All you young stats geeks out there: "Mutual +/-"
Motivation
A couple of things inspired this FanPost. First, after making a line generator -- based on our perception that Coach Q jumbles lines hoping to catch lightning in a bottle -- I figured it would be nice to find out which players actually play best with each other. Second, I was looking for yet another way to procrastinate and realized that NHL game reports like this one aren't hard to parse.
Actually, it's the other way around; I figured out how to write a program to read the reports, and this is just the first (read: easiest) thing that came to mind when brainstorming something statistic-ky to do.
Formulation and Results
To figure out who plays well with who, I made up a statistic called Mutual +/-. Basically, it is the +/- (even-strength and shorthanded goals for minus against) when two players are both on the ice. Calculating it is simply a matter of noting who is on the ice when a goal is scored and tallying +'s and -'s in a grid.
Here are the Mutual +/- numbers for the 82 games of the Blackhawks' 2009-2010 season (apologies to the sight-impaired; larger version available upon request):
To read the table, pick a player, and as you scan across, each number is your chosen player's Mutual +/- when he is on the ice with the player in that column. The gray numbers running down the diagonal are the traditional +/- numbers for each player over the course of the season (the eagle-eyed or stats-minded among you will notice the table is symmetric across the diagonal).
Note that this isn't the most useful of numbers; it will obviously be skewed because certain lines or pairings will have been more stable, and some combinations may not have been on the ice for long.
Also, these numbers aren't as revealing for forward lines as they are for defensive pairings, because it only considers two players at a time. To figure out optimal lines, the table above would have to be a cube instead of a square!
ADDENDUM (4/14): As requested I've made extra grids that adjust the Mutual +/- numbers by the goals scored (for and against) and TOI for each player pair. Since the goals are the "unit" used for +/-, I multiplied by those to weight productive pairs; for TOI, I divided, to adjust for time spent together.
- Weighted Mutual +/- [Mutual +/-] x [# Goals]
- TOI Adjusted Mutual +/- [Mutual +/-] / [TOI]
- Consolidated Mutual +/- [Mutual +/-] x [# Goals] / [TOI]
Observations
- Even in their limited time, the "Hammer of the Gods" line (Sharp-Toews-Hossa) is clearly making an impact; Sharp and Hossa are +13 when together. You couldn't construct a better line.
- Brouwer clearly benefited from his time on the top line; his numbers with Toews and Kane stand out from those with rest of his past/current linemates.
- Fourth Line Magic? Kopecky and Eager are a whopping +10 together. Not surprising given how they ended the season, but amazing nonetheless. Fraser's numbers are better than Burish's (though Burr hasn't played nearly as many games).
- It may be because of his negative +/-, but it looks like Byfuglien shouldn't play with anybody. Except, perhaps Sharp, Versteeg, and Hossa -- some indication of what line he may have done well on when he was a forward.
- Other notable forward minuses: Ladd-Bolland (second line woes?), Brouwer-Kop, Ladd-Versteeg.
- No surprises on the blue line: Marlboro 72 was the best pairing (though with the most time together), and Hammer Soup was the next best. The rest are pretty much all the same.
- Interesting to see that Sopel doesn't do as well with D2K or Hendry, though. In fact, Duncs doesn't have good numbers with anybody but Seabs and Cam Barker. Small sample size, perhaps.
- Bang for our Buck: Our big ticket players (Tazer, 20 Cent, D2K, Panda, Soup) play really well together. Yay! Sharpie and T-Bone have also been great this year.
- Get well, Soupy! While Keith and Seabrook give the forwards a Mutual +/- total of +55 and +53, respectively, Campbell gives them a still-very-respectable +43. Hjammer gives them +17 and Sopel +6. This sum/total doesn't actually mean anything, but does tell a thing or two about the offensive contribution of our blueliners.
- For some reason, Madden on the ice with the Hammer Soup pairing has not been good. Is there something he isn't telling us? (Hjammer & Ladd also seem to have something going on)
- I know that +/- doesn't make much sense for goalies (I guess it's basically a team goal differential), but how much less lazy Kaner has been playing in front of Niemi is rather striking.
- These numbers are slightly incomplete due to the omission (for
space reasonshead asplosion aversion) of Andrew Ebbett, Jack Skille, Jake Dowell, and Radek Smolenak (remember him? yeah, me neither).
As a final note: Please go ahead and point out any errors, or any new statistical analysis you'd like to see. I can't guarantee anything (I threw out 90% of the ideas I came up with... I'm being Kaner-lazy at this) but if there's any light to be shed, I wouldn't mind giving my new toy a spin.
Also, thanks for putting up with some pretty heavy writing... without pretty pictures (like gmh's) to wash it down.
77 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
new statistical anaysis should be the CUBE!
jk, that might be too much to create for you and to read for us…
a few things I noticed:
1.) how great is it that only Buff and Madden are minus players? and yes, 0 minus players would be better.
2.) Hossa and Sharpie are only minus players with one player on the team (apparently Kop is too busy on his knees with Hossa to produce a +). It’s no secret that they are arguably the best 2-way players on the ice, so this is a cool stat to back that up. Seabs and Toews are no slouches either with only 2 minus pairings.
3.) The best defensive forwards play dropped off in front of Huet. Toews went from +18 to +5 and Sharp went from +18 to +9. Combining this with Kane’s stat that you pointed out, it looks like the best players weren’t playing their best in front of Huey. Either that, or Huet let in some sofites on them. It is interesting to see that Hossa improved his mutal +/- when Huet was there…maybe he was trying harder to help the Man from France?
4.) nice job!
adjhafslkdjhfaks A+++
you made a program to read the NHL reports. you’re like. My hero.
But when it was suggested to him that Toews v. Kane seems likely to become a sidebar to every future international hockey tournament, he smiled and said: "I'd like us to win something together, too."
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
Haha I've never gotten THAT reaction before
It was mainly out of boredom / desire to procrastinate, I swear. But, I did take it as an opportunity to learn a new language (I did this in Python), so it was kind of a win-win.
true story
My friends and I set up a weird fantasy league that drafted NHL players but scored them based on, uh, the Quidditch scoring system? And I tried to find a way to do it automatically but my background is business, not comp sci, so I ended up creating a spreadsheet on Excel. The raw data had to be entered manually, unfortunately, so the league kind of fell apart 3/4 into the season.
I considered learning computer programming for it but wasn’t even sure what programming language I had to learn to read NHL reports. Any tips for starting on Python?
But when it was suggested to him that Toews v. Kane seems likely to become a sidebar to every future international hockey tournament, he smiled and said: "I'd like us to win something together, too."
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Apr 13, 2010 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Lol!
That’s… quite awesome, actually. Too bad it didn’t work out all the way.
To answer your question, I guess it depends on your programming background. Python is a really “flexible” language, so it’s a good first serious language to pick up. It’s also become really popular in recent years (part of the reason I chose it, in anticipation of possible imminent unemployment).
If you’re from a business background and you haven’t done much programming before, I’d recommend brushing up your VBA skills first, actually — since Excel can do so much, and integrates nicely. It’s like Basic, so it’s easy to learn, though it has its limitations.
If you know some programming already (even if it was just some intro class you took in school) I think Python is easy enough to pick up. I has similarities to everything (C, Perl, Basic, etc), plus it comes with a soft copy of the manual. It may be way too detailed for its own good but I always learn languages by Google anyway (I Google everything… and somebody almost always has an answer).
I guess what I’d recommend is picking something else up first if you’re completely new to programming (or take a class!), otherwise there’s enough resources out there to jump in. Somebody walking you through the first steps (especially setting the darn stuff up) saves a lot of time, but after that it’s not hard to self-teach.
Yikes, that’s a mouthful. But I hope that helps!
I live and die by Google too
What I think I’ll do is check out Python for a bit and play around with it, but if that proves too much, I’ll go over VBA or get a Python for Dummies or something.
/geekery
But when it was suggested to him that Toews v. Kane seems likely to become a sidebar to every future international hockey tournament, he smiled and said: "I'd like us to win something together, too."
(Tweets @ChiBlackhawks and blogs at Blackhawks Down Low.)
by chiblackhawks on Apr 14, 2010 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Ha! Nice job
We need to combine our skills on some future projects – your ’know how" combined with my “no how” could be dangerous.
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 12, 2010 10:14 PM CDT reply actions
We should!
Then we can make our own table of “Mutual +/-” based on how badly we get along with each other.
huh?
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 13, 2010 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions
as in an SCH mutual +/- based on TOT (time on thread)?
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 13, 2010 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions
huh?
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 13, 2010 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions
huh?
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 13, 2010 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions
you're proving why
a high concentration of women makes Hawks fans the smartest
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
huh?
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 13, 2010 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Wow
Cool info, I can’t see Soupy’s numbers though.
Next I want to see +/- per TOI min. ;) There’s so much to think about.
2009 SCH Post Whore
2010 Troll Collector
SCH's Resident Mom
The sun never sets on a badass
Could you weight these
by number of times they were on the ice together when a goal was scored?
That might make it a better indicator of performance per line.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
Yeah
That’s more what I meant.
2009 SCH Post Whore
2010 Troll Collector
SCH's Resident Mom
The sun never sets on a badass
Goes back to the whole +/- debate
Yeah it’s not a great stat to begin with for that reason exactly. I went ahead and made a weighted version (too lazy to add it to the post):
I weighted by goals (rather than TOI, which would be better but much more work) and then normalized it so that Hossa was still +24. The +0’s and -0’s are just small numbers.
I think in the end it shifts the numbers to the top line/pairing more than anything else, so it’s not quite as good for my goal of identifying who plays well with who (since it favors players who actually did play with each other: see Marlboro 72). But, I really like the overall +/- numbers (for individual players) it comes up with.
As for the cut-off thing — like gmh’s pictures you need wide mode. Or you could click on the pic. Or just take advantage of the symmetry and look at the chart in the other direction.
(Sorry it took so long; procrastinating on taxes also leads to more mistakes, go figure)
I’m not sure you weighted them the way I had in mind. So that I can tell, what did you do exactly in these weighted mutual +/-?
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
Yeah, there's more than one way to do it
I first tried dividing by number goals (to compensate for lack of ice time, rather than the other way around), but the numbers got kind of ridiculous.
So I did the opposite. Specifically the formula I used was:
wMPM = 2.4 x MPM x Goals / 197
MPM = Mutual +/-
wMPM = Weighted MPM
Goals = # of goals scored while the player is on the ice
197 = max(Goals) of anyone on the ice (Huet, of course)
2.4 = correction factor to get Hossa to roughly +24
And… this thread is quickly becoming scarier by the hour…
On second thought
I see what you mean. I think my first way might be what you wanted. But it was maxing out some of the minor players (they’d be like +100, 0, or -100), so I thought it would make the chart too confusing.
The best way to do what you want would be to use Trixie’s suggestion of dividing by TOI. I think the numbers would work out more nicely than by # of goals.
What I was aiming for was simply this
wMPM = MPM x GoalsM
wMPM = weighted mutual +/-
MPM = duh
GoalsM = total goals (for + against) scored when two players were on the ice
if MPM = 0, then display GoalsM in blue
This would give an idea if they’d been on the ice together a lot when something happened. It’s not an especially good weighting, but you never know just how bad it is until you run the numbers.
Then I came up with this horrorshow:
wMPM = n x MPM x GoalsM / GoalsT
wMPM = weighted mutual +/-
MPM = duh
GoalsM = total goals scored (for + against) while two players were on the ice
GoalsT = total goals scored (for + against) for the season
n = some factor to make the wMPM large enough to think about (maybe to make Hossa-Hossa have a 100 wMPM)
I don’t know what this would give you, but it looks fancy.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
I think that's what I did, actually
Sorry that I wasn’t clear, and to be honest it’s because I wasn’t sure what I did. But I had a parallel grid/table where I added +1 every time I added +1 or -1 to the original grid/table. So I think my Goals = your GoalsM. My bad.
Then instead of GoalsT I used GoalsM when Huet is on the ice with Huet, and n = 2.4 to make Hossa +24.
I just downloaded all of the “Event Summary” files so I have TOI data now. I’ll find a way to add it all up tomorrow, but I won’t be able to do pairwise TOI. That would mean using the shift chart data which is way beyond Patrick Kane effort.
Also
Just realized pairwise TOI is the only thing that’ll make sense. Too much work for me but apparently not for this guy. Now, if anyone wants to volunteer to farm that data out for me…
That's sad
but also makes me jealous. I wish my obsession with various sports was at sad levels.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
Wow!
OK, let me think about whether I have the time/skills/software to do something like that. Thanks for the weighted numbers, but it still shows Buff screwing up everyone’s – numbers, heh heh.
I just have a hard time with all the variables involved figuring out what numbers actually mean something.
2009 SCH Post Whore
2010 Troll Collector
SCH's Resident Mom
The sun never sets on a badass
Don't bother
I figured out how to parse the head-to-head TOI charts at timeonice.com. Yay.
Unfortunately, I then proceeded to eject my battery from my not-plugged-in laptop. So I’ll have to redo it, but I’ll probably have it up by tomorrow.
This fanpost is alright...
despite having no pretty pictures or anything. ;) I keeed, this is pretty awesome. I’m always impressed with the smarts & skills of everyone on this site. What am I doing here?!
Anyway. My observation? Poor Madden. Apparently, he’s a -2 whenever that guy wearing #11 comes on the ice. Also, Buff’s line has a lot of red numbers.
by ahnfire on Apr 13, 2010 2:28 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
He's -2 when he plays with himself
No wonder he found his way into that limo
Tremendously tremendous
by synaptique on Apr 13, 2010 2:57 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is so interesting
Great job, VerStig!
Also, it reinforced my opinion that Soupy and Kaner play really well together. I’ve always thought they had a nice chemistry and sort of seem to know where the other one would/should be.
VerStig is the new intersect
I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
- Rodney Dangerfield
Great comment,
in a… uh… greaterest? post.
/Note unceasing sarcastic laughter in background.
by burpchelischili on Apr 13, 2010 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions
brb
I have to go wipe up my drool.
This is incredible! Not only are your spreadsheets prettier than mine, and you figured out a way to calculate things without actually doing them all by hand! I’m pretty jealous right now.
Oh, Buff Buff Buff, what do we do with you. How easy would it be to separate his stats as a forward and as a defenseman? I feel like his -7 with Keith IS A SIGN (athough he’s also -7 with Seabs, so).
Re: Madden, I think it’s just a function of him being a checking line center. There might be a clash between his line being more inclined to be on the ice for shots-against and Campbell being a more offensively-minded d-man. Keep Madden away from meatball soup, Coach Q!
I also found myself staring at the goalie column for a really long time. I was trying to figure out if it was strictly necessary to include the goalies, at first, but now I just appreciate being able to see if certain players fare better in front of a certain name — or vice versa.
What I’d like to see is a chart like this for CORSI, although that might be a program for another day, since the NHL reports don’t contain CORSI numbers.
Like I mentioned in your thread
We should do a collaboration at some point… your awesomely awesome graphs + my colorful spreadsheet = world-ruling potential. Bwahaha.
Buff has given me a lot of headaches because even if I could separate his D/forward stats, I think there’s been a game or two where he’s played both. It was bad enough for the line generator; I think doing stats with him would be even more of a pain.
Also, I’m still pretty new to this whole hockey stats thing, but where can I easily get CORSI numbers? Does BTN have some nice database I don’t know about?
sent you an email
As for CORSI, just use this link:
http://www.timeonice.com/shots0910.php?gamenumber=
but paste the NHL game number after the last equal sign.
Cool, thanks!
Seeing as I just figured out how to parse the head-to-head TOI from there, hopefully this won’t be too terribly difficult either. I’ll see what I can do, though I might want to get my next thing going before Friday since it’s not directly playoffs-related.
Got your e-mail, but go figure I’m responding here first. I think SCH has overtaken my inbox in my tab order… Hi, my name is VerStig, and I have a problem.
(btw, I think this stuff is cool and hope that other people do too — but I also don’t mean to step on your toes as our resident statistician; though, I don’t have nearly the dedication or the insight and I’m liable to go all byfuglien on it at any given point)
I'm not the resident statistician!
I know jack shit about stats! Mostly I just get obsessed with random things and then get waaay too invested in them.
statistician, n.
someone versed in the collection and interpretation of numerical data
See:
1st per stats, 2nd per stats, 3rd per stats x100000
I love this (in a totally platonic way, I swear)
This would be awesome split for 5-5, 5-4, 4-5, and 4-4.
Sanguis Bibimus. Corpus Edimus. Tolle Corpus Sharpi.
I can look into that
Though I’ll be honest, it might not make it high enough on my list. Technically +/- isn’t defined for them (except shorties), but I’d definitely like to see which special teams units work. How sad would it be if you were a minus player on the PP, though?
Didn't realize that shorties were the only thing besides 5v5 impacting plus minus
Wow. Madden’s stats look even worse.
Sanguis Bibimus. Corpus Edimus. Tolle Corpus Sharpi.
So let's make some lines
Using the numbers above, the 2 guys with the highest + ranking are Hossa and Sharp at 13. Start the team with them. Who adds the most + assuming these 2 are together? Toews with +15 (7 Sharp, +8 Hossa) for a line total of +28
So taking Sharp, Hossa and Toews off the list and using that algorithm I get::
Hossa Sharp Toews +28 (This line just rocks)
Kopecky Eager Frazer +20 (Not bad vs. other team’s 4th lines I guess)
Brouwer Kane Bolland +13 (Kind of disappointing actually. Will the REAL David Bolland please stand up….)
So (just using the math) we have 3 of Q’s real lines there . Next line has a surprise. Left over are Burrish, Bickell, Buff, Ladd, Madden and Versteeg. Top number within those is Ladd and Madden at +4. Who’s the best with those 2?
Buff -9
Versteeg -1
Burrish 0
Bickell +4
For a final line of Ladd Madden Bickell +8 (drops to +3 with Versteeg)
Hopefully this is low because of them being the shut down line????
How do I know the Karma is right here? If you add up the resulting team total, you get……..
It’d be interesting to separate the +/- into (+) only (best offensive goal scoring matchups) and (-) only (who are the best shut down combinations?)
And if you REALLY want to do more data stuff……can we see Nashville’s numbers to compare their lines with ours?
I see you turned on Family Guy too
I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out.
- Rodney Dangerfield
the team total is 69.
the mere mention of the number is enough for the guys, I guess.
by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions
You really added it?
Come on, the guys were giggling, it was a gimme.
2009 SCH Post Whore
2010 Troll Collector
SCH's Resident Mom
The sun never sets on a badass
I added it when it was first posted
but was mature enough to avoid commenting, unlike some others here. I just posted it in case someone else hadn’t figured it out.
by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
i guess if "husler"
is in your username… you probably don’t care about looking like a guy.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
by meeshak on Apr 14, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Meeshak try to keep it to hockey
You REALLY don’t have to keep trying to prove you’re an A HOLE. I get the picture already.
PS Go on and get all your genius friends to green your comment so you can all feel warm and fuzzy about it. I already started so you don’t need many more.
can you just relax? not everything i write is an attack on you. you were complaining just recently about people overlooking your sarcasm, and then you totally just ignored the joke in mine, and it wasn’t even a big burn: i said you don’t mind looking like a guy.
for the record, who replied “giggity giggity” to your original post?
i like what you wrote, i thought you made an interesting point, with the optimization pretty much giving us our current line, and i decided to reply with Quagmire’s favorite phrase to show my excitement at the current set-up of the hawks lines.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
If it was said in sarcastic jest
then my apologies to you and others for having to deal with my angst on here. I took it as a poor “looks like a F__” joke and personal attack. If that was not the intent, again, apologies.
husler, as far as i'm concerned,
any personal grievances were dealt with a week or so ago. from now on, anything i say about you can be taken as a sarcastic jest.
(170 g) * (3x10^8 m/s)^2 = 1.5x10^16 J
you do realize
YOU are the one who pointed out the team total stuff, right? you started us down the non-hockey path. If you can’t take a joke at your expense, you are coming to the wrong place.
by Katherine215 on Apr 14, 2010 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions
I actually ENJOY jokes at my expense
I guess recently there have been a few I thought were clearly out of bounds and perhaps because of that I reacted poorly. Hopefully that’s past and the lighter side of joking around can continue as it should. Thanks for the gentle reminder.
Just shut the fuck up
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 15, 2010 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Aw crap
I forgot to say “Welcome to SCH” first. That was rude. Sorry husler!
Well, folks, I want to thank you for being here for the recording of my live comedy album. Funny material and laughter will be dubbed in later.
by ChicagoNativeSon on Apr 15, 2010 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Nice, put it right on the greeting page.
“Welcome to SCH! … And shut the fuck up.”
by Steven Schweickert on Apr 16, 2010 8:13 AM CDT up reply actions
I think it would be interesting to put these into +/- per 60 minutes to take out the difference in players who play together a ton vs players who rarely play together. I’m not sure how easy it would be to aggregate the entire time that two players were on the ice together. But maybe TimeOnIce could help you with that.
I think this is what Trixie was asking for
And… FANPOST UPDATED.
The pure numbers are ridiculous, because some guys have only been on the ice together only in passing, so even with Hossa’s +24 you get stuff like Seabrook-Johnsson: +554.
So I went back and just combined this and meeshak’s idea. I haven’t thought about whether it makes sense or not (in some ways it weights by the “unit” that is # of goals and adjusts for the “bias” that is TOI, but that logic is probably faulty).
Also: everybody's total TOI
Since I went through the whole season’s worth of head-to-head TOI, I got everybody’s total on the season, in case anybody was curious:
.# Player TOI H:M:S
39 Cristobal Huet 2131.5 35:31:30
31 Antti Niemi 1719.4 28:39:24
.2 Duncan Keith 1601 26:41:00
.7 Brent Seabrook 1370.5 22:50:30
.4 Niklas Hjalmarsson 1277.6 21:17:36
51 Brian Campbell 1269.1 21:09:06
88 Patrick Kane 1232.6 20:32:36
19 Jonathan Toews 1118.7 18:38:42
10 Patrick Sharp 1107.6 18:27:36
33 Dustin Byfuglien 1083 18:03:00
16 Andrew Ladd 1049.9 17:29:54
11 John Madden 997.5 16:37:30
22 Troy Brouwer 980.8 16:20:48
32 Kris Versteeg 971.3 16:11:18
.5 Brent Sopel 892.6 14:52:36
81 Marian Hossa 790.6 13:10:36
82 Tomas Kopecky 636.1 10:36:06
46 Colin Fraser 565.3 9:25:18
25 Cam Barker 555.5 9:15:30
36 Dave Bolland 508.1 8:28:06
55 Ben Eager 496 8:16:00
.6 Jordan Hendry 486.8 8:06:48
29 Bryan Bickell 151.8 2:31:48
37 Adam Burish 112.5 1:52:30
15 Andrew Ebbett 101.9 1:41:54
.8 Kim Johnsson 101 1:41:00
24 Nick Boynton 99.5 1:39:30
50 Corey Crawford 47.2 47:12
20 Jack Skille 45.9 45:54
28 Jake Dowell 19.6 19:36
52 Radek Smolenak 4.7 4:42

by 


























