View Single Post
02-09-2011, 10:39 AM
Registered User
Jester's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hockeypete49 View Post
No need to buy bait for this fish. Just drop down the hook. Guarantee to get a bite every time. It is just way to easy.
It's also rather easy to spot the intellectually dishonest, who spout BS and then run away behind sarcasm and snark when they get called out on their displayed ignorance.

Just like Paul Holmgren runs a multi-million dollar organization, right? Or is that Peter Lukko?

It's very easy to be smug when you spout ******** (regularly) and neither back it up, nor admit to it when your incorrect observations are pointed out to you. George W. Bush has made a career of it.

Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Jester, stats don't make everything. Every single person on this board just looks at stats to make all their points. They forget that you are actually dealing with real living people.
No one forgets that they are dealing with real living people. You just constructed the definition of a straw man argument, which defines the rest of the post.

You cannot predict anything in the NHL. Absolutly nothing. You can try, and sometimes you will get it right. But did anyone see Henrik sedin becoming a 100 point player when he was 23. How did he do when he was 23 Jester?
Actually, yes, they did. Everyone was very confused why the Sedin twins didn't develop quicker. However, more importantly, you should internalize the following observation: there are exceptions to every rule.

Look above, however, Hockeypete49 rattled off a slew of names of supposed players that somehow backed up his defensible position and they almost all conformed perfectly to what I was arguing. The Peter Stastny one was just pure gold.

And your belief that you cannot predict anything in the NHL is... certifiably false. Given enough evidence, you can predict within a reasonable margin of error a great deal quite accurately. For example, given the history of the league and the thousands of players that have spent time in the NHL, by the age of 23 most elite scorers have begun putting up big point totals and you can make determinations based on that.

Look, people change, circumstances change, things happen. You cannot state that 23 is not young as a point scorer. At 23, you still have a minimum of 5 years to post good point total. Just because it doesn't happen often, doesn't mean that you can write off Giroux already. Giroux has always been a late bloomer, not only that, but he has always dominated his age group, just like Mike Richards has always had team success follow him.
Who the **** is writing off Giroux? He's a very good scorer now, and I expect him to put up good point totals throughout his career (I always have). I don't expect him to be a 100 pt guy in this league, and I doubt we will see significant change from the level he's at now. And... late bloomer? He scored 103 pts his first season in the Q. There's also a difference between being a late bloomer as a teen (physically maturing) and later on in life.

However, the original argument was made by Sawdalite, that Giroux was "young" if you're talking about scoring in the NHL (specifically in relation to guys that hit 100 pts). That is an empirically false claim. NHL players with extreme consistency start putting up high point totals at or before the age of 23. 23 is NOT young by any argument you might want to make when it comes to scoring in the NHL. The majority of the skill-set required to put up high point totals: quickness, twitch reflexes, durability, etc. are stuff that doesn't age well.

If you want to argue that he may be a "late bloomer" that's fine... but you are applying the term "late bloomer" for a reason, no? Maybe, because he didn't bloom when most do?

Last edited by Jester: 02-09-2011 at 10:56 AM.
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote