NHL

dempa: Jag tycker alltid att du ska skicka med bilder. Jag tycker det är kul att se hur folk tänker, vilka spelare dom minns från förr, leta inspiration till nästa doku, osv.

SuneMangs: För alla er puckdokulovers out there, jag prenumererar på The Athletic och det kom in en fråga angående puckdoku. Tyckte det var skoj läsning, så håll till godo! Jag identifierar mig som "Sicko" av kategorierna nedan om någon undrar...

Fråga:
Please settle the debate about the proper way to play Puckdoku. (And share any tips you might have.)

Svar:
If you’re not already playing Puckdoku, you’re still getting work done/missing out. The game is based on a bit we did on Puck Soup a few weeks ago, and is basically a hockey version of the Immaculate Grid craze. You’re presented with a 3×3 grid, with teams or accomplishments along the top and side, and you need to fill each space with a player who meets both of his square’s requirements.

How do you win? In theory, by successfully filling out the whole grid, although some people like to go further. Is there a right and wrong way to play? I don’t think so — this is one of those things where everyone should just enjoy what they enjoy, and play however they choose.

That said, you should make up your mind before you start each day’s grid. As best I can tell, there are four distinct ways people play:

• Basic mode: Just get as many right answers as possible, which a lot of days is difficult enough on its own. A right answer is a right answer, and that’s all you’re looking for. I’d imagine this is how most beginners and/or casual fans play.

• Front-runner mode: In this version, you’re trying to guess the most popular answer for each square, which will usually (but not quite always) be an active and/or superstar player. This means you’re looking for the highest possible “uniqueness” score for each square. Or to put it more simply, you want your grid to match the “Popular picks” that show up at the end of the game.

• Sicko mode: The opposite of front-runner mode, this one has you searching for the rarest answers, and the lowest possible uniqueness score. Double-digits is good; single-digits is better. It will not surprise you to know this is how I play.

• Cheater mode: This is like sicko mode, except you research your answers before you enter them to try to get as close as possible to a uniqueness score of zero. I’ll be honest, I don’t really get the appeal here, especially now that you can use this tool to easily find players nobody has ever heard of. But if it’s your cup of tea then go for it, with the only caveat being that you own it — no showing up in conversations between sicko mode fans and pretending your zero was legit.

If anyone has come up with anything more creative, be sure to let us know in the comments.

As far as tips, I’ll pass on a few. First, if you’re stumped on a two-team combo, try to recall a big blockbuster between those two teams, and then use the biggest name (front-runner mode) or the most obscure throw-in (for the sickos). Remember that there’s a one-game minimum, so don’t get tripped up by offseason acquisitions or draft picks who were traded away before debuting. There’s an extreme recency bias in the common answers, so factor that in if you’re trying for a high score. On the other side, many players don’t seem to realize the game uses franchise (not team) history, so dipping back to pick a Whaler for the Hurricanes or a Nordique for the Avalanche will usually result in a much lower score. Try to lock in on a few guys who played for half the league, like Michel Petit and Derick Brassard. And while I can’t prove this, it sure seems anecdotally that there’s a significant crossover between my readers and Puckdoku players; obscure players who get mentioned in my columns get a slight boost for at least a few days, so you sickos should be sure to read everything I write and then avoid those guys.

Finally, when in doubt, remember that Basil McRae played for the entire Norris Division. That’s a Puckdoku tip, but also just generally good life advice.