HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Do we give Holmgren enough credit?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-12-2011, 11:20 PM
  #326
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Incorrect. It's because he's a prove NHL #1 Goalie. Bobrovsky is very talented. Why didn't we go with him?

Nothing is being twisted. Your premise is simply irrelevant.


Observed talent is based on "proof" by doing, not some abstract facility. In this, Bryzgalov far exceeds Bobrovsky. Being "proven" is based on how good Bryzgalov is. Repetition of success is just further proof of real, observed talent. If by "my premise," you mean talent, then no it is not irrelevant. Talent is just how good someone is. It is really just the same concept of your "proven-ness" by another name.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Even if he gets injured. That doesn't change that he is an upgrade to what we had. No one can predict that a player will or won't be injured. Should they not have signed him because he might get injured? Again, that's irrelevant.

You keep ignoring the points I am actually making. I am not saying they should not have signed him. That is completely misconstrued, once again. The point I am making is that there is a difference between "talent upgrade" and "in the bank" results. One is based on speculation (extrapolation that past observed talent will lead to future successful results) and the other is based on the examination of reality (observed results from some given, relevant time to some point of reference, such as the present).



Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
You should read your own definitions that you offer. A capacity for achievement or success. Talent isn't enough. You have to take that talent and put it to use. Tons of talented players don't make it. Bryzgalov isn't just talented. Again, he is a proven #1 NHL Goalie

I think I have explained this fully enough. Talent = how good a player is. I see no reason to differentiate how good a player is from "capacity to achieve success" for the purposes of this conversation. It is a very generic and basic meaning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Call it whatever you want. LOL.

I'll just call it right.
That's very charitable of you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Your avoiding the question. How can Bryzgalov be considered an upgrade if your premise is correct. That if it hasn't happened yet, it is fiction.

When is it considered to have happened? How many games?
Bryzgalov can be considered an upgrade because he is more talented. His actual results can be judged so far as they actually have been produced. It's elementary.


Last edited by Damaged Goods: 10-12-2011 at 11:32 PM.
Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2011, 11:29 PM
  #327
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Is it fiction that Claude Giroux will outscore Scott Hartnell this Season? If both players play the relatively same amount of games?
Answer: yes!

Your reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Then were done here. Because you don't get it.

FICTION
fic·tion   [fik-shuhn] noun
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction

This is just one example of why I had to bring the dictionary into it. Because it's clear that you are the one that doesn't get it. And that "it" is the definition of the words that this discussion is based on.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:23 AM
  #328
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post


Observed talent is based on "proof" by doing, not some abstract facility. In this, Bryzgalov far exceeds Bobrovsky. Being "proven" is based on how good Bryzgalov is. Repetition of success is just further proof of real, observed talent. If by "my premise," you mean talent, then no it is not irrelevant. Talent is just how good someone is. It is really just the same concept of your "proven-ness" by another name.
Your incorrect again. Talent is just how much natural raw ability someone has. Players such as Alexandre Daigle, Pavel Brendl, and Nikolai Zherdev were extremely talented players. How you apply that talent to your play on the ice and use that talent, determines how good you are. Talent alone is just talent.

Bryzgalov isn't here just because he is talented. It's because he is a proven #1 NHL Goalie. Really a simple concept that your having a hard time understanding.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
You keep ignoring the points I am actually making. I am not saying they should not have signed him. That is completely misconstrued, once again. The point I am making is that there is a difference between "talent upgrade" and "in the bank" results. One is based on speculation (extrapolation that past observed talent will lead to future successful results) and the other is based on the examination of reality (observed results from some given, relevant time to some point of reference, such as the present).
I didn't say that you did say that they shouldn't have signed him. I'm simply pointing out that your premise simply isn't applied in the real World, so is therefore irrelevant. None of what you wrote above means anything. It's pure jibberish.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I think I have explained this fully enough. Talent = how good a player is. I see no reason to differentiate how good a player is from "capacity to achieve success" for the purposes of this conversation. It is a very generic and basic meaning.
Talent isn't how good a player is. There are less talented players that become better players than players with more natural talent than they have. Happens all the time in sports. You really should have that understanding. There is no need to post definitons from a dictionar. And if you do have to resort to that, then you obviously don't have a point.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Bryzgalov can be considered an upgrade because he is more talented. His actual results can be judged so far as they actually have been produced. It's elementary.
Incorrect. Bryzgalov is an upgrade because he is a proven player. And again, how can he be an upgrade if it hasn't happened yet. According to your premise it is fiction. Your own replies show how ridiculous your statements are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Answer: yes!

Your reply:

FICTION
fic·tion   [fik-shuhn] noun
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction

This is just one example of why I had to bring the dictionary into it. Because it's clear that you are the one that doesn't get it. And that "it" is the definition of the words that this discussion is based on.
One post you say that he is an upgrade, and another you say he's not. That it's fiction. Which is it? You don't even know what your saying.
Posting the definition of fiction didn't work the first time. It's not going to work the 2nd or the 3rd either! LOL

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:52 AM
  #329
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Your incorrect again. Talent is just how much natural raw ability someone has. Players such as Alexandre Daigle, Pavel Brendl, and Nikolai Zherdev were extremely talented players. How you apply that talent to your play on the ice and use that talent, determines how good you are. Talent alone is just talent.

Bryzgalov isn't here just because he is talented. It's because he is a proven #1 NHL Goalie. Really a simple concept that your having a hard time understanding.






I didn't say that you did say that they shouldn't have signed him. I'm simply pointing out that your premise simply isn't applied in the real World, so is therefore irrelevant. None of what you wrote above means anything. It's pure jibberish.







Talent isn't how good a player is. There are less talented players that become better players than players with more natural talent than they have. Happens all the time in sports. You really should have that understanding. There is no need to post definitons from a dictionar. And if you do have to resort to that, then you obviously don't have a point.









Incorrect. Bryzgalov is an upgrade because he is a proven player. And again, how can he be an upgrade if it hasn't happened yet. According to your premise it is fiction. Your own replies show how ridiculous your statements are.



One post you say that he is an upgrade, and another you say he's not. That it's fiction. Which is it? You don't even know what your saying.
Posting the definition of fiction didn't work the first time. It's not going to work the 2nd or the 3rd either! LOL

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 09:10 AM
  #330
dats81
Registered User
 
dats81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Carinthia
Country: Austria
Posts: 1,732
vCash: 500
Homer is definitely not afraid of making bold moves and he seems to get the important things done, which he should be given credit for. He built a really competitive team.

However, he sometimes completely screws the little things, like for instance not knowing the CBA regarding to waiver eligibility or 35+ contracts, or even signing too many prospects and getting in trouble in respect to the max contracts limit.
He doesn't get much support on that stuff from the rest of the organization...

dats81 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 03:05 PM
  #331
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
It's almost shocking how dishonest you can be with your twisted interpretations of my arguments, as if you somehow expect me to believe that I don't comprehend my own words. Who are you trying to fool?

Recommended reading for VanSciver before any rational discussion can go forward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

DFF is right that there is no reason to respond to you if you refuse to argue in good faith.

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:27 PM
  #332
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
It's almost shocking how dishonest you can be with your twisted interpretations of my arguments, as if you somehow expect me to believe that I don't comprehend my own words. Who are you trying to fool?

Recommended reading for VanSciver before any rational discussion can go forward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

DFF is right that there is no reason to respond to you if you refuse to argue in good faith.
But yet you do respond. And you respond with this, which has nothing to do with Hockey. Honestly, how do you expect to be considered credible posting this irrelevant material, and posting definitions of words such as fiction?

So let's review, you say if it hasn't happened yet, it's fiction. So I therefore say well then how can Bryzgalov be considered an upgrade in net for the Flyers then? You respond because he's talented.

I've also asked you if it's fiction that Claude Giroux will outscore Scott Hartnell this Season. You said yes, it is fiction, because it hasn't happened yet. Well isn't Giroux more talented than Hartnell is? Why doesn't the same standard apply?

The bottom line is that with every post you make, you reveal more and more holes in your flawed premise. Even to the point now where you are no longer even discussing Hockey. But posting definitions of words, and link to irrelevant content on Wikipedia!

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 04:51 PM
  #333
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
But yet you do respond. And you respond with this, which has nothing to do with Hockey. Honestly, how do you expect to be considered credible posting this irrelevant material, and posting definitions of words such as fiction?

So let's review, you say if it hasn't happened yet, it's fiction. So I therefore say well then how can Bryzgalov be considered an upgrade in net for the Flyers then? You respond because he's talented.
I know I said that I was done but this is just silly. Talent is something you can view in the present. Someone who is more talented is an upgrade over someone who is less talented. That doesn't mean they will fare better, it just means they are more talented and on paper are an upgrade. Get it? Saying someone is talented is not a prediction. Saying Bryz will fare better is. That Bryz will fare better than Bob is a prediction and speculative. To say he is an upgrade in talent is not.

Quote:
I've also asked you if it's fiction that Claude Giroux will outscore Scott Hartnell this Season. You said yes, it is fiction, because it hasn't happened yet. Well isn't Giroux more talented than Hartnell is? Why doesn't the same standard apply?
This is looking into the future. Yes, he is more talented. No that doesn't guarantee he will outscore any other player you throw into that occasion. This is a pretty simple concept.

Quote:
The bottom line is that with every post you make, you reveal more and more holes in your flawed premise. Even to the point now where you are no longer even discussing Hockey. But posting definitions of words, and link to irrelevant content on Wikipedia!

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 05:08 PM
  #334
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
But yet you do respond. And you respond with this, which has nothing to do with Hockey.
I felt it necessary to respond with an article about principles of argument because I think your dishonest method of argumentation had degenerated the conversation to that point. It is merely a consequence of the tactics which you continue to employ, and which I feel the need to defend myself against. In other words, the best way to avoid hearing about straw men is to avoid using them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Honestly, how do you expect to be considered credible posting this irrelevant material, and posting definitions of words such as fiction?
How do you expect to be considered credible when you reject the ordinary definition of words, and refuse to be held accountable for it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So let's review, you say if it hasn't happened yet, it's fiction.
Don't take it up with me, take it up with Merriam-Webster. If the "it" that "hasn't happened yet" is an an "imaginary thing or event, postulated for purposes of argument," or more simply put "imaginative;" then it is by definition a fiction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So I therefore say well then how can Bryzgalov be considered an upgrade in net for the Flyers then? You respond because he's [more] talented.
i.e., better at tending goal. Correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I've also asked you if it's fiction that Claude Giroux will outscore Scott Hartnell this Season. You said yes, it is fiction, because it hasn't happened yet.
Yes. As a statement, this is once again a fiction, based on the very definition of the word. Ordinarily, a statement about what is presumed to happen is imaginative, and therefore, by definition, fiction. At this point, Claude Giroux outscoring Scott Hartnell for the duration of the season is imaginative, because it has not yet happened.

I really don't see the complication here. You continue to bash down the open door. Perhaps you have been interpreting my arguments to be "anti-fiction" (I have only said you cannot apply the same standards to fiction as you do to reality), or you are implicitly taking "fiction" to equal "falsehood." Nevertheless, I have to admit that it is somewhat amusing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Well isn't Giroux more talented than Hartnell is? Why doesn't the same standard apply?
Yes, Giroux is more talented than Hartnell (i.e. better at hockey). Nonetheless, postulation of imaginative outcomes is still fiction. What exactly is the "same standard" you claim has not been applied here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
The bottom line is that with every post you make, you reveal more and more holes in your flawed premise.
Please demonstrate one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Even to the point now where you are no longer even discussing Hockey. But posting definitions of words, and link to irrelevant content on Wikipedia!
How was an article on the principles of argument irrelevant, when such principles were so clearly being violated? I feel like I have to carry the burden for two men at once during this discussion, because you keep allowing yourself to lapse on the very basics.

The resources I linked to were not "hockey-related," but they are very related to the foundations of the conversation we are presumably trying to have.


Last edited by Damaged Goods: 10-13-2011 at 05:15 PM.
Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:11 PM
  #335
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I felt it necessary to respond with an article about principles of argument because I think your dishonest method of argumentation had degenerated the conversation to that point. It is merely a consequence of the tactics which you continue to employ, and which I feel the need to defend myself against. In other words, the best way to avoid hearing about straw men is to avoid using them.
Nothing about the sport here, so therefore irrelevant in my opinion. My tactics are to use simple common sense by using your own words to refute your flawed premise.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
How do you expect to be considered credible when you reject the ordinary definition of words, and refuse to be held accountable for it?
I haven't rejected any definition of any word. I never said the definitions of the words you offered were incorrect. What I've rejected is your application of the words in your flawed premise. Again, another statement in your response that has nothing to do with the sport of Hockey.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Don't take it up with me, take it up with Merriam-Webster. If the "it" that "hasn't happened yet" is an an "imaginary thing or event, postulated for purposes of argument," or more simply put "imaginative;" then it is by definition a fiction.
Well then I'll again ask you how Bryzgalov can be considered an upgrade in net then? The very answer to that simple question irrefutably shows that your premise is false.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
i.e., better at tending goal. Correct.
How can that be? If it hasn't happened yet then it is fiction. That's what you've continually said.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Yes. As a statement, this is once again a fiction, based on the very definition of the word. Ordinarily, a statement about what is presumed to happen is imaginative, and therefore, by definition, fiction. At this point, Claude Giroux outscoring Scott Hartnell for the duration of the season is imaginative, because it has not yet happened.
But you offered that Bryzgalov is more talented so therefore he is a better Goalie. So if Giroux is more talented than Hartnell, and is a better player, how can it be fiction that Giroux will outscore Hartnell? You contradict your own statements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I really don't see the complication here. You continue to bash down the open door. Perhaps you have been interpreting my arguments to be "anti-fiction" (I have only said you cannot apply the same standards to fiction as you do to reality), or you are implicitly taking "fiction" to equal "falsehood." Nevertheless, I have to admit that it is somewhat amusing.
Bunch of irrelevant jibberish here. Talk Hockey! LOL But you've already proven that you are mismatched in that department. So you move on to this nonsense.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Yes, Giroux is more talented than Hartnell (i.e. better at hockey). Nonetheless, postulation of imaginative outcomes is still fiction. What exactly is the "same standard" you claim has not been applied here?
The same standard is that you say if it hasn't happened then it is fiction. What you fail to realize and why your premise is hopelessly flawed is that it has happened. Giroux easily outscored Hartnell last year. And is a far more talented player. Any rational person would state that Giroux will again outscore Hartnell. But you say it's fiction. And offer definitions and wikipedia links to substantiate your claims.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Please demonstrate one.
With every reply I have show how flawed your premise is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
How was an article on the principles of argument irrelevant, when such principles were so clearly being violated? I feel like I have to carry the burden for two men at once during this discussion, because you keep allowing yourself to lapse on the very basics.

The resources I linked to were not "hockey-related," but they are very related to the foundations of the conversation we are presumably trying to have.
They not linked at all. They're irrelvant. What is most important is the content of your argument. Yours is severely lacking. And you've moved off of a direct discussion on the sport itself because that is your only hope at this point.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:25 PM
  #336
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
[QUOTE=VanSciver;37868763]
Quote:
Well then I'll again ask you how Bryzgalov can be considered an upgrade in net then? The very answer to that simple question irrefutably shows that your premise is false.
Talent (i.e. what he has done in the past, what he is capable of) is present. What Bryz does in the future hasn't happened and no one knows what will happen. This isn't a real difficult concept, man.



Quote:
How can that be? If it hasn't happened yet then it is fiction. That's what you've continually said.
This is where you look at past performance/present talent. It's a good indicator, but it doesn't guarantee anything. (See Daigle, Alexander)


Quote:
But you offered that Bryzgalov is more talented so therefore he is a better Goalie. So if Giroux is more talented than Hartnell, and is a better player, how can it be fiction that Giroux will outscore Hartnell? You contradict your own statements
Because it hasn't happened. There are some players who are less talented that could outscore Giroux. We don't know because it hasn't happened yet. Get it?

Quote:
The same standard is that you say if it hasn't happened then it is fiction. What you fail to realize and why your premise is hopelessly flawed is that it has happened. Giroux easily outscored Hartnell last year. And is a far more talented player. Any rational person would state that Giroux will again outscore Hartnell. But you say it's fiction. And offer definitions and wikipedia links to substantiate your claims.
This is a prediction. Yes most people think he will. But he hasn't yet. If predicitons = fact, why play the games? Let's give the Red Wings the Cup and a Sedin the Hart.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:25 PM
  #337
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Also

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:32 PM
  #338
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=DrinkFightFlyers;37869647]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post

Talent (i.e. what he has done in the past, what he is capable of) is present. What Bryz does in the future hasn't happened and no one knows what will happen. This isn't a real difficult concept, man.
It's also not a difficult concept to know that due to his play in the past, he is an upgrade to what the Flyers have had in the recent past in net, man.




Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
This is where you look at past performance/present talent. It's a good indicator, but it doesn't guarantee anything. (See Daigle, Alexander)
What a coincidence. I said the same thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Because it hasn't happened. There are some players who are less talented that could outscore Giroux. We don't know because it hasn't happened yet. Get it?
Oh I get it, obviously you don't. Who are these players. Give some examples.
So it's a stretch to say that Giroux will outscore Hartnell because it hasn't happened yet?


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
This is a prediction. Yes most people think he will. But he hasn't yet. If predicitons = fact, why play the games? Let's give the Red Wings the Cup and a Sedin the Hart.
Some predictions have a lot more variables to them which makes them much harder to predict. One prediction that isn't hard to predict, is that Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net for the Flyers.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 06:54 PM
  #339
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
[QUOTE=VanSciver;37870327]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post

It's also not a difficult concept to know that due to his play in the past, he is an upgrade to what the Flyers have had in the recent past in net, man.






What a coincidence. I said the same thing.





Oh I get it, obviously you don't. Who are these players. Give some examples.
So it's a stretch to say that Giroux will outscore Hartnell because it hasn't happened yet?




Some predictions have a lot more variables to them which makes them much harder to predict. One prediction that isn't hard to predict, is that Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net for the Flyers.
So I think you are just confused here. No one is saying Giroux won't score more than Hartnell or that Bryz is not an upgrade. Its just that there's a chance that it won't happen, so it is not fact. Its speculation. Just because its likely doesn't mean it will happen. Just all of the big under dogs out there that win. Or the players no one believe in that put up good numbers across all sports. Its why betting is so dangerous. Yeah, Philly is better than Winnipeg by a long shot. But they may lose to them. Multiple times even. You can speculate that the Flyers will win because they are better, and its likely they will win, but its not a guarantee.

This is getting absurd. I'm starting to think you are just ****ing with me.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:09 PM
  #340
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=DrinkFightFlyers;37872327]
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post

So I think you are just confused here. No one is saying Giroux won't score more than Hartnell or that Bryz is not an upgrade. Its just that there's a chance that it won't happen, so it is not fact. Its speculation. Just because its likely doesn't mean it will happen. Just all of the big under dogs out there that win. Or the players no one believe in that put up good numbers across all sports. Its why betting is so dangerous. Yeah, Philly is better than Winnipeg by a long shot. But they may lose to them. Multiple times even. You can speculate that the Flyers will win because they are better, and its likely they will win, but its not a guarantee.

This is getting absurd. I'm starting to think you are just ****ing with me.
No, I'm not confused at all. Were not betting here. And were not dealing with all the variables that are involved in picking the winner of a sporting event. When dealing with the variables of whether Giroux is going to outscore Hartnell, the only real variable you can't account for is an injury. Same small amount of variables involving whether Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net for the Flyers. Saying that there is a chance it won't happen, is a useless premise. As I explained earlier, A GM doesn't make a player move for his team that he thinks makes them better, because there is a chance that it might not happen. This whole point you and your buddy are trying to make, couldn't be more irrelevant

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 07:30 PM
  #341
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post

No, I'm not confused at all. Were not betting here. And were not dealing with all the variables that are involved in picking the winner of a sporting event. When dealing with the variables of whether Giroux is going to outscore Hartnell, the only real variable you can't account for is an injury. Same small amount of variables involving whether Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net for the Flyers. Saying that there is a chance it won't happen, is a useless premise. As I explained earlier, A GM doesn't make a player move for his team that he thinks makes them better, because there is a chance that it might not happen. This whole point you and your buddy are trying to make, couldn't be more irrelevant
I'm back to this:


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 10-13-2011 at 07:45 PM. Reason: Fixing the quotes
DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 09:40 PM
  #342
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Nothing about the sport here, so therefore irrelevant in my opinion. My tactics are to use simple common sense by using your own words to refute your flawed premise.
It is impossible to discuss anything coherently (including hockey) when we cannot get beyond distortions of semantics and metaphysics.

You have not been using common sense and logic; you have been subverting and disregarding those things. What you are dismissing as "irrelevant" may be irrelevant to the world of hockey, but it is NOT irrelevant to the way you are side-stepping, distorting and/or misunderstanding the arguments being made against you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
I haven't rejected any definition of any word. I never said the definitions of the words you offered were incorrect. What I've rejected is your application of the words in your flawed premise. Again, another statement in your response that has nothing to do with the sport of Hockey.
What "flawed premise"? That the future is to us, today, imaginative? Disregarding the definition of a word is just as good as rejecting it. We haven't gotten an inch forward here.

If you reject a conclusion such as, "Saying 'Hartnell will outscore Giroux' is imaginative and fictitious," you are either rejecting or disregarding the definition of the words therein.

If you believe that saying "Hartnell will outscore Giroux is imaginative and fictitious" is incompatible with the statement "Giroux is a more talented scorer than Hartnell," you are forgetting that inferences drawn from observation of talent are speculative (as well as subjective). The reality that humans live in a world of speculation and inference is very much bound up in the fact we do not know the future. Sorry about that, pal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Well then I'll again ask you how Bryzgalov can be considered an upgrade in net then? The very answer to that simple question irrefutably shows that your premise is false.
Yes, I said Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net. But as of today (10/13/11), that subjective conclusion cannot be based on things that have not yet happened. We have only inferences, assumptions, imaginations, etc.

Perhaps this is where you are getting tripped up. When I or anyone else says, "Bryzgalov is better and more talented," that is actually a subjective statement. It is based on many, many layers of inference (which are assumptive). I am not naive enough to believe that human beings have objective knowledge of this kind of claim ("Such and such is more talented").

DFF and I have so far explicated one specific inference which is not necessarily so ("a more talented player will achieve better results"), but that inference is built on many other inferences. For instance, the inference that the talent of that player will remain intact, the inference that the talent of that player is currently intact, the inference that his past achievements are the result of actual talent and not circumstance and luck, etc.

Furthermore, DFF and I have never denied that GMs deal in a world of inference and speculation. You are resorting to a straw man when you claim our arguments are divorced from an acceptance of that reality.

Now, I know the world "irrelevant" must be on the tip of your tongue right now. But irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to the world of the GM? Perhaps. But not irrelevant to the world of the GM as you are presenting it for purposes of this argument. "Irrelevant" is not a magic wand you can waive at whatever argument you wish would disappear. You have to demonstrate how the logic is irrelevant to the point you have been advancing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
How can that be? If it hasn't happened yet then it is fiction. That's what you've continually said.
"To be" is not the same verb as "will be." Of course it cannot be said with complete certainty that Bryzgalov will be better than anyone else at any point in the future. That is the nature of the future, to be unknown. Everyone should agree on this. Nor has it been denied by DFF or myself that expectations about the future can be drawn from inferences about the past. But they are just inferences, and therefore assumptive in nature.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
But you offered that Bryzgalov is more talented so therefore he is a better Goalie.
That is a truism. But only as an inference from past results. When it comes to future outcomes, it can only be posited through yet more inference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
So if Giroux is more talented than Hartnell, and is a better player, how can it be fiction that Giroux will outscore Hartnell? You contradict your own statements.
It is fiction that Giroux will outscore Hartnell based on the definition of the word fiction.

I think what you really mean to ask is how can these two statements avoid mutual exclusivity.

The statements are only mutually exclusive if you hold that a player who is inferred to be more talented than another player will necessarily outscore that less talented player over a full season. And conversely, that a player who outscores another player must necessarily be more talented. This means also accepting a number of premises such as: talent cannot change, point totals cannot be influenced by luck, circumstance, teammates, coaching, offensive scheme, ice time, match-ups, work load, defensive responsibility, scoring decisions, referees, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Bunch of irrelevant jibberish here. Talk Hockey! LOL But you've already proven that you are mismatched in that department. So you move on to this nonsense.
We've moved onto "this nonsense" to counteract the various dishonest methods with which you have attempted to frame discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
The same standard is that you say if it hasn't happened then it is fiction. What you fail to realize and why your premise is hopelessly flawed is that it has happened. Giroux easily outscored Hartnell last year. And is a far more talented player. Any rational person would state that Giroux will again outscore Hartnell. But you say it's fiction. And offer definitions and wikipedia links to substantiate your claims.
Surely you understand the difference between last year and the current/upcoming year when discussing a matter of past vs. future. Furthermore, I never said it was irrational to expect Giroux to outscore Hartnell. I said that it's fiction because the definition of the word offers no other conclusion. Once again, I am not saying "fiction = falsehood". But I think that has already been well enough established.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
With every reply I have show how flawed your premise is.
Cool story, bro.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
They not linked at all. They're irrelvant. What is most important is the content of your argument. Yours is severely lacking. And you've moved off of a direct discussion on the sport itself because that is your only hope at this point.
Just because you say something is so, does not make it so. There is a link between the principles of argument an actual argument, especially when one party has to remind the other that those principles should be upheld. For instance, when you reformulate my clearly defined arguments using ambiguous pronouns in order to make the statement into nonsense, and then declare that you have defeated my "gibberish," that is dishonestly which violates the principles of good faith and charitable argument. In that case, you are correct: calling attention to that type of deceit is my "only hope."


Last edited by Damaged Goods: 10-13-2011 at 09:47 PM.
Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 09:42 PM
  #343
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
No, I'm not confused at all. Were not betting here. And were not dealing with all the variables that are involved in picking the winner of a sporting event. When dealing with the variables of whether Giroux is going to outscore Hartnell, the only real variable you can't account for is an injury. Same small amount of variables involving whether Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net for the Flyers.
The classic red herring. DFF did not say we were betting; he used betting as an example to illustrate the spectre of variability. And when making claims about future events, variability must be dealt with. This is not a "shades of gray" matter. It is a qualitative principle. The future is variable; the past is not.

Please make a practice of responding to the arguments that are actually being made, rather than distorted "similar looking" mutations of those arguments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
As I explained earlier, A GM doesn't make a player move for his team that he thinks makes them better, because there is a chance that it might not happen. This whole point you and your buddy are trying to make, couldn't be more irrelevant
Once again, you are knocking down the open door. No one claimed that they did.

But that does NOT make the spectre of variability irrelevant to the discussion that was happening and the claims that were being made (for instance, "Roloson would have stopped every shot Leighton did").

Damaged Goods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 10:03 PM
  #344
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium View Post
Homer is a GM that has created a very respectable roster that has the ability to compete with the best in the business. He also has a couple of prospects and pretty much all our remaining draft picks for the future.

He is one of the best in the business with regard to creating the core of the team, and assembling peices in place to ensure the flyers are competative.

However this is offset by being one of the worst in the business with the management of the cap, and the understanding of the CBA. He makes moves that are totally unnecessary, that cause significant problems later down the line. These moves have probably cost the flyers a cup or two. Not all of the blame can be put to homer regarding the cap, as that job is partially the responsibility of the assistant GM (haranan or something like that).

All in all he's a decent GM with poor cap management.
Thats a bit bold...

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2011, 10:15 PM
  #345
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
Thats a bit bold...
Exactly. What we do know is that Homers moves brought us 2 games from a cup as well. One of the "misses" was last years goalie situation...but in the end that was one of MANY problems with the TEAM last year.

I don't get this "cap hell" that we are in...? By my cound we have lost one player that we would have really liked to have kept....Upshall. I would have like to keep Asham instead of Shelley too, but that move didn't prevent us from a cup.

Homer has more than replaced Upshall with moves....

IMO we KILLED the Jeff Carter trade...Couturier looks fantastic. I'm not the biggest fan of Richards...but that trade hasn't been as productive yet. Obviously not enough time yet.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 07:45 AM
  #346
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
It is impossible to discuss anything coherently (including hockey) when we cannot get beyond distortions of semantics and metaphysics.

You have not been using common sense and logic; you have been subverting and disregarding those things. What you are dismissing as "irrelevant" may be irrelevant to the world of hockey, but it is NOT irrelevant to the way you are side-stepping, distorting and/or misunderstanding the arguments being made against you.
Yes, I have been using common sense. My points are as simple as ABC's. The ones your making, are irrelevant. I'm not side stepping or distorting anything. Make a credible point that has to do with the sport of Hockey, rather than posting definitions and wikipedia references.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
What "flawed premise"? That the future is to us, today, imaginative? Disregarding the definition of a word is just as good as rejecting it. We haven't gotten an inch forward here.

If you reject a conclusion such as, "Saying 'Hartnell will outscore Giroux' is imaginative and fictitious," you are either rejecting or disregarding the definition of the words therein.
The future is not imaginative. Knowing that Giroux is going to outscore Hartnell, is not imaginative. It's based on simple sound logic. The definition of the word is irrelevant. That hasn't changed and won't change

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
If you believe that saying "Hartnell will outscore Giroux is imaginative and fictitious" is incompatible with the statement "Giroux is a more talented scorer than Hartnell," you are forgetting that inferences drawn from observation of talent are speculative (as well as subjective). The reality that humans live in a world of speculation and inference is very much bound up in the fact we do not know the future. Sorry about that, pal.
You don't have to know the future to know that Giroux will outscore Hartnell. That's what you can't grasp. Sorry about that, pal. The only variable that we can't predict, as I said before, is a serious injury.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Yes, I said Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net. But as of today (10/13/11), that subjective conclusion cannot be based on things that have not yet happened. We have only inferences, assumptions, imaginations, etc.
Again incorrect. We know that Bryzgalov is an upgrade in net based on the past. We know that he is a better Goalie than Leighton, Boucher, or Bobrovsky is right now. There are no inferences, assumptions, or imaginations involved there. It's based on cold hard facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Perhaps this is where you are getting tripped up. When I or anyone else says, "Bryzgalov is better and more talented," that is actually a subjective statement. It is based on many, many layers of inference (which are assumptive). I am not naive enough to believe that human beings have objective knowledge of this kind of claim ("Such and such is more talented").
I'm not getting tripped up anywhere. I've got it exactly right. Your dealing in all this nonsense that couldn't be more irrelevant. None of the above has anything to do with Holmgren as a GM, or whether Bryzgalov is an upgrade, or if Giroux will outscore Hartnell

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
DFF and I have so far explicated one specific inference which is not necessarily so ("a more talented player will achieve better results"), but that inference is built on many other inferences. For instance, the inference that the talent of that player will remain intact, the inference that the talent of that player is currently intact, the inference that his past achievements are the result of actual talent and not circumstance and luck, etc.

This is ridiculous. Are you saying that Bryzgalov is a bona fide #1 Goalie due to luck and circumstances? Yes, Bryzgalov could completely lose all motor function and suddenly become unable to play. Maybe Holmgren should have taken into consideration that Bryzgalov might lose his talent, and not sign the player.Again, no relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Furthermore, DFF and I have never denied that GMs deal in a world of inference and speculation. You are resorting to a straw man when you claim our arguments are divorced from an acceptance of that reality.
I'm not resorting to anything. That is your misguided and uninformed opinion. I'm dealing in the reality. And not definitions of words, and references to straw man and wikipedia. I deal in the actual sport, not theoretical nonsense that has no bearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Now, I know the world "irrelevant" must be on the tip of your tongue right now. But irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to the world of the GM? Perhaps. But not irrelevant to the world of the GM as you are presenting it for purposes of this argument. "Irrelevant" is not a magic wand you can waive at whatever argument you wish would disappear. You have to demonstrate how the logic is irrelevant to the point you have been advancing.
I have demonstrated that. I've explained with every reply how it is irrelevant. What the truth is that you couldn't possibly explain how any of this is relevant. Why, because it simply isn't. You don't decide what the purposes of my argument is. I decide that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
"To be" is not the same verb as "will be." Of course it cannot be said with complete certainty that Bryzgalov will be better than anyone else at any point in the future. That is the nature of the future, to be unknown. Everyone should agree on this. Nor has it been denied by DFF or myself that expectations about the future can be drawn from inferences about the past. But they are just inferences, and therefore assumptive in nature.
Here is what you can't seem to grasp. Bryzgalov is better, simple as that. There is no future, or inferences, or assumptions involved. He is an upgrade for the Flyers in net. That is not fiction. That's all that matters. That is all that a GM is concerned with. So again, all of this other nonsense that you keep throwing in, is simply irrelevant.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
That is a truism. But only as an inference from past results. When it comes to future outcomes, it can only be posited through yet more inference.
More nonsense! LOL



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
It is fiction that Giroux will outscore Hartnell based on the definition of the word fiction.
If that's how you want to look at it. The definition of the word fiction, is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
I think what you really mean to ask is how can these two statements avoid mutual exclusivity.

The statements are only mutually exclusive if you hold that a player who is inferred to be more talented than another player will necessarily outscore that less talented player over a full season. And conversely, that a player who outscores another player must necessarily be more talented. This means also accepting a number of premises such as: talent cannot change, point totals cannot be influenced by luck, circumstance, teammates, coaching, offensive scheme, ice time, match-ups, work load, defensive responsibility, scoring decisions, referees, etc.
Do you see any of those premises changing that Giroux will outscore Hartnell? If you do then not only are you talking nonsense, but you also don't know the game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post

We've moved onto "this nonsense" to counteract the various dishonest methods with which you have attempted to frame discussion.
There is nothing dishonest about my methods. It's based on reality and cold hard facts.. You've taken this discussion so far out of the realm of reality that it is comical.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Surely you understand the difference between last year and the current/upcoming year when discussing a matter of past vs. future. Furthermore, I never said it was irrational to expect Giroux to outscore Hartnell. I said that it's fiction because the definition of the word offers no other conclusion. Once again, I am not saying "fiction = falsehood". But I think that has already been well enough established.
You haven't established anything other than offering meaningless definitions.LOL It's not fiction that Giroux will outscore Hartnell. Stop dealing in theoretics and deal in reality. And that reality is how the sport is viewed and how GM's deal in player moves. I could see Holmgren laughing at you if you brought up this nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post

Cool story, bro.
Not a cool story. It's a fact. I'm talking the reality of the sport. Your posting definitions. LOL



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Just because you say something is so, does not make it so. There is a link between the principles of argument an actual argument, especially when one party has to remind the other that those principles should be upheld. For instance, when you reformulate my clearly defined arguments using ambiguous pronouns in order to make the statement into nonsense, and then declare that you have defeated my "gibberish," that is dishonestly which violates the principles of good faith and charitable argument. In that case, you are correct: calling attention to that type of deceit is my "only hope."
I didn't reformulate anything by you. All you do is deflect from the real points that are debated and go off on these tangents as a defense mechanism to avoid the real truth. Which is that your simply wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
The classic red herring. DFF did not say we were betting; he used betting as an example to illustrate the spectre of variability. And when making claims about future events, variability must be dealt with. This is not a "shades of gray" matter. It is a qualitative principle. The future is variable; the past is not.

Please make a practice of responding to the arguments that are actually being made, rather than distorted "similar looking" mutations of those arguments.
It is your opinion that I'm not responding to the arguments that are being made. Your incorrect. The spectre of variability. You might want to explore that one and think deeper. Maybe you'll figure out why that isn't relative.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaged Goods View Post
Once again, you are knocking down the open door. No one claimed that they did.

But that does NOT make the spectre of variability irrelevant to the discussion that was happening and the claims that were being made (for instance, "Roloson would have stopped every shot Leighton did").
So if a GM doesn't take that into consideration when making a move, then how is it relative? You proved my point. It's not. So why bring it up? For what reason? It has no relevance so what does it have to do with anything? It's not Hockey, you just want to argue the theoretics of the future and debate rules. I'm interested in reality, that's what I deal in. Step out of your text book and into the real World!

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 08:00 AM
  #347
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
You don't have to know the future to know that Giroux will outscore Hartnell. That's what you can't grasp. Sorry about that, pal. The only variable that we can't predict, as I said before, is a serious injury.
This appears to be where you just generally do not understand what a speculation or prediction is. Yes, it is VERY likely that Giroux will score more than Hartnell. No one has said otherwise and no one thinks Hartnell is going to score more than Giroux. But since it has not happened, it is not guaranteed. As you have pointed out in this very post, an injury could prevent this from happening. That is just one of the infinite number of variables that could cause this to not happen. Maybe Giroux slumps. Maybe Hartnell gets moved to top line PP and dominates. Maybe Giroux is just unlucky and Hartnell gets real lucky. Since it hasn't happened, it is not a fact or a guarantee, no matter how likely or unlikely something is.

Just as an example, relating specifically to a situation like this. In 2009, career minor leaguer Matt Moulson scored more goals than a ton of people, including such players as Evgeni Malkin, Martin St. Louis, Henrik Sedin, Pavel Datsyuk, and many others. In the beginning of the season, it was very unlikely and I doubt anyone in the entire world thought this would happen. But it did. He is not as talented as these players, and this was very unlikely. His past performance was all AHL and he had never scored that many goals in the AHL. Do you see what I am getting at? That no matter how likely something is to happen, if it hasn't happened, it is not a fact. It is speculation, fiction, guess, predictions, etc.

This was just a simple example of the myriad examples that have occurred throughout the history of the entire world. If you do not understand this concept, I really don't know what else to say.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 08:59 AM
  #348
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
This appears to be where you just generally do not understand what a speculation or prediction is. Yes, it is VERY likely that Giroux will score more than Hartnell. No one has said otherwise and no one thinks Hartnell is going to score more than Giroux. But since it has not happened, it is not guaranteed. As you have pointed out in this very post, an injury could prevent this from happening. That is just one of the infinite number of variables that could cause this to not happen. Maybe Giroux slumps. Maybe Hartnell gets moved to top line PP and dominates. Maybe Giroux is just unlucky and Hartnell gets real lucky. Since it hasn't happened, it is not a fact or a guarantee, no matter how likely or unlikely something is.

Just as an example, relating specifically to a situation like this. In 2009, career minor leaguer Matt Moulson scored more goals than a ton of people, including such players as Evgeni Malkin, Martin St. Louis, Henrik Sedin, Pavel Datsyuk, and many others. In the beginning of the season, it was very unlikely and I doubt anyone in the entire world thought this would happen. But it did. He is not as talented as these players, and this was very unlikely. His past performance was all AHL and he had never scored that many goals in the AHL. Do you see what I am getting at? That no matter how likely something is to happen, if it hasn't happened, it is not a fact. It is speculation, fiction, guess, predictions, etc.

This was just a simple example of the myriad examples that have occurred throughout the history of the entire world. If you do not understand this concept, I really don't know what else to say.
Maybe Hartnell dominates? Do I have to respond to this? Again, let's deal in the reality. Hartnell is not capable of dominating. But let's not take that into consideration. You want to talk about Red Herrings and straw man arguments? LOL The Matt Moulson example is an outlier. Again, apply it to the real World. Who would a GM favor is any of those players were available to sign, including Matt Mouslon, and the team was in need of a top line player? This is a concept that you can't grasp! That's all that matters. And we go back to you and your buddy telling Invictus he was wrong, when he wasn't. The both of you were, and still are.

You bring up Red Herrings and Straw man references. When in fact, your premise is the Red Herring here and the straw man argument.

I've dealt in the reality. You arrogantly think that your premise of how it is fiction because it hasn't happened, isn't the base of the argument.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 09:10 AM
  #349
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,709
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver View Post
Maybe Hartnell dominates? Do I have to respond to this? Again, let's deal in the reality. Hartnell is not capable of dominating. But let's not take that into consideration.
Damn, I guess you're right. Things that are likely to happen always happen and it is foolish to think otherwise.

Quote:
You want to talk about Red Herrings and straw man arguments? LOL The Matt Moulson example is an outlier.
This is not an outlier. How many people thoguht Corey Perry would win the Hart trophy last year? Probably none. How many people thought the Devils would rebound the second half of the season? Probably none. Crap like that happens all the time in every sport and every aspect of life. Unexpected things happen every single day. Yes, these things are unlikely, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Quote:
Again, apply it to the real World. Who would a GM favor is any of those players were available to sign, including Matt Mouslon, and the team was in need of a top line player? This is a concept that you can't grasp! That's all that matters. And we go back to you and your buddy telling Invictus he was wrong, when he wasn't. The both of you were, and still are.

You bring up Red Herrings and Straw man references. When in fact, your premise is the Red Herring here and the straw man argument.

I've dealt in the reality. You arrogantly think that your premise of how it is fiction because it hasn't happened, isn't the base of the argument.
But that isn't the argument. Another poster made this argument in reference to the Leighton vs. Roloson escenario that started this and I explained to him my feelings on that. Beef was saying Roloson would have done better, which is impossible to tell. You are saying (among other things) Hartnell will not score more than Giroux, which however likely is not a guarantee. You yourself pointed out the possibility of an injury. This is beyond ridiculous to still be talking about this.

DrinkFightFlyers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-14-2011, 09:35 AM
  #350
VanSciver
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Damn, I guess you're right. Things that are likely to happen always happen and it is foolish to think otherwise.
There is a reason why they are considered likely to happen. And in the context of the Real World, and how a GM might make a player decision, he deals in what is likely to happen. In other words, Holmgren didn't need to consider that Bryzgalov may not play well, because that is not likely to happen. This is a concept that you are obviously incapable of grasping.


[/quote]
This is not an outlier. How many people thoguht Corey Perry would win the Hart trophy last year? Probably none. How many people thought the Devils would rebound the second half of the season? Probably none. Crap like that happens all the time in every sport and every aspect of life. Unexpected things happen every single day. Yes, these things are unlikely, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

[/quote]

Yes it is an outlier. You have to deal in the number of variables. How many players are there in the NHL? Plenty of people thought that the Devils would rebound. I have never ever said that things like this don't happen. Not once. A GM deals in the percentages. When dealing with the variables between who is going to score more between Hartnell and Giroux, there are far less variables then who is going to win the Hart trophy, or how a team is going to perform. Same with whether Bryzgalov is an upgrade over Leighton, Bobrovsky, and Boucher. Another simple concept you can't grasp. It is how it is applied in the Real World. GM don't consider that Bryzgalov might not be better, so they don't sign him. They deal in what they know. So your complete premise is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
But that isn't the argument. Another poster made this argument in reference to the Leighton vs. Roloson escenario that started this and I explained to him my feelings on that. Beef was saying Roloson would have done better, which is impossible to tell. You are saying (among other things) Hartnell will not score more than Giroux, which however likely is not a guarantee. You yourself pointed out the possibility of an injury. This is beyond ridiculous to still be talking about this.
No it's not impossible to tell. Roloson is the better Goalie. Giroux will outscore Hartnell. Your fiction premise is irrelevant. That absolutely is the argument. Step into the Real World and how things are looked at. Not your theoretical fantasy land.

VanSciver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.