NHL 2012/13 Updating - Volunteers Needed!

[nino33]

This is really interesting. We could use the Hockeysfuture ratings for calculating PA and the NHL 13 ratings for CA ability. So, by looking at http://www.ultimatehockey.info/nhl13ratings we can basically say the conversion to CA in EHM would be to take the NHL13 rating and multiply by 2 (since they are using a range of 0-100 and EHM is using 0-200). so we get a table like this for CA:
200 = 100
190 = 95
180 = 90
170 = 85
160 = 80
etc

In EHM an "average" NHLer is rated as 120, or 60 in EA's 0-100 range...a poor NHLer is rated as 100, or 50 in EA's 0-100 range...
I took a quick look at Arch's link to EA's ratings, and they have only 9 players rated in the 60s...
Seems to me EA rates every player as an above average NHLer at the very least...

For example, the default EHM database has 762 players who are on an NHL team at start up...526 of the 762 players (69%) are rated below 139 for CA...so EHM has 526 players in this range, EA has 9 such players…

There are 68 players in the EHM default database with a starting CA between 160-200 (80-100 in EA); this is the EHM range considedered Good-Top players…I counted 68 players rated 80-100 in EA after going through just the first 6 teams!


Seems to me using EA's ratings for CA could result in a severely overrated database...

[ctid]

I see your point. Im not very familiar with the EA Sports NHL games (only the old versions), so I don't understand their ratings very well. But, I agree with your assessment. It's a shame though, it would be so nice to use references to other official sources when updating ca/pa for future roster updates.

[archibalduk]

If the EA ratings were to be used as a basis, it would probably be best simply to create a list of the players in order of their EA rating. Then we could assign x% of them a CA in the "top" range, x% in the "good" range, x% in the "average" range and x% in the "poor" range. Maybe this might work?

[Daelh]

the problem i think is not that CA/PA is wrong on Manimals db, its that many players has wrong attributes, ie John Carlson of the Washington Capitals is their best dman irl but in the game he dont even crack the lineup in AHL. You guys see where im going. So you researches has to have this in consideration, it was meant that i would do all the attributes for Manimals db in NHL but my school got in the way, but now im ready to rock again. So Archi, set me to work!

[Daelh]

the problem i think is not that CA/PA is wrong on Manimals db, its that many players has wrong attributes, ie John Carlson of the Washington Capitals is their best dman irl but in the game he dont even crack the lineup in AHL. You guys see where im going. So you researches has to have this in consideration, it was meant that i would do all the attributes for Manimals db in NHL but my school got in the way, but now im ready to rock again. So Archi, set me to work!

I mean, ive been playing one season on manimal 4.2 now with the Wild. Predators, Coyotes, Blues are the worst team in WC when Ducks, Oilers and Flames are top 5. In EC Jets, Islanders, Canadiens made the playoff and Rangers, Capitals and Sabres was dead last. That has to change, with correcting attributes for the players.

[batdad]

It may or may not. One season of play is a total luck of the draw and does not really indicate any kind of trend. In other games you may find those teams all in the top 5 of their conferences. Depends what the AI does and injuries. Just the way it goes.

And John Carlson is not the best dman on the Caps. Their guy who has pretty much been injured for the last 2 years is. But yeah....just a luck of the draw thing.

[nino33]

It may or may not. One season of play is a total luck of the draw and does not really indicate any kind of trend. In other games you may find those teams all in the top 5 of their conferences. Depends what the AI does and injuries. Just the way it goes.

I don't think I agree...I don't think the full range/variance of Attributes has been used in edited/modern databases; the 1974 db seems to put top teams at/near the top and bottom feeders at/near the bottom pretty consistently, and I think this connects alot to a wider range of players Attributes

My understanding is the actual Attributes in the Lidas/Manimal databases have rarely if ever been reviewed/edited, and there's over 40 for each individual player (and a bunch are "hidden" in-game)...as well, it was thought that Attributes would be altered by CA but my experience/research indicated this was not the case


The modern databases IMO have a lot of overrated players (the research I've done always indicates current databases are more talent laden than the original database, and the full range of player abilities has been made much smaller as poor/average NHLers have been bumped up in abilities); IMO it's not just about the ratings of top /well known players, but rather to many average NHLers are rated as above average and to many poor NHLers are rated as average

In the default EHM database has 762 players who are on an NHL team at start up...69% are rated below 140 for CA
Manimal 4.2 has 753 players on an NHL team at start-up...59% are rated below 140 for CA

There are 68 players in the EHM default database with a starting CA between 160-200
There are 102 players in Manimal 4.2 with a starting CA between 160-200

In the default database there are 51 NHLers with a CA of 150-159, in Manimal 4.2 there are 90.

The average CA in the default db is 125
The average CA in Manimal 4.2 is 135

In the default database there are 128 NHLers with a CA of 110-119, in Manimal 4.2 there are 82.
In the default database there are 85 NHLers with a CA of 100-109, in Manimal 4.2 there are 31.

The average OFF Role in the default db is 12.7
The average OFF Role in Manimal 4.2 is 13.8

The average Passing rating in the default db is 12.4
The average Passing rating in Manimal 4.2 is 13.0

The average Wristshot rating in the default db is 11.6
The average Wristshot rating in Manimal 4.2 is 12.3



I am NOT trying to criticize the work done by others in any way.
I’m just trying to share what I’ve learned (and I’ve put a LOT of time into this in the last 2+ years!).

Final thought – the work to do this editing is enormous. That’s the stumbling block. Arch has made this process much easier/faster with the EHM Updater, but it’s still an enormous amount of time (literally hundreds of hours just for the NHL!)



Regards

P.S. Coaching Attributes have an impact as well IMO, and the separation from good/average/poor coaching I think is to often just CA...there are coaching Attributes like Attacking, Directness, Free Roles and Physical (as well as Power Play/Penalty Kill) that can dramatically affect things IMO

[batdad]

I know they are not perfect in the game,and they never will be. Just pointing out that it is highly unlikely to me that the Rangers, Blues and all those other teams that are non playoff teams in his ONE game....are likely playoff teams in others.

It is never going to be perfect.

Just mentioning that the AI could have made trades that were silly (often Boston for example dumps a real good player to get out of cap trouble, Philly the same etc) and that would never happen. Injuries could affect. All kinds of things...STUPID AI lineup decisions like putting the goon on the PK even though he can't even skate.

Stupid AI decisions like making a blockbuster deal just to clear salary room and make the stupid budget that is not necessarily correct for that team nowadays.

Good AI decisions on trades between AI teams that are weaker IRL. Well at least lucky moves to improve them

Saying that no matter what the attributes are set at....IRL the teams are so close....that in the EHM world teams that make playoffs, and sometimes even win the darn Stanley Cup IRL.....don't make playoffs in EHM season 1 for many many reasons. NOT JUST and not really the ratings.

Can tinker with em all you want...never going to get it perfect...and even when you think yo do....the game screws it up somehow.

Now does that mean I hate the game...god know. I am still here what ....8 years later?

[nino33]

I just outright don't agree with you.
You seem to ignore significant facts and keep repeating "that's just the way it is"

The facts noted above show the current Manimal database has many overrated NHLers and lacks the appropriate number of poor/average players, and this IMO is what's creating the idea that "teams are so close"

ALSO the editing of CA without editing Attributes didn’t work with the 1974 database…it takes a complete review (overhaul, not tinkering!), and I’m not sure it’s ever been done with the Lidas/Manimal databases


I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the problem isn't EHM...the problem is it takes an enormous amount of time to do the editing!
I don't like the idea of discouraging potential volunteers with a blanket "doesn't help much" viewpoint (especially when the facts show there's issues that people notice that could be helped; and the 1974 database and EHM Realism Patch have shown you can make significant improvements with effort! You don't have to have so much movement, you can separate the awful teams and the top teams, defense can exist/scoring can be reduced, etc...I think maybe you're basing your views on out-of-date information about EHM)

IRL the teams are so close

Uh...no, they're not. Leafs haven't made the playoffs in 7 years, Oilers in 6, Islanders/Jets in 5, Dallas/Minnesota in 4, Calgary/Columbus/Colorado in 3...I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I thought it was well known these teams (and a couple/few others) were all awful! I didn't think anyone thought they might be a playoff/contending team

I understand you've played a lot of EHM (but not much with either the 1974 database or the EHM Realism Patch it seems)...I'm just not sure you're as knowledgeable about editing and what can be done through editing


Regards

[batdad]

Okay. You are right and I am wrong.

Going to make a few points.

1. Editing is not my strong suit. Agreed. But I do know what makes players in the game tick from reading every single post you, archi, manimal et al have made about editing, and what it does. I agree...it makes the game better

2. I have used the realism patch a ton. No I have not had time to use your db.

3. The manimal db ....yeah sure it has a ton of players who are overrated/underrated and not enough middle of the road guys. No one ever has neutral opinions on players....so of course that happens. However....those players are not just on SOME of the teams..they are on all of them,

4. My momma told me as soon as someone says "I dont want to make an argument out of this"....welll in reality they want the other person to tell them they are right. So I did.

5. One season does not make a case study. I may not be a statistician but I can pretty much guarantee that this is the case. Well no I can guarantee it. If you play 100 games....maybe one will come out with the proper playoff teams.

6. You are totally underestimating the role the AI has in screwing with the game


Now....BIG POINT HERE and maybe I should bold it. This is not to say that editing the players would not make things better. Somewhat. Of course it would. The closer to reality they are the more realistic the game could be.....COULD BE.

Unfortunately, everyone's reality is different. And there are many things about the game that editing cannot change at this time still...that affect the outcome of the EHM game itself.

Noone has figured out how to make the AI actually behave like a real GM....and never likely will.

Now that is enough of me derailing this awesome thread. The game is definitely more realistic when players are edited properly....but the default db should NOT be the basis of percentages of players who are rated good, weak, and average. Why? Because of all the db....the default one was perhaps the most messed up.

EA sports should not be the basis. Scouts from HF should not be the basis. A Leafs fan should not be the basis....however somebody needs to do it....which means that person's or those people's biases will come into play NO MATTER what.

Back to the volunteers...I hope there are more...we need em to make this game even better.

[Daelh]

Batdad, i think for first that using NHL 13 as a basis is the most stupid thing you can do. 1: There ratings have been heavily critisisd by fans all around the world, I didnt even buy it because of this. I dont have time to edit both NHL and EHM so I decided to bojcot NHL13. Second, you ignore the problem. The problem we have now is that players who have made impact in recent years, like John Carlson, like Alex pietrangelo, Marcus Johansson, Shattenkirk, Henrique, yeah I can namedrop all day, but they have good CA, like 130-150. The problem is that the CA is the only thing who is edited, when a player like John Carlson has 150 in CA(which i think is right) and has attributes like an avarage player in ECHL, like under 10 in all technical areas, something is wrong. You can set a players CA to 200 but if you dont edit the attributes they wont produce according to their CA. I have a DB who is not based on the latest Manimal but the Manimal from last year where I sat for two months and editing EVERY single players CA/PA AND attributes for NHL and CHL. Ive used my own knowledge(and Systemfel from HFBoards) and sites like forecaster and hockeysfuture to make a more accurate DB than Manimals is for the moment. The problem is that its not Manimals latest and all the history stuff and so on is not included. I can show some examples tomorrow, now its 03.00AM in Sweden so I have to sleep.

Archi, your opinion? I can upload the DB so you can watch it through if you want. Se how my interpretation of DB editing is.

[nino33]

The thing about the AI GMs...do you realize that on day 1 of gameplay many AI GMs are confronted with a Team Budget that's lower than their AvgTeamSalary?
And some teams Team Budget amounts seem "off" IMO...
Chicago has a Team Budget of 54 million and an opening AvgTeamSalary of 67.0 million.
Boston has a Team Budget of 56 million and an opening AvgTeamSalary of 67.0 million.
Ottawa has a Team Budget of 63 million and an opening AvgTeamSalary of 52.0 million.
Things like this "force" a lot of the initial changes/weirdness (as does the fact that many teams have to many roster players at start-up)
Yes the AI does weird stuff, but it doesn't have to be as bad at it is at start-up...

You can set a players CA to 200 but if you dont edit the attributes they wont produce according to their CA.

Exactly!
I learned this very late with the 1974 database!
I did put dozens of hours into Attribute review/editing right before release, but there's still so much to do...

I sat for two months and editing EVERY single players CA/PA AND attributes for NHL and CHL.

At least now that task can be done in one spreadsheet thanks to Arch's EHM Updater...the ability to sort/average in excel really helps the process go much faster!
And one can create a simple formula to calculate the variable/changeable Attributes average to determine if they're appropriate for the CA.
As well I found sorting each Attribute from high to low + low to high helps quickly identify the obvious canidates for further review/editing.
And reviewing the permanent/unchanging Attributes (like Decisions, Consistency and Natural Fitness) relative to CA/PA helps too!

Archi, your opinion? I can upload the DB so you can watch it through if you want. Se how my interpretation of DB editing is

FYI You could take a look yourself at your edited NHL using the EHM Updater, and compare your Attribute ranges/averages against those of other databases (like Manimal 4.2 and the default database)

[batdad]

Yea I know the GMs have bad budgets...said that in my post right after your response to me talking to Daelh. it is the reason for their idiocy in many ways in the game all the way through. it is a big problem. IMHO a bigger one than the attributes of players.

Daelh--Yeah I know some of the younger guys have not been updated enough. It is not my freaking point. My freaking point is there is a whole LOT MORE than attributes that cause the game,,,,and in your case one SPECIFIC loaded game to not be totally realistic.

AGAIN...I KNOW THE ATTRIBUTES ARE NOT FREAKING RIGHT. Are you reading what I post...or just skimming it? Wow. It is just not the be all and end all to the reason the games and Standings are not perfect to real life. Wow. Even if THEY WERE PERFECT the game would not be. And each individual game would still be freaking different. Get over it. it is part of the fun...I don't want the standings in EHM to be EXACTLY the way they were in real life. Sure seeing some toby like Patrick Marleau lead the league in scoring over and over (original db) Bryzgalovs me off. And he needs to be changed...and was....

But...darn...no matter how much editing of players we do (or anyone does) it will never be perfect.\ NEVER EVER EVER. It is not even going to be close all the time in every game we simulate a season in. We are talking about one season....

I said EA sucks...I said it should not be used Daelh. Read what I wrote again.

ANd I know the attributes need to be set that is something that was learned what 3 years ago? I apologize to you Daelh that Manimal is not a freaking god and did not sped 20000000000 hours freaking editing like Nino or you apparently does. (Nino--thats NOT a shot at you).

Glad to see that systemfel is now considered an expert on hockey players. Wow. Could have sworn he was just a guy who liked hockey and played EHM. What team does he work for again?

AGAIN FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME...I KNOW EDITING ATTRIBUTES MAKES A DIFFERENCE. A BIG ONE> BUT IT WILL NEVER EVER MEAN THAT YOUR GAME WILL BE RIGHT TO REAL LIFE> NEVER EVER EVER.

Wow....beat a dead horse.

[nino33]

I apologize to you Daelh that Manimal is not a freaking god and did not sped 20000000000 hours freaking editing like Nino or you apparently does. (Nino--thats NOT a shot at you).

No offence taken! HaHa

The reality is during the two years it took me to get an initial release (and it's still a work-in-progress!) Manimal released multiple databases covering TWO different years, and by the time the next/updated version of the 1974 db is released there will already be another Manimal release covering a THIRD different year...and the 1974 database is currently still missing huge/important chunks like College hockey and the European/Russian hockey world, while Manimal's database was a complete/worldwide database - I'm so happy that when it comes to Attributes in the 1974 database I'm not dealing with a moving/changing target!

IMO Manimal and his team deserve all the praise they get for what they produced
Editing EHM is a huge task taking enormous amounts of "freetime"

[batdad]

Yep. And without the help of some more people....the attributes will never get done. But I stress to all those who volunteer....DO NOT OVER RATE YOUR FAVORITE TEAM PLAYERS or favorite players...it can make the game unplayable when someone who is in love with the Laffs rates James Reimer among the top goalies in the league.

We need more help with this. Wish I could put in some time, but I have too much going on.

I love all the work that has been done for this game by everyone from top to bottom and I would hope I am clear about that. Thanks Manimal, Lidas, Nino, Alessandro......archi....CeeBee, and who was the dude who did realism? Cannot recall.

But yeah...you all know i call BS when I see BS. And Jon Carlson...not Washington;s best dman.

[archibalduk]

Batdad - Niittymäki is the best NHL goalie, right?

Editing EHM can feel really precarious at times. Editing just a small sample of players can sometimes seemingly change the whole dynamic of the league. It's a really difficult job and I take my hat off to those who spend hours year on year to release their rosters.

I agree with Batdad on the AI front. We can edit the DB as much as we want, but ultimately the AI relatively frequently screw things up. I have spent the past three months working on the UK rosters (three leagues of roughly 900 players). I've now gotten the EIHL ratings in a reasonably decent place, but at the end of the first season the AI releases around 90% of its rosters and replaces them all with lower league players. This is an improvement over how the game was before I started the update - previously the teams would dump 90% of its rosters during the regular season (this never happens IRL) but I've managed to fix this by upping every players' Loyalty (I think I've set it to something like 16 or 17). But unless there is some way of bypassing the AI's logic of clearing its rosters at the end of the first season, my roster updating has been pretty much in vain (I'm going to try increasing team budgets to see if this alleviates things).

I personally agree that players are typically overrated in game. I have certainly found this with the UK where players from the lower UK leagues are signed in the EIHL and make huge impressions (again, this never happens IRL) - I think this will be an artefact from the original default DB as I don't think the UK has really had much of an attribute update since EHM was released in 2006. As Nino has pointed out, the NHL is also overrated. In fact, the research guidelines posted in the first post of this thread (which Manimal and I agreed/devised) deliberately use lower CAs than what we have in the DB at the moment (and there is a greater emphasis on rating players nearer the average range, with fewer players at the top end of the ratings). We were hoping that we would reduce the mid-rated NHL players a little.

Again, I agree that updating the CAs is just not enough. Editing the CAs has relatively little impact on its own. I have found with my own research that updated CAs have a much bigger impact if a player's attributes are set to zero. I think this is because the CA acts as a moderating value (i.e. it ensures that the player's attributes are within an acceptable range and the game will only adjust those that are too far outside of this range). By setting all attributes to zero, the game is forced to generate a set of attributes using the CA. But clearly setting all attributes to zero isn't all that desirable because we won't have realistic profiles of players.

The Off/Def Roles seem to play a big part in a player's ability. I'd argue this may well have a bigger effect than updating the CAs. E.g. changing a player's Off Role from 12 to 18 seems to have a noticeable effect on his points production.

The biggest difficulty we have is that of time and resources. In an ideal world, we could have 30 researchers who each research an NHL team in a completely unbiased fashion and in full compliance with any researching guidelines we develop. Unfortunately we struggle to get more than a very small handful of researchers for the DB as a whole. Hence we have to narrow down what we want to achieve (i.e. by just looking at CAs and Off/Def Roles). It's frustrating because we have between 8,000-12,000 downloads of the Manimal Rosters with each release. If 0.5% of those users helped with the research then we'd be able to get so much more done. But understandably, many people don't have the time do volunteer.

Daelh - Yes, please do upload your database. Post the link in this thread and we can all take a look. I think our CHL is up to date (I'm assuming you mean the Canadian Jnrs and not the Central Hockey League), but the NHL ratings could well be of great use. I can easily transfer your ratings from your DB to the Manimal DB via my Updater. Could you tell me what version of the Manimal DB your rosters are based?

[Daelh]

Well, overreact much? I think you are wrong, again, when it comes to Attributes and team performance. Belive me, ive not just played 1 freaking season with Manimal db. I helped him edit it so i know more than you know. Maybe im not a hockeyexpert, but if you dont know anything about editing why the hell are you opening your stupid mouth? The attributes are crucial for team performance, with or without rubbish coaches or management. I have hours of playing and editing and simulating and ive seen the crucial point in attributes. Yes, there is some overperforming teams and som underperfoming teams. But when Flames or Islanders or whatever who never make the playoffs win the stanley cup something is wrong. I dont criticize Manimal, he does a great job. I criticize some of the reasearchers who just edit CA/Pa and dont care about the attributes because they think they will correct themselves.

[Daelh]

Archi, i will upload it as soon as i get home from school. So later this afternoon. Im not a hundred percent sure, but i think it was the Manimal Db released on 2011/12 season start. So I will upload it later so you guys can take a look. Im not saying is the perfect attributes and so on, but exspecially with the prospects and younger players its much more accurate than the current Manimal db.

[Daelh]

I used the Manimal db for the seasonstart last year but the rosters are up to date with trading deadline 2012.

[Daelh]

But Archi, i should say i dont use the same range of CA that you use here. I use like this

Star player(Crosby, Malkin, Quick, Rinne) 170-180
Quality players(Ovechking, Karlsson, Bäckström, Sedins, Nash) 160-170
Top 6 players(Marleau, Brouwer, Backes, Pietrangelo, Richards) 150-160
Avarage players(Raymond, Oshie, Stepan, Dubinsky, Pavelec, Neuvirth) 140-150
Bottom 6 players(Tootoo, Ward, B. Stuart, D'Agostino,) 130-140
Energy players(Shelley, Hendricks, Jurcina) 120-130
Top AHL players(Pääjärvi, Maxwell, Silfverberg,) 110-120
And so on. But its something who is worth to look into.

[archibalduk]

But Archi, i should say i dont use the same range of CA that you use here. I use like this

Star player(Crosby, Malkin, Quick, Rinne) 170-180
Quality players(Ovechking, Karlsson, Bäckström, Sedins, Nash) 160-170
Top 6 players(Marleau, Brouwer, Backes, Pietrangelo, Richards) 150-160
Avarage players(Raymond, Oshie, Stepan, Dubinsky, Pavelec, Neuvirth) 140-150
Bottom 6 players(Tootoo, Ward, B. Stuart, D'Agostino,) 130-140
Energy players(Shelley, Hendricks, Jurcina) 120-130
Top AHL players(Pääjärvi, Maxwell, Silfverberg,) 110-120
And so on. But its something who is worth to look into.

Very interesting!

I was just comparing your list to our guidelines - it looks like in comparison you've got a lower maximum CA range and higher average range (but the top AHL range is almost identical). It'll be really interesting to see how your DB plays. I think Manimal and/or Alessandro will need to take a look before any decision is taken. How are you finding your DB plays?

Did you stick very strictly to your CA ranges? If we need to adjust it for use with the guidelines we set, then I think this could be a fairly simple conversion exercise via Excel.

So, broadly speaking, what did you update other than CAs?

but if you dont know anything about editing why the hell are you opening your stupid mouth?

Let's try to keep this civil, please.

[batdad]

Well, overreact much? I think you are wrong, again, when it comes to Attributes and team performance. Belive me, ive not just played 1 freaking season with Manimal db. I helped him edit it so i know more than you know. Maybe im not a hockeyexpert, but if you dont know anything about editing why the hell are you opening your stupid mouth? The attributes are crucial for team performance, with or without rubbish coaches or management. I have hours of playing and editing and simulating and ive seen the crucial point in attributes. Yes, there is some overperforming teams and som underperfoming teams. But when Flames or Islanders or whatever who never make the playoffs win the stanley cup something is wrong. I dont criticize Manimal, he does a great job. I criticize some of the reasearchers who just edit CA/Pa and dont care about the attributes because they think they will correct themselves.

And in your post Daelh, do you refer to one season, or tell me that you have played hundreds of millions of seasons. And just because someone else says I know nothing about editing,does not mean I do not. Just because I don't do it does not mean I do not. Plus..you may not have all the knowledge available to you about what I have done in the game and with the game myself. I don't do editing, but yeah I have read every single post archi et al have made about what needs to be done and have been involved in the game from well....the very beginning.

Once we actually see you stuff, then I will be fine. To me your post sounded like a newbie wine and cry about how all the work on the db sucks and your work is the greatest works evah@!@ and noone can do better than you.

I too like archi look forward to actually seeing your work and your contributions to EHM. If not....
Trust me I have seen poeple come and go who have talked over and over about the better works they have done but they never posted it. Your post sounded like one of those people, and I have no patience for that rubbish.

Hopefully your post is not like that rubbish, and if so I apologize.

archi--Yeah Nitty....and Varlamov was a stud too. Nittymaki (TASKU where are you to edit my spelling?) Marleau, and 300 Finns and Russian superstars.

why does f*** come out as Lindros. I love it.

[archibalduk]

why does f*** come out as Lindros. I love it.

Heh I ran out of replacement English cuss words! Another word will bring up Lidstrom* but I'm not saying which word!

* That's not to say I dislike Lidstrom in any way!!

[bruins72]

The Lindros one kind of makes sense when you think about it though.

[batdad]

Yes, sadly it does. and you know I am going to try archi

Adam Oates, Brett Hull, prick, Bettman, Lidstrom, jerk, tabernaque, calisse, ass, Red Wings, Adam Oates, fag, CBA, pussy, NHLPA, skank, dick, archi, calv, bruins72, philou, batdad, manimal, lidas, thecanuckstuff, lesbian, homo, queer, hummer, Belfour, Modano, fairy, Tasku, Nittymaki (probably the spelling wrong...so is that Lidstrom?, fool, pain, malacca, Irish, shamrock, Beckham, Rick Astley, Marleau, Hasek, rack, balls, Niittymaki, shag, carpet, Habs, Habitants, Mapleleafs, ,tit, Zidlicky, Maple Leafs, Chelios, Don Cherry,

I give up. SOme English (real country English word)

Love the Bettman. and the four stars. Not saying what word.....oh wow MODANO. HAHAHAAHAHAHA. Fool and pain are good. Especially pain. So true. Silly Billy... Apparently if you pluralize your four letter words.....it stays.