FHM 66 Game ERA for defenseman. Not taking TPE into account really
McFife and O'Duck could put up the most goals, assists, and points by a defenseman this season with 7 games left. Granted they are both number 1 and number 6 (3rd dman) in TPE on a strong Atlanta so that makes sense. Kahnwald tied the most points in a season last season.
But another way to look at it. total up all defenseman for each season from 57 to 67
Defenseman had the most assists in any season last season. And on Powerplay they look to do really well in FHM8. But it looks like a shots on goal is what is lacking. Not sure what a good solution would be but just a statistical look at it.
10-13-2022, 01:13 PMCanadice Wrote: What does the data look like for the same timespan from FHM6? The splines (regression lines) look stronger based on the number of observations and can be reflected in the estimated slopes.
I kind of want to add to this. Although sample sizes do affect scatter plots in how strong regression lines are, regression lines cannot judge wether or not a correlation can be established between X and Y, in this case the amount of applied TPE in shooting accuracy and other relevant attributes and point production. There is then the issue that (i'm sorry, i'm a newbie, so this may be wrong) shooting accuracy mostly affects goals and not necessarily assists, and in that sense, a scatter plot comparing total points vs. appliedTPE seems to skew the data. All this to say that more data needs to be collected, or at the very least two similar periods of time need to be compared so that equivalent sample sizes are being analyzed, there should be consideration for comparing applied TPE with goals if this is what shooting accuracy and other scoring attributes tend to influence more than overall point production, and further testing, such as correlation tests should be done.
I reiterate, my experience both with FHM and the SHL is limited, so I may be wrong on this or I may have omitted other aspects in my reflection.
Yes this is also an issue.
I did some things. First I took the almost two seasons of FHM8 data (S66 and S67) we have and combined it with the last two seasons of FHM6 data (S64 and S65). I added two columns from the index data, one indicating positional group (D or F) and one indicating the engine used to produce that data. Then I went to work on some visualizations.
First we have the two engines' data overlaid for each position in a scatter plot. FHM6 is orange and FHM8 is black. I also added a linear regression line (straight line) on top. It looked like Jeffie added a spline (non-linear line) on the original graphs that is better at modelling details in the data so the lines will look a bit different. The straight lines will not be able to find as many details in the relationship between the two variables but works for my current visualizations.
The image shows that there has been a drastic increase in "base" level of points for Forwards, while there seems to have been a decline in points for Defensemen. One note is that there are more players overall in FHM8 with less than 500 applied TPE which could affect the estimates and are probably not going to be the general population we want to look at at the SHL level.
I then filtered out those players and redid the graph:
Now the difference between the engines becomes clearer, the defense sees a small reduction in points at the same TPE level while forwards see a large increase in points at the same TPE level.
One of the options listed in the original post was to increase the Shooting Accuracy limit for Defensemen. To visualize this, I created a boxplot for each Shooting Accuracy and grouped them per position (top is D, bottom is F) and engine (left is FHM6, right is FHM8).
First looking at the FHM6 data, we can see that Forwards saw a big uptick in points produced when increasing their Shooting Accuracy from 12 to 14. In FHM8 we see that Forwards with 12 in Shooting Accuracy already produce at the same level as 14-15 in FHM6. As for Defensemen, having Shooting Accuracy at 9-12 seems to produce about the same in both engines, maybe a small decrease in the median (the line inside the colored box).
One would expect that Shooting Accuracy affects Goals more than Assists. Being able to hit the net would probably give you a better chance of scoring compared to getting an assist. One could maybe argue that it would lead to an increase in rebounds that would produce assists, but regardless I wanted to look at the two ways you can produce points.
First comes goals:
Then comes assists:
then comes a baby in a baby carriage...
For forwards the same trend can be seen here between the engines as we saw in points. There is an increase in goals when increasing Accuracy from 12 to 15 in FHM6 while the same cannot be said for FHM8. The increase comes instead at around 15 to 17, which can also be seen in FHM6 up to 18. Defensemen do see an increase in goals from 10 to 12 in FHM8 compared to FHM6 where it's more stable (or at least a lower slope in trend).
Assists don't really see any trend for defensemen in either engine but forwards show the same trend that we've seen in the other graphs. This trend is most likely due to confounding effects (other variables), i.e. when the player has put in TPE in Shooting Accuracy, they have most likely put in TPE in other attributes that affect the ability to produce assists.
What does this all mean? It's a really tough situation to solve. Without doing specific controlled simulations where we can control the attributes of the players, there is no real way to know the real causal relationship between an attribute and a performance metric. Observational studies where we just take measurements of the attribute values and performances will never be able to find whether or not the correlation between two variables are because of one another or if it exists purely by chance. A good example of this is that there is a positive correlation between the number of movies Nicolas Cage stars in during a year and the number of drownings in a US pool that same year. These two variables have nothing to do with one another, but there is a correlation between them nonetheless.
As Shooting Accuracy is the only attribute that has different limits for the two positional groups and is described as an offensive attribute, I think it be worth to test allowing Defensemen to get to 13 or even 14 while keeping the average number of goals per game setting the same. Hopefully the trend we saw in the boxplot of goals vs Shooting Accuracy in FHM8 can continue and we see more goals scored by Defensemen.
After completing this writing I also saw fellow stats enthusiast @Jumbobone19 looking at number of shots as a statistic so I went ahead and added a final graph of that performance metric.
It looks like overall the number of shots is lower for both D and F at all levels of Shooting Accuracy. I then had to do a plot on shooting percentage where it looks like FHM sees a higher shooting percentage overall for all Forwards at the same levels of Shooting Accuracy.
10-13-2022, 01:35 PMItsFrenchie Wrote: I kind of want to add to this. Although sample sizes do affect scatter plots in how strong regression lines are, regression lines cannot judge wether or not a correlation can be established between X and Y, in this case the amount of applied TPE in shooting accuracy and other relevant attributes and point production. There is then the issue that (i'm sorry, i'm a newbie, so this may be wrong) shooting accuracy mostly affects goals and not necessarily assists, and in that sense, a scatter plot comparing total points vs. appliedTPE seems to skew the data. All this to say that more data needs to be collected, or at the very least two similar periods of time need to be compared so that equivalent sample sizes are being analyzed, there should be consideration for comparing applied TPE with goals if this is what shooting accuracy and other scoring attributes tend to influence more than overall point production, and further testing, such as correlation tests should be done.
I reiterate, my experience both with FHM and the SHL is limited, so I may be wrong on this or I may have omitted other aspects in my reflection.
Yes this is also an issue.
I did some things. First I took the almost two seasons of FHM8 data (S66 and S67) we have and combined it with the last two seasons of FHM6 data (S64 and S65). I added two columns from the index data, one indicating positional group (D or F) and one indicating the engine used to produce that data. Then I went to work on some visualizations.
First we have the two engines' data overlaid for each position in a scatter plot. FHM6 is orange and FHM8 is black. I also added a linear regression line (straight line) on top. It looked like Jeffie added a spline (non-linear line) on the original graphs that is better at modelling details in the data so the lines will look a bit different. The straight lines will not be able to find as many details in the relationship between the two variables but works for my current visualizations.
The image shows that there has been a drastic increase in "base" level of points for Forwards, while there seems to have been a decline in points for Defensemen. One note is that there are more players overall in FHM8 with less than 500 applied TPE which could affect the estimates and are probably not going to be the general population we want to look at at the SHL level.
I then filtered out those players and redid the graph:
Now the difference between the engines becomes clearer, the defense sees a small reduction in points at the same TPE level while forwards see a large increase in points at the same TPE level.
One of the options listed in the original post was to increase the Shooting Accuracy limit for Defensemen. To visualize this, I created a boxplot for each Shooting Accuracy and grouped them per position (top is D, bottom is F) and engine (left is FHM6, right is FHM8).
First looking at the FHM6 data, we can see that Forwards saw a big uptick in points produced when increasing their Shooting Accuracy from 12 to 14. In FHM8 we see that Forwards with 12 in Shooting Accuracy already produce at the same level as 14-15 in FHM6. As for Defensemen, having Shooting Accuracy at 9-12 seems to produce about the same in both engines, maybe a small decrease in the median (the line inside the colored box).
One would expect that Shooting Accuracy affects Goals more than Assists. Being able to hit the net would probably give you a better chance of scoring compared to getting an assist. One could maybe argue that it would lead to an increase in rebounds that would produce assists, but regardless I wanted to look at the two ways you can produce points.
First comes goals:
Then comes assists:
then comes a baby in a baby carriage...
For forwards the same trend can be seen here between the engines as we saw in points. There is an increase in goals when increasing Accuracy from 12 to 15 in FHM6 while the same cannot be said for FHM8. The increase comes instead at around 15 to 17, which can also be seen in FHM6 up to 18. Defensemen do see an increase in goals from 10 to 12 in FHM8 compared to FHM6 where it's more stable (or at least a lower slope in trend).
Assists don't really see any trend for defensemen in either engine but forwards show the same trend that we've seen in the other graphs. This trend is most likely due to confounding effects (other variables), i.e. when the player has put in TPE in Shooting Accuracy, they have most likely put in TPE in other attributes that affect the ability to produce assists.
What does this all mean? It's a really tough situation to solve. Without doing specific controlled simulations where we can control the attributes of the players, there is no real way to know the real causal relationship between an attribute and a performance metric. Observational studies where we just take measurements of the attribute values and performances will never be able to find whether or not the correlation between two variables are because of one another or if it exists purely by chance. A good example of this is that there is a positive correlation between the number of movies Nicolas Cage stars in during a year and the number of drownings in a US pool that same year. These two variables have nothing to do with one another, but there is a correlation between them nonetheless.
As Shooting Accuracy is the only attribute that has different limits for the two positional groups and is described as an offensive attribute, I think it be worth to test allowing Defensemen to get to 13 or even 14 while keeping the average number of goals per game setting the same. Hopefully the trend we saw in the boxplot of goals vs Shooting Accuracy in FHM8 can continue and we see more goals scored by Defensemen.
After completing this writing I also saw fellow stats enthusiast @Jumbobone19 looking at number of shots as a statistic so I went ahead and added a final graph of that performance metric.
It looks like overall the number of shots is lower for both D and F at all levels of Shooting Accuracy. I then had to do a plot on shooting percentage where it looks like FHM sees a higher shooting percentage overall for all Forwards at the same levels of Shooting Accuracy.
Cool. Can one be done with the getting open attribute?
10-13-2022, 01:11 PMBy-Tor Wrote: The SHL is about having fun, right? How much fun is it to be a defenseman that gets 20 points a season on a winning team while all the forwards have 60? Sure, points aren't everything, but you can be damned sure that most of those people will recreate as a forward later. Some people aren't satisfied by blocks. Increase the accuracy limit and see what happens.
If we continue on the current FHM8 pace, I predict a relative drought of defensemen compared to past years.
This except we don't need to wait and see. Defense have been dropping for a long time. What's the number of active earning dmen? And how many of those are GMs creating out of necessity.
“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. ... There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”
I think it would be a bit short-sighted to only compare defensive scoring of today to the FHM6 era when, if I remember correctly, it was the highest it has ever been over the last decade. It Would be nice to get some comparables and numbers for the pre-FHM era. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where we feel compelled to "fix" todays numbers because what we are comparing them to could be the most inflated era of Defensemen scoring we had so far, and the numbers are merely returning to normal now.
On a more serious note, I would be in favor of opening up the shooting accuracy for defense. Some people might want to make defenders that are better at scoring goals then racking up assists and I think that should be an option.
10-13-2022, 03:46 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I think it would be a bit short-sighted to only compare defensive scoring of today to the FHM6 era when, if I remember correctly, it was the highest it has ever been over the last decade. It Would be nice to get some comparables and numbers for the pre-FHM era. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where we feel compelled to "fix" todays numbers because what we are comparing them to could be the most inflated era of Defensemen scoring we had so far, and the numbers are merely returning to normal now.
I have stats from that time, but no real attribute data to compare it to. Is there some collection of attribute data anywhere from that time? General question for all.
10-13-2022, 01:11 PMBy-Tor Wrote: The SHL is about having fun, right? How much fun is it to be a defenseman that gets 20 points a season on a winning team while all the forwards have 60? Sure, points aren't everything, but you can be damned sure that most of those people will recreate as a forward later. Some people aren't satisfied by blocks. Increase the accuracy limit and see what happens.
If we continue on the current FHM8 pace, I predict a relative drought of defensemen compared to past years.
This except we don't need to wait and see. Defense have been dropping for a long time. What's the number of active earning dmen? And how many of those are GMs creating out of necessity.
Wow I'm right here
hievements 5: Named Assistant Captain of Kelowna : Drafted 6 OA by Calgary : Named Captain of Kelowna
10-13-2022, 03:46 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: I think it would be a bit short-sighted to only compare defensive scoring of today to the FHM6 era when, if I remember correctly, it was the highest it has ever been over the last decade. It Would be nice to get some comparables and numbers for the pre-FHM era. Otherwise we might end up in a situation where we feel compelled to "fix" todays numbers because what we are comparing them to could be the most inflated era of Defensemen scoring we had so far, and the numbers are merely returning to normal now.
I have stats from that time, but no real attribute data to compare it to. Is there some collection of attribute data anywhere from that time? General question for all.
I don't think so but I also don't think it's needed. The attributes aren't comparable anyway and what matters in this case is the baseline of stats imho, not the attributes that led to it.
10-13-2022, 04:07 PMCanadice Wrote: I have stats from that time, but no real attribute data to compare it to. Is there some collection of attribute data anywhere from that time? General question for all.
I don't think so but I also don't think it's needed. The attributes aren't comparable anyway and what matters in this case is the baseline of stats imho, not the attributes that led to it.
I'd just add onto this and say - I don't think we can really expect the STHS "normal" to be the normal ever again. That ship has sailed. We're never going to be able to shoehorn results from a completely different engine into the standards of one we aren't using anymore. I think what we're trying to determine now is what level of variance we should expect/accept between two versions of the same game, with the same set of attributes, and what changes to those attributes we should get used to and which ones behave in ways we weren't necessarily expecting (and if we're okay with that or if we want to try to actively work to balance it out along the way).
10-13-2022, 03:23 PMHabsFanFromOntario Wrote: This except we don't need to wait and see. Defense have been dropping for a long time. What's the number of active earning dmen? And how many of those are GMs creating out of necessity.
Wow I'm right here
You swapped over because you want to deep throat Toast in a non sexual way
“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. ... There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”
2 things that this must involve. 1 that you are involving a defenseman within your cycle. If a defenseman is considered apart of the cycle game then no don’t update accuracy. If you believe Defenseman only take shots from the point or from the distant slot or from the boards then yes I would up the accuracy, but I must also point out this might have to do with player tendencies on why they aren’t scoring and not the actual attributes of a player.
10-13-2022, 01:35 PMItsFrenchie Wrote: I kind of want to add to this. Although sample sizes do affect scatter plots in how strong regression lines are, regression lines cannot judge wether or not a correlation can be established between X and Y, in this case the amount of applied TPE in shooting accuracy and other relevant attributes and point production. There is then the issue that (i'm sorry, i'm a newbie, so this may be wrong) shooting accuracy mostly affects goals and not necessarily assists, and in that sense, a scatter plot comparing total points vs. appliedTPE seems to skew the data. All this to say that more data needs to be collected, or at the very least two similar periods of time need to be compared so that equivalent sample sizes are being analyzed, there should be consideration for comparing applied TPE with goals if this is what shooting accuracy and other scoring attributes tend to influence more than overall point production, and further testing, such as correlation tests should be done.
I reiterate, my experience both with FHM and the SHL is limited, so I may be wrong on this or I may have omitted other aspects in my reflection.
Yes this is also an issue.
I did some things. First I took the almost two seasons of FHM8 data (S66 and S67) we have and combined it with the last two seasons of FHM6 data (S64 and S65). I added two columns from the index data, one indicating positional group (D or F) and one indicating the engine used to produce that data. Then I went to work on some visualizations.
First we have the two engines' data overlaid for each position in a scatter plot. FHM6 is orange and FHM8 is black. I also added a linear regression line (straight line) on top. It looked like Jeffie added a spline (non-linear line) on the original graphs that is better at modelling details in the data so the lines will look a bit different. The straight lines will not be able to find as many details in the relationship between the two variables but works for my current visualizations.
The image shows that there has been a drastic increase in "base" level of points for Forwards, while there seems to have been a decline in points for Defensemen. One note is that there are more players overall in FHM8 with less than 500 applied TPE which could affect the estimates and are probably not going to be the general population we want to look at at the SHL level.
I then filtered out those players and redid the graph:
Now the difference between the engines becomes clearer, the defense sees a small reduction in points at the same TPE level while forwards see a large increase in points at the same TPE level.
One of the options listed in the original post was to increase the Shooting Accuracy limit for Defensemen. To visualize this, I created a boxplot for each Shooting Accuracy and grouped them per position (top is D, bottom is F) and engine (left is FHM6, right is FHM8).
First looking at the FHM6 data, we can see that Forwards saw a big uptick in points produced when increasing their Shooting Accuracy from 12 to 14. In FHM8 we see that Forwards with 12 in Shooting Accuracy already produce at the same level as 14-15 in FHM6. As for Defensemen, having Shooting Accuracy at 9-12 seems to produce about the same in both engines, maybe a small decrease in the median (the line inside the colored box).
One would expect that Shooting Accuracy affects Goals more than Assists. Being able to hit the net would probably give you a better chance of scoring compared to getting an assist. One could maybe argue that it would lead to an increase in rebounds that would produce assists, but regardless I wanted to look at the two ways you can produce points.
First comes goals:
Then comes assists:
then comes a baby in a baby carriage...
For forwards the same trend can be seen here between the engines as we saw in points. There is an increase in goals when increasing Accuracy from 12 to 15 in FHM6 while the same cannot be said for FHM8. The increase comes instead at around 15 to 17, which can also be seen in FHM6 up to 18. Defensemen do see an increase in goals from 10 to 12 in FHM8 compared to FHM6 where it's more stable (or at least a lower slope in trend).
Assists don't really see any trend for defensemen in either engine but forwards show the same trend that we've seen in the other graphs. This trend is most likely due to confounding effects (other variables), i.e. when the player has put in TPE in Shooting Accuracy, they have most likely put in TPE in other attributes that affect the ability to produce assists.
What does this all mean? It's a really tough situation to solve. Without doing specific controlled simulations where we can control the attributes of the players, there is no real way to know the real causal relationship between an attribute and a performance metric. Observational studies where we just take measurements of the attribute values and performances will never be able to find whether or not the correlation between two variables are because of one another or if it exists purely by chance. A good example of this is that there is a positive correlation between the number of movies Nicolas Cage stars in during a year and the number of drownings in a US pool that same year. These two variables have nothing to do with one another, but there is a correlation between them nonetheless.
As Shooting Accuracy is the only attribute that has different limits for the two positional groups and is described as an offensive attribute, I think it be worth to test allowing Defensemen to get to 13 or even 14 while keeping the average number of goals per game setting the same. Hopefully the trend we saw in the boxplot of goals vs Shooting Accuracy in FHM8 can continue and we see more goals scored by Defensemen.
After completing this writing I also saw fellow stats enthusiast @Jumbobone19 looking at number of shots as a statistic so I went ahead and added a final graph of that performance metric.
It looks like overall the number of shots is lower for both D and F at all levels of Shooting Accuracy. I then had to do a plot on shooting percentage where it looks like FHM sees a higher shooting percentage overall for all Forwards at the same levels of Shooting Accuracy.
So the theory is not as conclusive as the original post made it sound to be with this data analysis. Although it highlights a few trends that may lead us to believe this, I think overall its still pretty close and varies from a metric to another. I think you are correct at this point in suggesting we go to a trial phase to see if the suggested changes truly have an impact on defensmen scoring goals or not.
With that being said, I am truly impressed by all this, kudos my friend! You should get a special pay for this, its amazing.
Jumbobone19![[Image: vv8G0o1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/vv8G0o1.png)
![[Image: WRaWNbg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/WRaWNbg.png)
![[Image: jumbobone19.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/jumbobone19.gif)
![[Image: 9tINabI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9tINabI.png)
![[Image: 1DL5JDX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/1DL5JDX.png)
![[Image: xc2IPJy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xc2IPJy.png)
![[Image: wW0VNnL.png]](https://i.imgur.com/wW0VNnL.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030180566739464252/unknown.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030182264795058246/unknown.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030182782246330478/unknown.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030184694446301284/unknown.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030184826218758215/unknown.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030188203359080478/unknown.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017026091589828638/1030189092916449331/unknown.png)
![[Image: HFFO.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/HFFO.gif)
![[Image: spartangibbles.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/spartangibbles.gif)
![[Image: qGhUIfY.png]](http://i.imgur.com/qGhUIfY.png)
![[Image: PlcJv9V.png]](https://i.imgur.com/PlcJv9V.png)
![[Image: gunnarsoderberg.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/gunnarsoderberg.gif)
![[Image: xJXeYmQ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xJXeYmQ.png)
![[Image: DG0jZcS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DG0jZcS.png)
![[Image: zS2lCMp.png]](https://i.imgur.com/zS2lCMp.png)
: .![[Image: FR-B3jfXsAAvEaW?format=png&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR-B3jfXsAAvEaW?format=png&name=small)
![[Image: image.png]](https://i.ibb.co/X4WGR17/image.png)
![[Image: lap-teamsig.png]](https://i.ibb.co/MgFr5BT/lap-teamsig.png)
![[Image: 7MO9RpC.png]](http://i.imgur.com/7MO9RpC.png)
![[Image: G1cbXSf.png]](http://i.imgur.com/G1cbXSf.png)
![[Image: gdppv5N.png]](http://i.imgur.com/gdppv5N.png)
![[Image: 8E70VfU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8E70VfU.png)
![[Image: canadice.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/canadice.gif)
![[Image: jZtKPwK.png]](http://i.imgur.com/jZtKPwK.png)
![[Image: RyzkmSj.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RyzkmSj.png)
| ![[Image: HKi05IH.png]](https://i.imgur.com/HKi05IH.png)
![[Image: EzY5jpl.png]](https://i.imgur.com/EzY5jpl.png)
![[Image: sve7en.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/sve7en.gif)
![[Image: 1tWWEzv.png]](https://i.imgur.com/1tWWEzv.png)
![[Image: 8zFnf2t.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8zFnf2t.png)
![[Image: 6Lj3x8E.png]](https://i.imgur.com/6Lj3x8E.png)
![[Image: xkAdpbO.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xkAdpbO.png)
![[Image: xnZrhKU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xnZrhKU.png)
![[Image: 9YigPG2.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9YigPG2.png)
![[Image: bpYxJ69.png]](https://i.imgur.com/bpYxJ69.png)
![[Image: winter-500.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/709471992100945974/1109520965404201021/winter-500.png)
![[Image: OX6Yrrn.png]](https://i.imgur.com/OX6Yrrn.png)
![[Image: hPSkjwC.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/hPSkjwC.jpg)
![[Image: premierbromanov.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/premierbromanov.gif)
![[Image: EePsAwN.png]](https://i.imgur.com/EePsAwN.png)
![[Image: sXDU6JX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sXDU6JX.png)
![[Image: eaex9S1.png]](https://i.imgur.com/eaex9S1.png)
