opportunities to score emptynets and don't get a lot of opportunities at overtimes. Thirdly, the Central Division opponents aren't doing as well in the West, so they punish us for that too. This is the summary I get from it. They don't think the Wings are clutch because they win too much

Edited February 6, 2008 by Mudvayneowns91

[akustyk 84]

just a though: maybe this is not a measure of certain players skills but also of how uneven his team is in scoring?

see...

Flames

Iginla 33 + Huselius 21 + Lagkow 21 = 75 goals. of 153 total. roughly speaking 50% of team's output

Caps

Ovechkin 45 + .... = 45 of 154 team goals. which would be 30% of Caps goals

Wings

Zetterberg 41 + Homer 20 + Datsyuk 18 = 69 goals. of 180 total. not even 40% of Wings scoring.

in my opinion this ranking is not about saying player A is better than player B

but rather: A has to carry more load in his team because... yeah, it's mostly

because the rest of the field sucks.

I'd rather say this ranking shows only how bad some teams are in scoring

past 1st line. and the thing is if you are single line team this doesn't bode well

for you playoff chances. see:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/teams/cgy/stat...postseason_2006

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/teams/det/stat...postseason_2006

can't find Caps playoffs stats, though

Edited February 6, 2008 by akustyk

[calfan 0]

That is a truly horrible stat. It makes no sense.

No goals are "padded" goals. Every goal counts. Same goes with assists.

I disagree. The fifth goal in a 5-0 win is not as important as the second and third goal in a come from behind 3-2 win.

I also disagree that this statistic rewards teams with unbalanced scoring. If you had the formulas, you could calculate the clutch factor for the Wings team as a whole and you might find that certain "top" players have a lower clutch factor than other players. It doesn't mean they aren't contributing, but you might find that someone else is scoring more of the important goals. Balanced scoring doesn't change who is scoring the big goals at the big times and who's padding their stats in a meaningless game.

This statistic ties in somewhat with the usual rant that the Wings benefit from a weaker division. It also ties in with the fact that the Wings have been in the top 3 in the regular season since the last time they won the Cup and then comes the playoffs and they exit early to "inferior" teams. Look at the 2004 series against Calgary. With the series tied 2-2and the Wings in need of some clutch scoring, what happens? They lose two in a row, 1-0 and are done. I can't calculate the statistic for that team, but I have a strong suspicion that the most clutch player on the Wings that year was sitting on the sidelines with bad eyesite during those two games.

Look at the game last night against the Wild. The words used to describe the Wings on nhl.com are outhustled, outworked and outplayed in a game against a pretty good team that is always frustrating to play. And the goal scorers are: Franzen, Cleary and Lebda. The stars of the team contributed one assist in an away game against a conference rival. Seems to me like the stat has some merit.

Look at the Flames game last night. Losing 3-0 to a conference rival in a game which is the difference between 9th place in the conference and 6th place. If Phoenix wins last night, they're in 6th and the Flames are in ninth. Important game. Phaneuf scores two goals to get the Flames back in it. Iginla scores with 8 seconds left to tie and scores the only goal in the shootout. Without Iginla's goal, Phaneuf's effort only pads his totals, it does nothing for the team. Iginla scored the clutch goal. There's no doubt that there's a bit of chicken and egg in that analysis, but like I said, without the third goal, the first two mean nothing.

In a tight game, Zetterberg failed to score. In an important game to stay in the playoff hunt, Iginla scores the tying and winning goals.

At the end of the day, its just another stat, another way to break the game down, no more or less important than goals, assists, points, +/-.

Edited February 6, 2008 by calfan

[up2here 41]

I disagree. The fifth goal in a 5-0 win is not as important as the second and third goal in a come from behind 3-2 win.

I also disagree that this statistic rewards teams with unbalanced scoring. If you had the formulas, you could calculate the clutch factor for the Wings team as a whole and you might find that certain "top" players have a lower clutch factor than other players. It doesn't mean they aren't contributing, but you might find that someone else is scoring more of the important goals. Balanced scoring doesn't change who is scoring the big goals at the big times and who's padding their stats in a meaningless game.

This statistic ties in somewhat with the usual rant that the Wings benefit from a weaker division. It also ties in with the fact that the Wings have been in the top 3 in the regular season since the last time they won the Cup and then comes the playoffs and they exit early to "inferior" teams. Look at the 2004 series against Calgary. With the series tied 2-2and the Wings in need of some clutch scoring, what happens? They lose two in a row, 1-0 and are done. I can't calculate the statistic for that team, but I have a strong suspicion that the most clutch player on the Wings that year was sitting on the sidelines with bad eyesite during those two games.

Look at the game last night against the Wild. The words used to describe the Wings on nhl.com are outhustled, outworked and outplayed in a game against a pretty good team that is always frustrating to play. And the goal scorers are: Franzen, Cleary and Lebda. The stars of the team contributed one assist in an away game against a conference rival. Seems to me like the stat has some merit.

Look at the Flames game last night. Losing 3-0 to a conference rival in a game which is the difference between 9th place in the conference and 6th place. If Phoenix wins last night, they're in 6th and the Flames are in ninth. Important game. Phaneuf scores two goals to get the Flames back in it. Iginla scores with 8 seconds left to tie and scores the only goal in the shootout. Without Iginla's goal, Phaneuf's effort only pads his totals, it does nothing for the team. Iginla scored the clutch goal. There's no doubt that there's a bit of chicken and egg in that analysis, but like I said, without the third goal, the first two mean nothing.

In a tight game, Zetterberg failed to score. In an important game to stay in the playoff hunt, Iginla scores the tying and winning goals.

At the end of the day, its just another stat, another way to break the game down, no more or less important than goals, assists, points, +/-.

First of all Zetterberg might not have scored but he set up the winning goal. Second the central is no longer a weak division and third where has Iginla's scoring been for the last 2 weeks? Dont those games mean something too? Bottom line is Zetterberg and Iginla are both great players and if you asked 30 GM's 15 would take Iginla and 15 would take Zetterberg.

[akustyk 84]

I disagree. The fifth goal in a 5-0 win is not as important as the second and third goal in a come from behind 3-2 win.

agreed

I also disagree that this statistic rewards teams with unbalanced scoring.

I didn't say "scoring". I wrote about load and teams where rosters are so

unbalanced that the 1st line simply has to carry the load to keep the team

competitive. that's much different than players on teams featuring 2 quality

lines (I'm not even mentioning pre-cap 3 lines deep Wings or Avalanche here).

if you are coach and have the freedom to not have to play a single line

to produce - those 1st line players won't be scoring as many clutch goals.

Caps and Ovechkin are perfect example here. yes, AO scores a lot of clutch

goals. why him? because no other player on Caps has this skills and if AO

doesn't produce the entire team is just a mid-AHL quality

If you had the formulas, you could calculate the clutch factor for the Wings team as a whole and you might find that certain "top" players have a lower clutch factor than other players. It doesn't mean they aren't contributing, but you might find that someone else is scoring more of the important goals. Balanced scoring doesn't change who is scoring the big goals at the big times and who's padding their stats in a meaningless game.

I agree, but the thing is, again: there's difference between those who

score goals because they're good and those who score important goals

because they need to put all effort into the game for their team to have

any chance to be competitive.

all what you say is perfectly clear when it comes to playoffs. then you'll

really see who is really producing clutch goals. regular season is not when

best players play their best. see: Pavel Datsyuk. according to these stats

he's just a casual "puke-poker". but then, in playoffs he's been a monster

who delivered timely goals.

This statistic ties in somewhat with the usual rant that the Wings benefit from a weaker division.

this is a common and often repeated saying. and it's mostly one big BS.

Wings are 7-7-0 against Central this year so if this is where you're trying to

find their 17 point advantage in standings - this is not the case. simple

maths and you see Wings having NHL lead without those games against

Central Division. which invalidates all this dumb talk.

and frankly... if you ever watched a game or two against the team like Chicago

or Columbus - Wings are often sleepwalking these games and it's only

3rd periods where they awake and put some effort. at times that's enough to

pull a win but often it's not.

Wings are not the most talented team in this league right now. and it's not

that they only play weak teams and pile easy points. it's the defense, chemistry

and coaching that do the job here.

It also ties in with the fact that the Wings have been in the top 3 in the regular season since the last time they won the Cup and then comes the playoffs and they exit early to "inferior" teams. Look at the 2004 series against Calgary. With the series tied 2-2and the Wings in need of some clutch scoring, what happens?

that's good question. I think you got the point here. Wings sucked terribly

in scoring department in that series. but then it's 2008 now and this team's

top scorers are better than 2004 and more mature. Datsyuk 2008 and

Zetterberg 2008 are different story I believe. I still keep my opinion that

they are clutch players even if the artificial stats don't show this. the thing

is Wings have enough firepower in 2nd line to get some load off Datsyuk

and Zetterberg. that's still not enough for my liking but this team is

nevertheless better than 2004.

They lose two in a row, 1-0 and are done. I can't calculate the statistic for that team, but I have a strong suspicion that the most clutch player on the Wings that year was sitting on the sidelines with bad eyesite during those two games.

tough call. healthy Stevie would not drag the team alone through this series

with his scoring ability. we missed his leadership mostly, but I'd also say the

entire team was lacking heart and desire to win it. whatever was the reason

I still think with the talent package they had then it could've still be a won

series if Wings put more effort and had more faith. IMHO, they eventually

failed because of lack of hunger. or because Flames were visibly more hungry.

Look at the game last night against the Wild. The words used to describe the Wings on nhl.com are outhustled, outworked and outplayed in a game against a pretty good team that is always frustrating to play.

I only watched a part of 1st period (it's still 2:00 in the night here ) but I'd say Wild

came out flying and going for a win while Wings started with slower pace, making them

look lost with Wild assault. can't say more about the rest of the game.

And the goal scorers are: Franzen, Cleary and Lebda. The stars of the team contributed one assist in an away game against a conference rival. Seems to me like the stat has some merit.

the thing some ppl fail to see here is: they played about top team in another Division

and won it. outhustled, outworked and outplayed - OK. but winner. how come ?

I'm trying to keep a bigger picture of this and it says:

those Wings have god damned cushion in the standings and there's

no reason they should put huge effort into every game if they need

this extra hustle in April-June (well... hopefully). they just can and

should afford to play lightly as many games as reasonable. if there's

room to let 2nd and 3rd line play rather than push the 1st - I'm

all for that. Wings youth needs to be given opportunity, even if

they may eventually not get the job done. it's 17 points advantage

and 30 games to go.

plus: I'd not judge star players after just a single game. especially

at this time of the year and at this position Wings are now. there's

no "must" about Datsyuk and Zetterberg scoring now. they can pot

a goal or two but they may as well have a night off. there's more

hockey to play this year.

Look at the Flames game last night. Losing 3-0 to a conference rival in a game which is the difference between 9th place in the conference and 6th place. If Phoenix wins last night, they're in 6th and the Flames are in ninth.

you get the point in last sentence. I'd not call it a "must win" game

but it's still closer to "Flames need to put the effort" than "Wings must

beat Wild".

Important game. Phaneuf scores two goals to get the Flames back in it. Iginla scores with 8 seconds left to tie and scores the only goal in the shootout. Without Iginla's goal, Phaneuf's effort only pads his totals, it does nothing for the team. Iginla scored the clutch goal. There's no doubt that there's a bit of chicken and egg in that analysis, but like I said, without the third goal, the first two mean nothing.

In a tight game, Zetterberg failed to score. In an important game to stay in the playoff hunt, Iginla scores the tying and winning goals.

let's get a better example than this. a real "must win" game. Game 5

of Wings-Flames series in 2007 playoffs.

Zetterberg pots 2 goals.

Iginla? Phaneuf? umm... were they playing? I actually saw Iginla put some effort

in that series but Phaneuf was invisible. except for some good hits he's been

miserable for the hype surrounding him. clutch? oooops, don't think so.

At the end of the day, its just another stat, another way to break the game down, no more or less important than goals, assists, points, +/-.

that's right, but I insist you're reading to much into it and take little

account what's around this stats. there's different pressure on teams

which are 8th in Conference than on teams which are well on top.

and most certainly there's more pressure on players who "must"

carry their teams at the moment than on those who just "may"

pick a goal or two once in a while.

[dallas27 7]

Goalies are 3298742386523596 times more clutch than players.

[puckloo39 5,686]

Goalies are 3298742386523596 times more clutch than players.

you're just saying that because you're a goalie, Dallas. j/k

<<< the man to the left defines clutch.

So does Dan Cleary, in my estimation. I love it when the role players step up!

[Guest jaytan]

This proves what I'd suspected all along. Thornton and Iginla are the two best forwards in the league.

[Guest jaytan]

So does Dan Cleary, in my estimation. I love it when the role players step up!

I think Cleary's graduated from the role player level. He's our third-leading scorer among forwards with 20 goals, 19 assists and a +22 rating.

[dallas27 7]

you're just saying that because you're a goalie, Dallas. j/k

<<< the man to the left defines clutch.

So does Dan Cleary, in my estimation. I love it when the role players step up!

Yeaaaaa. But it ultimately comes down to the goalie to make the save, nobody imo can be more clutch than that in hockey.

I won't argue with Hasek defining clutch, well maybe Mags But that is a different sport so I digress. Cleary has a knack of finding the back of the net when they need it, I like to believe it's him being rewarded for all his hard work in the game and in practice.

Edited February 6, 2008 by dallas27

[MacK_Attack 108]

I have a hard time believing any "clutch" formula that does not include Mats Sundin near the top.

[Guest jaytan]

Yeah, he was so clutch in all of those Stanley Cup runs.

[Turkey 0]

I don't know about you folks but elaborate formulas like this strike me as sort of silly. I think we can argue all day about which players are great and which aren't, which are clutch and which aren't, etc... The whole thing is subjective and no magic formula makes that any less the case.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Here's the problem with this stat: It "penalizes" teams with a huge +/- in the GF/GA category, and rewards teams that are constantly in close games. For example below is the Ranked list by "Clutch" Factor, but I've also included their team GF/GA +/- number:

1. Iginla 1.09 >>> -1

2. Thornton 1.07 >>> +13

3. Ovechkin 1.06 >>> -14

4. Getzlaf 1.05 >>> -7

5. Kovalchuk .98 >>> -29

6. Crosby .98 >>> +11

7. Lecavalier .93 >>> -24

8. Zetterberg .86 >>> +70

9. St. Louis .80 >>> -24

10. Alfredsson .79 >>> +26

Take away Kovalchuk and no player in the top 6 has a team +/- greater than 14, while no one in the bottom four is within 24 of an even +/-. Is it fair to call guys like Zetterberg or Alfredsson not "clutch" simply because their team defense puts their team +/- number nowhere near the midrange teams?

My main point: Part of the reason these players score "clutch" points as they discuss is because they aren't playing "clutch" defense to go with it, thus causing the game to be tight.

Sorry, but I'll take Z and Lids scoring goals early and then playing solid D the rest of the way any day over this "clutch" factor.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[Mudvayneowns91 0]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. I'm fine with the Wings not being clutch because they just win. Although last night they were pretty freakin clutch with a minute left. Thank you Dano

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

I'm sorry. But I refuse to believe that players in goal slumps (Iginla) are more "clutch" than players who score consistently (Z) simply because they have more GWGs.

And the 5th goal is a 5-0 win IS important. By the logic you are using, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are also not important. In hockey anything is possible. Ask the Rangers and Habs. When you say "no team can score 5 goals in 5 minutes" you leave yourself open to humility.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Where's Robert Lang on this list? That man has single handedly carried the Wings in the playoffs the last few years when guys like Yzerman and Lidstrom were lacking.

[stormboy 47]

Without Iginla's goal, Phaneuf's effort only pads his totals, it does nothing for the team. Iginla scored the clutch goal. There's no doubt that there's a bit of chicken and egg in that analysis, but like I said, without the third goal, the first two mean nothing.

i think more than a bit of chicken and egg. you could just as easily say that without phaneuf's goals, iginla's at the end only pads his totals.

clearly, there is a lot of value in clutch players. but at the end of the day, the teams that win have many not one guy who steps up every time but enough guys who step up enough of the time to get wins. before the minny game i was a little frustrated about our last few games:

boston: dats, z, rafalski, homer, lids are the only ones with points in the contest.

colorodo: other than draper's empty netter, same story. no one other than the top five has points.

phoenix: chelly gets one assist. we win, but other than him, only our top five get points.

on the one hand, i like that those five guys have been playing well enough (along with our goalies) to win those games. on the other, i really am uneasy with the fact that they're the ONLY ones scoring.

so, our top five guys only contributing one assist and us still winning a tough game? i'll take it. even if zetterberg wasn't "clutch" last night, somebody made it happen, and that's what counts.

[calfan 0]

i think more than a bit of chicken and egg. you could just as easily say that without phaneuf's goals, iginla's at the end only pads his totals.

That's exactly the point of the statistic. By this measure, scoring a late goal in a lost game (say 8 seconds left with the score 3-0 rather than 3-2) doesn't mean much by this statistic.

I don't think this is the be all and end all of statistics, but I think it has some merit when trying to compare players. Let's say the Wings have to make a cap decision on signing Cleary or signing Homer today. There are a variety of different measures that mgmt and the fans going to consider in evaluating the decision. Cleary has more points in fewer games. Homer's maybe a bad example because his big ole ass creates a lot of goals in which he doesn't even get a point. But, what if Homer's clutch factor is 1.05 and Cleary's is .8, ie Homer gets points at more important times in a game or vice versa. As a fan, do you want the guy who consistently pots the 5th goal in a meaningless 5-0 game or the guy who consistently gets the second or 3rd goal in a crucial 3-2 come from behind win? Some guys disappear in the big games or in the critical parts of any game. Some guys step up in those situations. When you're trying to win the Cup, who do you want on your team? More importantly, what type of player do you want your best players to be?

[calfan 0]

I'm sorry. But I refuse to believe that players in goal slumps (Iginla) are more "clutch" than players who score consistently (Z) simply because they have more GWGs.

And the 5th goal is a 5-0 win IS important. By the logic you are using, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are also not important. In hockey anything is possible. Ask the Rangers and Habs. When you say "no team can score 5 goals in 5 minutes" you leave yourself open to humility.

The stat doesn't say they aren't important, it says they are less important. To me, the first and second goals would be important, the third less so than the second, etc.

[calfan 0]

I didn't say "scoring". I wrote about load and teams where rosters are so

unbalanced that the 1st line simply has to carry the load to keep the team

competitive. that's much different than players on teams featuring 2 quality

lines (I'm not even mentioning pre-cap 3 lines deep Wings or Avalanche here).

if you are coach and have the freedom to not have to play a single line

to produce - those 1st line players won't be scoring as many clutch goals.

Caps and Ovechkin are perfect example here. yes, AO scores a lot of clutch

goals. why him? because no other player on Caps has this skills and if AO

doesn't produce the entire team is just a mid-AHL quality

I agree, but the thing is, again: there's difference between those who

score goals because they're good and those who score important goals

because they need to put all effort into the game for their team to have

any chance to be competitive.

Making one comparison - Iginla and Zetterberg - Zetterberg is averaging more TOI and shifts/game than Iginla. By your analysis, he should have the better clutch rating. Are you saying because the Wings have a better overall team his clutch factor is lower because he doesn't work as hard as Iginla?

all what you say is perfectly clear when it comes to playoffs. then you'll

really see who is really producing clutch goals. regular season is not when

best players play their best. see: Pavel Datsyuk. according to these stats

he's just a casual "puke-poker". but then, in playoffs he's been a monster

who delivered timely goals.

Datsyuk 2008 and

Zetterberg 2008 are different story I believe. I still keep my opinion that

they are clutch players even if the artificial stats don't show this.

let's get a better example than this. a real "must win" game. Game 5

of Wings-Flames series in 2007 playoffs.

Zetterberg pots 2 goals.

I added some edits into your comments above, but let's take a look at the last two para's I left in your quote. First off, I'm not sure the Flames series last year is a good example. They were awful in 3 of the games. Yes, game 5 was very important and Zetterberg scored the second goal to take a 2-0 lead. Clutch goal, would factor well in this measure. But he also scored the 4th goal, not so clutch Dats was in on goals 4 and 5. Not so clutch.

How about the series as a whole. Z&D scored points in the 3 blowouts in Detroit. The tight games in Calgary? 0fer. The players always say the hardest game to win is the last one. Z&D? 0fer. Not so clutch in the tougher games of the series.

How about the Sharks series? Want to get that game 1 lead? Z&D - nadda. Needing to get the split at home, the boys were clutch with two points each. Want to take the series lead on the road in game 3? Oops, nadda again. Can't fall behind 3-1? Hello Z&D, are you playing? Game 5 is an important game. Z&D get 3 points each. Game 6, D comes up with a clutch point.

How about the Ducks series? Each series gets more important. Games 1 and 2 in Detroit, both get clutch points in the games. Game 3 is a laugher from start to finish, but Z gets 2 clutch points. D's point is irrelevant. Game 4 to go up 3-1 in the series - no sign of life from the big guys. Game 5 (that all important game), no points again. Game 6 to stave off elimination and the boys get 2 points each, but they come when the Wings are losing 3-0, 4-1 and 4-2. Important goals in trying to get back in the game, certainly. But hardly clutch goals as the game was a bit of a laugher and while the Wings made it close in the end, they were never really in the game.

So what do I see in all of this? With one notable exception, Zetterberg and Datsyuk only had multiple point games in laughers. No big deal, cuz a tight 2-1 game doesn't lend itself to multiple point games anyway. However, in 18 playoff games, they both got shut out in 8 games and Zetterberg was shut out in 11 games in total. Twelve of the games were close games where the total goals scored was 5 or less. Zetterberg only got points in two of those games. I think the clutch factor is relevant and Zetterberg's rating seems to be proved out by the fact that he doesn't seem to show up on the score sheet in the big games.

Your right. let's see what happens when the games count. But so far in their playoff careers, neither Datsyuk nor Zetterberg have had much impact on the Wings' success.

[akustyk 84]

(...)

Your right. let's see what happens when the games count. But so far in their playoff careers, neither Datsyuk nor Zetterberg have had much impact on the Wings' success.

shortened for reading purposes.

I see your logic and I see what it is about. and yeah, with such definition of

clutch goals I'm not going to argue Iginla is more crucial to (any) team than

Datsyuk or Zetterberg are with Wings now.

the thing I'm speaking about here is that players contribution and role

depends on their team shape and how much of the load is on the 1st line

guys shoulders and how much can they count on other lines. my point is

that with Flames who lack scoring behind 1st line, Iginla must deliver or

the team is basically doomed. which is basically what common knowledge

says: Flames play good when Iginla plays good.

now with Wings who have solid 2nd line and 3rd that is able to chip in

a goal once in a while - Z and D don't have to push as much. would any

of them be playing this role if he played for a team that has single

scoring line - that's possible. neither of them is a power forward type

who is singlehandedly able to change the fortunes, though.

anyway... I don't think stats are telling the story here. there's just too

many factors in assessing how much the player is worth when the game

is at stake. if I was NHL coach and had freedom of choice I'd play guys

like Iginla, Modano, Lidstrom or (as much as I despise this guy and hate

to admit it) Pronger who are able to play shift after shift and be a constant

threat to the other team. not because of what their stats say but

because they have the tools and experience to get the job done when

the game is on the verge. do Datsyuk and Zetterberg belong to the

same family? not yet, but they've shown they're capable of joining this

elite club

Edited February 7, 2008 by akustyk