Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 
Forums :: NHL Talk :: WHO is in a better situation: LEAFS or SENS?
Author Message
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 20 @ 11:25 AM ET
Ottawa has been on a hot streak, was 5 points back Of Toronto on Dec 20th.
1 month later after playing much better have climbed all the way up to 4 points back Of Toronto

- senstroll

During what was seen as a slump for the Leafs, no less.
the_cause2000
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Not quite my tempo
Joined: 02.26.2007

Jan 20 @ 1:23 PM ET
During what was seen as a slump for the Leafs, no less.
- Feeling Glucky?

trending downward
the_cause2000
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Not quite my tempo
Joined: 02.26.2007

Jan 22 @ 9:35 AM ET
Leafs
Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 22 @ 9:59 AM ET
Ottawa has been on a hot streak, was 5 points back Of Toronto on Dec 20th.
1 month later after playing much better have climbed all the way up to 4 points back Of Toronto

- senstroll


Dec 20th.

leafs 39 points after 37 games played = .547
Senators 34 points after 37 games played = .515

Jan 20th.

leafs 57 points after 51 games = .559
Senators 51 points after 49 games = .520
RogerRoeper
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Toronto, ON
Joined: 03.27.2007

Jan 22 @ 11:02 AM ET
By Mark Sutcliffe, OTTAWA CITIZEN

Chasing after expensive free agents and spending up to the cap is a “fool’s game,” according to Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk.

In an interview with TSN 1200 this week, Melnyk channelled Billy Beane, the spendthrift, analytical Oakland A’s general manager, when he said the Senators won’t get caught in the trap of trying to buy a championship.

“Any idiot can spend money,” said Melnyk. “There are so many idiots out there that spend to the cap every year. You know what? Take a look at where they are.

“It all comes down to cost per point. That’s the only stat that I care about: cost per point.”

About two years ago in the Citizen, I did an analysis of exactly that: the return on investment NHL teams were getting from the money they spent on players.

Over a seven-year stretch between the two lockouts, from 2005-06 through 2011-12, the Senators had good results on the ice, making the playoffs five times and going to the Stanley Cup final in 2007. But they also spent a lot of money. Despite operating in one of the smaller markets in the NHL, the Senators were 10th out of 30 teams in total payroll for the period. As a result, in terms of value for money, the Senators were in the middle of the pack, ranking 17th in the league at $534,000 in salary for every regular season point.

But if you zoom in on a four-year period during that stretch, you might find the genesis of Melnyk’s interest in the metric of payroll efficiency. From the year after Ottawa’s run to the Stanley Cup final to the end of the season, when the team dumped star players like Mike Fisher at the trade deadline, the Senators didn’t get good value for money. Melnyk spent near the cap and the Senators ranked 22nd, 29th, 26th and 25th in the league in cost per point.

Since then, the situation has improved. The Senators no longer spend the maximum and are getting better return. In 2011-12, the Senators jumped to fourth place in cost per point. Last year, during the lockout-shortened season, Ottawa was fifth.

This year, based on the current standings (after Saturday’s games), Ottawa ranks 11th in cost per point. That’s because the Senators are staying competitive despite having the 27th highest payroll in the league.

The team getting the best return on investment so far this year is, not surprisingly, Anaheim. The worst, of course, is Buffalo. This year’s cost-per-point numbers are aligned quite closely with the standings because there’s an unusual parity in NHL payrolls this year.

Every team this season is projected to spend at least 80 per cent of the cap and 25 of the 30 teams are at 90 per cent or higher. In 2011-12, the last full season of NHL hockey, the payroll of the low-budget Islanders was only 46 per cent of the cap. Only 15 teams spent at least 90 per cent.

In 2011-12, there was a $41.5 million gap between the lowest-spending team and the highest. This year, according to figures at CapGeek.com, the gap between low and high is only $17.8 million.

So using Melnyk’s logic, there are more fools today than two seasons ago. But a big factor in the higher spending is the fact that the salary cap was trimmed this year as part of the resolution to the labour dispute last season. The ceiling went up and then came back down, leaving many teams close to the top.

With all the teams bunched together in payroll this year, the metric is more influenced by performance on the ice than by spending carefully and strategically on players.

But even in other seasons, an efficient investment in players doesn’t guarantee a championship or even a playoff spot. The Islanders have kept their cost per point very low over the past few years, but it hasn’t translated into playoff success. The year the Senators were fourth in payroll efficiency, they finished eighth in their conference and lost in the first round of the playoffs.

Only once in the last eight seasons has the team with the lowest cost per point won the Stanley Cup: last year, when Chicago won. In 2011-12, the Kings won despite being 21st in that statistic. The previous year, Boston was 19th in payroll efficiency when it won the Cup. That suggests there’s more to winning than just spending carefully.

Melnyk is wise to watch the return he’s getting on his investment in player salaries. And he’s right that many owners throw money around without considering the value they’re getting in return. But an efficient use of payroll money doesn’t always produce the desired results in the statistic that fans care about m
ost: championships.

- Doppleganger


Melnyk trying to justify his cheapness. That means he's preparing Ottawa fans for no spending this summer.
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 22 @ 11:05 AM ET
Melnyk trying to justify his cheapness. That means he's preparing Ottawa fans for no spending this summer.
- RogerRoeper

Citing lowest cost-per-point is ridiculous. Those teams got a lot out their guys, no doubt... but they were all still cap teams. Just very, very good cap teams.


When was the last time a budget team won the cup?
RogerRoeper
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Toronto, ON
Joined: 03.27.2007

Jan 22 @ 11:08 AM ET
There's statistics for justifying every opinion nowadays. Do we really think any team with a big budget wishes they spent less? Only a cheap owner would bring this up to justify him not spending.

Obviously there's no plans of spending anytime soon or he doesn't even say these things.
Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 22 @ 11:35 AM ET
Citing lowest cost-per-point is ridiculous. Those teams got a lot out their guys, no doubt... but they were all still cap teams. Just very, very good cap teams.


When was the last time a budget team won the cup?

- Feeling Glucky?



How often has a team with the highest payroll made it to the Finals or won the Cup?
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 22 @ 11:57 AM ET
How often has a team with the highest payroll made it to the Finals or won the Cup?
- Doppleganger

More often than budget teams.

Boston Bruins had the highest cap hit( more than a million over the cap) the year they won the cup- against Vancouver, who were also over the cap... and when Chicago won the cup, they had the highest overage in the league as well, against the highest spending team, the Philadelphia Flyers.
Last year, and the year before, the cup winners and finalists were all very close to the cap... no budget teams in sight.

Capgeek's records don't go further back than that, but you get the gist. If you don't spend, you don't win.
Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 23 @ 11:24 AM ET
can i please get a useless playoff percentage update?
- the_cause2000




Still useless.

Uselessly has a useless team like the sens above the Leafs, despite the usless sens uselessly being outside of a playoff spot, and the Leafs being in one(with a higher point percentage).

- Feeling Glucky?




Sorry boys, but as I pointed out earlier today, for the past SIX seasons, there has been only 3 of the 32 teams that were 4 or more points out of a playoff position by the beginning of November, who beat the odds against then and went on to make the playoffs.

And for the past few seasons I've referenced this fact, backed up with some "useless stats" to support this point. Still couldn't convince the naysayers, you could only respond with vulgarity and insults........whatever.


However, this season is a bit different, for a number of factors.

First, there are two more teams in one Conference than the other, and this will make a significant difference in the number of so called "four point games" and "loser points"in the latter stages of the season, making it harder to climb into a playoff spot in once conference and a little easier in the other.

Plus the shift back to Divisional play for the top three playoff spots awarded to Divisional teams, and the wildcard playoff spots makes this season a hybrid between the old conference only seeding, and the previous divisional only seeding, should make things a bit different than the previous six seasons.
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 23 @ 11:51 AM ET
Sorry boys, but as I pointed out earlier today, for the past SIX seasons, there has been only 3 of the 32 teams that were 4 or more points out of a playoff position by the beginning of November, who beat the odds against then and went on to make the playoffs.

And for the past few seasons I've referenced this fact, backed up with some "useless stats" to support this point. Still couldn't convince the naysayers, you could only respond with vulgarity and insults........whatever.


However, this season is a bit different, for a number of factors.

First, there are two more teams in one Conference than the other, and this will make a significant difference in the number of so called "four point games" and "loser points"in the latter stages of the season, making it harder to climb into a playoff spot in once conference and a little easier in the other.

Plus the shift back to Divisional play for the top three playoff spots awarded to Divisional teams, and the wildcard playoff spots makes this season a hybrid between the old conference only seeding, and the previous divisional only seeding, should make things a bit different than the previous six seasons.

- Doppleganger

hmm, I see. You didn't have a proper response to the previous statement, so you decided on 4 paragraphs of irrelevance.

Fitting, I guess.
Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 23 @ 11:58 AM ET
hmm, I see. You didn't have a proper response to the previous statement, so you decided on 4 paragraphs of irrelevance.

Fitting, I guess.

- Feeling Glucky?


Perhaps I was satisfied with your response to my question.

Did not expect you to avoid my rebuttal to the "useless playoff chances" stats comments, as you seemed to agree with the poster who made that claim.
senstroll
Location: Sens Suck, ON
Joined: 02.22.2008

Jan 24 @ 9:57 AM ET
Dec 20th.

leafs 39 points after 37 games played = .547
Senators 34 points after 37 games played = .515

Jan 20th.

leafs 57 points after 51 games = .559
Senators 51 points after 49 games = .520

- Doppleganger


Ottawa Traded away Bishop for Conacher and a 4th. CC is is pace for 25 points

Bishop is leading the NHL is sv%, has 25 wins and I heard on the Sens radio last night could be in the discussion for league MVP.

Sens have 22 Wins, Bishop 25



Mistake?
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 24 @ 10:09 AM ET
Ottawa Traded away Bishop for Conacher and a 4th. CC is is pace for 25 points

Bishop is leading the NHL is sv%, has 25 wins and I heard on the Sens radio last night could be in the discussion for league MVP.

Sens have 22 Wins, Bishop 25



Mistake?

- senstroll

Luckily for the Sens, they managed to avoid an unsightly OT win last night.
burn
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Boyle > Marleau :dopes, ON
Joined: 08.02.2006

Jan 24 @ 10:11 AM ET
Ottawa Traded away Bishop for Conacher and a 4th. CC is is pace for 25 points

Bishop is leading the NHL is sv%, has 25 wins and I heard on the Sens radio last night could be in the discussion for league MVP.

Sens have 22 Wins, Bishop 25



Mistake?

- senstroll



Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 24 @ 10:36 AM ET
Ottawa Traded away Bishop for Conacher and a 4th. CC is is pace for 25 points

Bishop is leading the NHL is sv%, has 25 wins and I heard on the Sens radio last night could be in the discussion for league MVP.

Sens have 22 Wins, Bishop 25



Mistake?

- senstroll



If I remember correctly, the Senators had to bring in Bishop when Anderson decided to cook some chicken. Once he became healthy, they had to trade one of the three goaltenders away, and decided on Bishop.

At the time I thought they would have gotten a little more for him than what they did.

You can call it a mistake if you wish, but I could counter with the Raycroft for Rask trade and ask you the same question.
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 24 @ 10:42 AM ET
If I remember correctly, the Senators had to bring in Bishop when Anderson decided to cook some chicken. Once he became healthy, they had to trade one of the three goaltenders away, and decided on Bishop.

At the time I thought they would have gotten a little more for him than what they did.

You can call it a mistake if you wish, but I could counter with the Raycroft for Rask trade and ask you the same question.

- Doppleganger

Both teams have bad history with Boston...

Like the time Ottawa chose to keep Redden over Chara, and he signed with the Bruins.

Leafs had to move Rask, but they probably could have gotten more for him.
senstroll
Location: Sens Suck, ON
Joined: 02.22.2008

Jan 24 @ 10:44 AM ET
If I remember correctly, the Senators had to bring in Bishop when Anderson decided to cook some chicken. Once he became healthy, they had to trade one of the three goaltenders away, and decided on Bishop.

At the time I thought they would have gotten a little more for him than what they did.

You can call it a mistake if you wish, but I could counter with the Raycroft for Rask trade and ask you the same question.

- Doppleganger


I dont think its relevant to compare a trade that was 8 years ago and 3 GMs.
Its leafs or sens who is in a better situation now, not in 2006

we need to stay on topic..which is current mistakes - Bishop
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 24 @ 10:50 AM ET
I dont think its relevant to compare a trade that was 8 years ago and 3 GMs.
Its leafs or sens who is in a better situation now, not in 2006

we need to stay on topic..which is current mistakes - Bishop

- senstroll

And lets not forget, cheap teams not winning.

Ottawa seems to be a mess, Ownership and management willing to trade away youth, but not spend money.

That's a Harold Ballard-esque combo.
Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 24 @ 10:51 AM ET
Both teams have bad history with Boston...

Like the time Ottawa chose to keep Redden over Chara, and he signed with the Bruins.

Leafs had to move Rask, but they probably could have gotten more for him.

- Feeling Glucky?


You and I both know there was more to that story.

Ottawa wanted to re-sign both Chara and Redden, when they both were approaching unrestricted free agency.

They wanted them both to accept a "home town discount" in exchange for a longer term.

In the previous two seasons, including the last season that both contracts were expiring, Redden was playing the better of the two, and Chara had a terrible playoffs.

Redden was signed first and it was hoped that Chara would also sign, but he wanted Alfredsson's Captaincy, and that was not going to happen.

He got what he wanted with Boston, and probably had decided to go to UFAgency all along, right after Hossa (his best friend at the time) was traded earlier.


Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 24 @ 10:53 AM ET
You and I both know there was more to that story.

Ottawa wanted to re-sign both Chara and Redden, when they both were approaching unrestricted free agency.

They wanted them both to accept a "home town discount" in exchange for a longer term.

In the previous two seasons, including the last season that both contracts were expiring, Redden was playing the better of the two, and Chara had a terrible playoffs.

Redden was signed first and it was hoped that Chara would also sign, but he wanted Alfredsson's Captaincy, and that was not going to happen.


He got what he wanted with Boston, and probably had decided to go to UFAgency all along, right after Hossa (his best friend at the time) was traded earlier.

- Doppleganger


Long story short: they lowballed him and he left.

With the current state of the franchise, it wouldn't be surprising to see them pick MacArthur as the guy to re-sign in a few years over Bobby Ryan.
nightmare3020
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Windsor Area, ON
Joined: 08.23.2006

Jan 24 @ 10:58 AM ET
Ottawa Traded away Bishop for Conacher and a 4th. CC is is pace for 25 points

Bishop is leading the NHL is sv%, has 25 wins and I heard on the Sens radio last night could be in the discussion for league MVP.

Sens have 22 Wins, Bishop 25



Mistake?

- senstroll

id always be cautious of moving someone that has unique attributes
chara , bishop for their size

i mean if you are 6'7 and can play half decent you have a leg (foot) up on a guy thats like 5'11"
Doppleganger
Ottawa Senators
Location: Reality
Joined: 08.25.2006

Jan 24 @ 11:03 AM ET
Long story short: they lowballed him and he left.

With the current state of the franchise, it wouldn't be surprising to see them pick MacArthur as the guy to re-sign in a few years over Bobby Ryan.

- Feeling Glucky?



The way MacArthur is playing, I'd be surprised if they don't try to sign him after his current contract.

Don't worry about Ryan, Ottawa will do whatever it takes to sign him, and if that's not enough for him, then they'll trade him and get a substantial return.

Ottawa will more than plenty of money dropping off the payroll between now and the time Ryan or any other UFA need to resigned.

No one here in Ottawa is worried about Ryan, only wishful thinking leaf fans like yourself who probably pray for him to walk for nothing every night.
Feeling Glucky?
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Tanktown, ON
Joined: 10.08.2008

Jan 24 @ 11:04 AM ET
The way MacArthur is playing, I'd be surprised if they don't try to sign him after his current contract.

Don't worry about Ryan, Ottawa will do whatever it takes to sign him, and if that's not enough for him, then they'll trade him and get a substantial return.

Ottawa will more than plenty of money dropping off the payroll between now and the time Ryan or any other UFA need to resigned.

No one here in Ottawa is worried about Ryan, only wishful thinking leaf fans like yourself who probably pray for him to walk for nothing every night.

- Doppleganger

history suggests they'll ask him to take a hometown discount.

For a town that isn't his home.

the_cause2000
Toronto Maple Leafs
Location: Not quite my tempo
Joined: 02.26.2007

Jan 24 @ 11:22 AM ET
Redden over Chara oh man
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747, 748, 749, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 870, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160  Next