You might want to re-enroll in that logic course you took. You clearly didn't learn anything from it.
I teach logic, I don't take it. That's why I'm running circles around you at the moment. If you want to seriously get into a discussion of ad hominem as a fallacy, just say the word. It won't be pretty, friend.
Just to clear up where I'm at, I consider myself a realist but I guess I have to be lumped in to a group (more fun to be labeled) so I would be an optimist for this offseason and looking at the next 3 years. I was a pessimist in 2009, so I won't be too surprised if I'm wrong again.
Speaking of injuries mentioned a few posts back, I think the Hawks were among the more fortunate playoff teams over the course of the year and were probably closer to the middle weighing in the compounding effects of the injuries' timing, lost ice time, and all the other real factors that matter with injuries.
They (CHI) were nowhere close to being among the most hampered teams with injuries in my opinion. I hate "man games lost" (like hits, +/-) without full context and complete evaluation of the circumstances, but Chicago could have had it much much worse last year in my opinion. I think STL was about as fortunate (don't just look at total games) in that regard, and I think Detroit and Nashville had it much worse overall for example.
This topic is some of what leads to my optimism. I think the Hawks will have it worse with injuries but I think they are extremely well suited to handle those injuries compared to last year and most of the conference. I feel strongly that they'll be able to absorb the lost games better than most teams and it will reflect in the standings, like last year, even though I'm expecting more injuries. Of course Center and the goalie position are the most vulnerable but we don't even know if we have a goalie. I think an affordable replacement will be available if needed.
On another point about improvement and decline. I think coaching prep, pp, pk will improve, I think first period scoring will improve. I also think some of that will be at the expense of 5 on 5 play, taking too many penalties compared to last year (offsetting pk improvement) and 3rd period scoring. We saw a flip flop of 1st and 3rd period performances by the Hawks from 2011 to 2012 for example, they were able to identify and fix a number of issues, but others regressed. Hansen hit on those points about progression and regression and I'm in agreement with those assumptions. The Hawks scored almost 3 g/g, even a .2 increase is only 16 goals so I don't see a huge increase in any players production without it coming from someplace else next year.
Roster continuity is my overriding reason for my optimism. I think it cuts down on a number of goals against having a whole team, including rookies, who are very familiar with each other now. I expect ups and downs in all areas but I think the continuity will improve on what I considered to be the biggest issue last year, team defense. I would have been happy with Parise, slightly less happy with Suter or Carle but very few other players seemed/seem to be cost effective for this offseason and the next few seasons, but since none of those players were signed, I have no problem with the lack of movement for the hope of marginal gain on a multiyear contract.
I don't know if the plan will work, but I like to see them trying it for a couple more years. Hopefully McDonough stays on the sidelines.
I teach logic, I don't take it. That's why I'm running circles around you at the moment. If you want to seriously get into a discussion of ad hominem as a fallacy, just say the word. It won't be pretty, friend.
I'd attempt to switch teachers if at all possible if you taught me.
I teach logic, I don't take it. That's why I'm running circles around you at the moment. If you want to seriously get into a discussion of ad hominem as a fallacy, just say the word. It won't be pretty, friend.
You're the only person who thinks you're correct, making it incredibly likely you made a logical error, sir.
again, you engage in the same fallacious reasoning you demonstrated above: i.e. many people disagree with you therefore you are wrong. Do you honestly not see why this is an error, Argumentum ad populum, to be exact? It takes the form of "Everyone thinks X therefore X is true." It's a fundamental error I see a lot with college freshman from bad highschools.
An analogy need not be exact to make it's point. No one has provided any reason to suppose that the running/athletic analogy is flawed in any fundamental way.
An analogy need not be exact to make it's point. No one has provided any reason to suppose that the running/athletic analogy is flawed in any fundamental way.
Actually, someone did provide a reason - that was me. But rather than respond to it, you resorted to a petty personal attack on my logic and reasoning skills as well as my intelligence. The ad hominem that Sevanston mentioned.
But I can repeat myself.
It is a weak, silly analogy because hockey is a team sport and sprinting (the kind you referred to, anyway... an individual competition) is not. Every game, at least 19 players per team will take at least one shift. They work together, a team. Since there are so many players on each team, the chance that one (or more than one) of them suffers an injury during the long season in what is an extremely physical and taxing sport... well, I don't think I need to speak of the odds. They are obviously quite high.
Injuries are inevitable in hockey, given its physical nature as well as the sheer number of players per team. If each team had only one player, far less teams would have an injury per season. Simple odds. Probability.
A big group of players work together in hockey to win. One person works by him or herself to win a sprint. Injuries are far more likely to happen to a team in hockey because there are so many more players, and the sport is very physical (not to say running is not taxing on the body - of course it is. But I don't think I need to repeat my point for a fourth time).
Injuries are an inevitability during what is a lengthy, rough season in hockey, a team sport. And you're comparing that to a single isolated sprint?
How is that not an absolutely atrocious analogy?
And please, enough with the personal attacks, because I get the feeling you're just waiting to send me another one. It's not that they really matter... they don't.
But that's just the thing. They accomplish nothing. There is no reason to be on a hockey discussion board if you're going to flame whoever disagrees with you rather than countering their points.
You are giving off indications Bowman is doing a fine job, something many of us disagree with.
I think he could do better but most of the hate for him is unreasonable, especially when you consider we don't know what kind of strictures Rocky has put on him with regard to spending. It's very possible, because of burying Huet and Olesz, that Wirtz has limited the deals he will allow Bowman to do.
Even having said that. I think the Hawks are one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the West, so yeah, it gets a little old listening to the non-stop whining on here.
I think he could do better but most of the hate for him is unreasonable, especially when you consider we don't know what kind of strictures Rocky has put on him with regard to spending. It's very possible, because of burying Huet and Olesz, that Wirtz has limited the deals he will allow Bowman can do.
Even having said that. I think the Hawks are one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the West, so yeah, it gets a little old listening to the non-stop whining on here.
Huet's contract is off the books and has been since July 1st - that excuse is no longer valid.
Vancouver, LA, and St. Louis, given their offseasons and performances last season, are clearly a notch above the Hawks. At least, until proven otherwise... and that's all we can say for sure in August.
