Culture
NHL goalies are better than ever. What are the best scorers doing to regain an edge?
When it comes to stopping a scorer in a one-on-one situation, NHL goalies are better than they’ve ever been.
The league-wide save percentage has dipped in recent years — steadily declining from .910 in 2019-20 to .900 this season — as offensive strategies improve and shooters find ways to beat goalies with screens, deflections and backdoor plays. Beating a goaltender with a clean shot has become incredibly difficult.
Listen to the dressing room conversations after a team is shut out. You’ll hear players and coaches parrot the same reasons for the lack of goals.
“We needed more bodies in front of the net.”
“We didn’t get in the goalie’s eyes enough.”
“Goalies are too good nowadays. If they see the shot, they stop it.”
To an extent, these commonly-used phrases are true. Modern goalies are such good skaters that they’re usually in excellent position, giving shooters very little net to shoot at. They’ve trained their entire lives, specializing in reading shots, so it takes something truly exceptional to get the puck past them when they have their feet set and clear vision of the shot.
In response, today’s elite scorers are finding ways to use these goalies’ reads against them. They pick up on the clues goalies are using to predict shot locations, and then give the netminder false information in an attempt to fool them. Being an elite scorer is becoming less about who can shoot the puck the hardest, or even the most accurately, and more about who can conceal their true intentions and mislead the opposition with deception.
We’ll look at specific examples of these subtle acts of deception, and why they’re so effective, by examining four of the league’s craftiest goal-scorers: Sidney Crosby, Nikita Kucherov, William Nylander and Kyle Connor.
First, it’s important to understand how goalies react to shots. The term “lightning-quick reflexes” is often overstated. Yes, these netminders have exceptional reaction time, but the human body has limitations. A study by Harvard University showed that the average human reaction time is 220 milliseconds, and the average recognition reaction time is 384 milliseconds.
An 80-mph shot from the point (55 feet away from the net) reaches the goalie in less than 470 milliseconds. A shot of the same speed from the middle of the slot (20 feet away from the net) reaches the goalie in 170 milliseconds.
That means on most shots from in close, a goalie doesn’t have the time to actually see where the puck is being shot and then react to its flight. Most of the time, they are reading the shooter’s body language and stick blade to predict where the shot is going. After seeing thousands and thousands of shots over their lifetimes, goalies become incredible at it, giving the illusion that they’re actually reacting to the puck. The truth is, if a shooter simulated a shot without an actual puck, the goalie would still know where the “shot” was heading in most instances.
On this goal Crosby scored on March 11, he took the way Vegas Golden Knights goalie Ilya Samsonov read the blade of his stick and used it to his advantage.
Crosby is as crafty as they come, and has plenty of time and space on this play. The deception is so subtle that it’s difficult to notice without slow motion, but watch how Crosby opens his stick blade wide just before releasing the shot. Everything about this release tells Samsonov that Crosby is likely shooting high to the blocker side, but with a quick flick of the wrist, Crosby turns down the toe of his stick blade at the last moment and rifles a low shot just inside Samsonov’s left skate.
If you look closely, you can even see Samsonov’s blocker flinch to his right, where he anticipated the shot would go. The minor weight transfer that a goalie makes when leaning into a blocker save means that his opposite leg will typically be slower getting to the ice, which is why Crosby shot to the short side. It’s a simple-looking goal with a lot happening beneath the surface.
Kucherov uses a similar form of deception, especially on breakaways. This goal he scored against the Penguins on Jan. 12 is a great example of a move he often uses to beat goalies in one-on-one situations.
Kucherov fans his stick blade open, very similar to Crosby in the previous clip, and doesn’t close the toe until midway through the release. Because the change is so late, he regularly leaves goalies flashing their blocker way out to their side, only for Kucherov to curl the puck inside, underneath their armpit, like he does to Tristan Jarry on this play.
The initial deke to pull the puck outside of his body is crucial because it gets the goalie off-angle. When Kucherov had the puck directly in front of him, Jarry was perfectly on angle with the line from the puck to the center of the net running straight through the middle of his chest. That quickly changed when Kucherov pulled the puck outside, giving an edge to the shooter.
You can see how much room there is to the short side after Kucherov pulls the puck outside, and it’s probably why goalies throw their blocker out so aggressively when he shoots. They can sense that they’re off the angle and expect the puck to go between their blocker and the post. Instead of shooting at that opening, Kucherov anticipates the goalie’s next move and shoots where the next opening will be.
He’d pulled the same move the night before against Devils goalie Jacob Markstrom. Markstrom stabs his blocker out aggressively, only for Kucherov to tuck the puck inside it with his late toe curl.
Kucherov has mastered this trick to the point where it feels almost unfair to the goalie. It’s his go-to move on breakaways. Part of what makes it so effective is his speed. Few players approach these situations at the speed Kucherov does, which only makes it more difficult for the goalie to read him.
Here he is scoring on Columbus’ Elvis Merzlikins and Philadelphia’s Ivan Fedotov with the same move on March 4 and March 17. It’s no coincidence that every one of these goalies over-extends their blocker. Kucherov is baiting them into it with slight manipulation of his stick blade, combined with the fact that the deke gets the goalies off their angle.
There’s a reason Kucherov has outscored his expected goals metrics in nine of the last 10 seasons, according to Evolving-Hockey. Expected goals models are based on how often players score on a shot given the location and several other factors, but it doesn’t account for shooting skill, which Kucherov has in abundance.
Elite scorers use more than just the stick blade to mislead goalies. Maple Leafs star Nylander has been duping netminders with a kicking motion that he uses quite often. Here’s an example of him using a high kick with his trail leg on this overtime winner against the Devils on Jan. 16.
This move isn’t unique to Nylander. It’s a standard off-leg shot with the left leg (in Nylander’s case because he’s right-handed) hiking into the air to gain leverage and add velocity to the snap shot. It’s a technique mostly used when skating in stride, because it allows for a quicker release, and more often than not it’s used on high shots, such as the one Nylander beat Markstrom with on this play.
Here’s where it starts to get tricky. Nylander has realized that goalies are reading the off-leg snap shots, and is now starting to turn that against them. On this goal – which also happened to come against New Jersey – Nylander kicks the leg up, but shoots the puck along the ice.
You can see Devils goalie Jake Allen react as if the shot is going high-glove. Not only does Nylander kick his leg, his follow-through is mimicking a high shot. If Allen had correctly read that it was going to be a low shot, he would’ve driven his knees into the ice and sealed his butterfly. Instead, he reaches his glove out and his left pad is late to seal, and that’s exactly where Nylander scores.
Up in Winnipeg, Connor is having another excellent season. He’s one of the most under-appreciated scorers in the league, with at least 30 goals in all eight of his full NHL seasons (excluding the shortened 2020-21 season, when he still almost hit the mark).
Connor’s biggest weapon is a ridiculously fast release that is tough for goalies to read. He uses a CCM Ribcor stick with a P92 “Sakic” curve, named after Avalanche Hall of Famer Joe Sakic. It’s the most iconic stick curve and the most popular among NHL players, with a bit of an open toe to promote higher shots.
One of the biggest keys for Connor is the 85 flex in the stick shaft. It’s not the flimsiest stick in the NHL, but it’s on the more flexible side. That allows him to whip the puck at high velocity without putting a ton of weight or pressure into the stick. His upright shooting style gives goaltenders little warning that a shot is coming, and it regularly catches them off-guard.
He did it Monday night against Vancouver, casually zipping a shot by Canucks goalie Thatcher Demko in transition.
There’s very little shoulder dip or forward body lean prior to the shot, which makes it difficult for Demko to anticipate. It’s also a bit out of rhythm, which is a difficult concept to describe but makes a shot feel as though it’s coming out of nowhere for the goalie. In this instance, Connor shoots off of his outside (right) leg, which is typically accompanied by a lowering of the upper body as the player jumps from his inside to outside leg, building energy and leverage.
Demko has some of the best footwork of any goalie in the NHL, and yet Connor still catches him between shuffles. Shooting the puck just a half beat before the goalie expects it can make all the difference.
Connor also uses more obvious forms of deception to maximize his quick release and catch goalies off guard, like this no-look shot that tricked San Jose goalie Alexandar Georgiev on Dec. 17.
Georgiev knows there are several passing threats on the backside of the play (both Cole Perfetti in the low slot and Mark Scheifele near the far post) so he’s already hyper-aware of a cross-seam pass. When Connor glances to the middle of the ice as he loads his stick for the shot, it clearly throws the goalie off. Georgiev doesn’t cheat positionally by flattening out along his goal line. He’s still square to the puck, but he shifts his weight onto his left leg to prepare for a lateral explosion across the crease in the event of a pass.
Because of that, when Connor shoots high to the short side, Georgiev makes an awkward looking stab at the puck with his glove without even dropping into the butterfly. The reason the save attempt looks so strange is Georgiev’s weight transfer is not where it would normally be due to the threat of the pass, amplified by Connor’s head fake.
With the skill and intelligence of the modern goaltender, shooters are relying more and more on deception. The days of winding up and ripping shots past the goalie with sheer velocity are long gone. Lateral passing plays, deflections and screens will still be the most efficient way to score, but when a shooter faces a goalie mano a mano, deception is king.
(Illustration: Will Tullos / The Athletic; Photos: Mark LoMoglio, Mark Blinch, Daniel Bartel, Jaylynn Nash / Getty Images)
Culture
Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.
Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)
This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.
Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:
The More Loving One
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.
Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet
In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.
Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:
How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.
Tracy K. Smith, poet
These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.
This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.
The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.
But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:
Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a damn,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.
Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist
The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.
The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:
Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.
Yiyun Li, author
Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.
Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.
The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.
So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.
When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.
Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.
This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.
So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!
Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.
Question 1/6
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.
Your first task: Learn the first four lines!
Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.
Monday
Love, the cosmos and everything in between, all in 16 lines.
Tuesday (Available tomorrow)
What’s love got to do with it?
Wednesday (Available April 22)
How to write about love? Be a little heartsick (and the best poet of your time).
Thursday (Available April 23)
Are we alone in the universe? Does it matter?
Friday (Available April 24)
You did it! You’re a star.
Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.
Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.
Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.
Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.
Culture
Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books
Literature
‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot
Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?
“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.
“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.
It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)
Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.
All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.
‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips
This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.
Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.
Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:
“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”
The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.
‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem
You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.
It’s science fiction. All right?
I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.
“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.
‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders
If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”
Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.
We’d all have read it by now — right?
‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf
You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.
Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.
Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.
I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.
As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.
It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.
It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).
As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
Culture
6 Poems You Should Know by Heart
Literature
‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell
Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.
“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”
“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”
“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”
‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare
They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”
“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.
“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.
These interviews have been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
-
Kentucky2 minutes agoVanderbilt baseball’s series win vs Kentucky revelatory
-
Louisiana8 minutes agoLouisiana shooter Shamar Elkins made chilling remarks about ‘demons’ weeks before killing his 7 kids and their cousin
-
Maine14 minutes agoA remote Maine town is ready to close its 5-student school
-
Maryland20 minutes agoMaryland Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 results for April 19, 2026
-
Michigan26 minutes agoMichigan Democrats seek to mend old divides at contentious convention
-
Minnesota38 minutes agoUCLA baseball remains perfect in Big Ten by beating Minnesota
-
Mississippi44 minutes agoMississippi Lottery Mississippi Match 5, Cash 3 results for April 19, 2026
-
Missouri50 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 winning numbers for April 19, 2026