Polak played over 20 minutes last night...Ottawa's defense is definitely weak, but I would probably take those 6 100 times over TOs. The difference is a number 1 D man and a little more experience on Ottawa's side.
- AlexBoucher

Not sure if you've noticed but every D on the Sens is on the wrong side of the shot clock except Widman ( and Claessen, not even sure he plays )

The only player that I would want on the Leafs is EK

Methot could replace Hunwick maybe...and we threw Phaneuf away for a reason.

Andersen is the only reason you guys have been winning...you're season/playoffs will live and die with Anderson IMO

( secretly I cheer for the Sens when the Leafs are out )

How can I be wrong? Your evidence is what players say. I don't care what players say. They are also wrong.

Whether or not a player decides that the arbitrary nature of the Olympics means something to him, has no bearing no the FACT that the same players and countries can put the same tournament on, on their own terms, make the money off it and the only difference will be that it's not called the "Olympics."

At this point, I am now realizing that you don't know what "arbitrary" means.
- James_Tanner

But it's not the Olympics like you said. Olympics>your idea of hockey tournament.

Only if she gets to share a cell with Hillary

Not sure if you've noticed but every D on the Sens is on the wrong side of the shot clock except Widman ( and Claessen, not even sure he plays )

The only player that I would want on the Leafs is EK

Methot could replace Hunwick maybe...and we threw Phaneuf away for a reason.

Andersen is the only reason you guys have been winning...you're season/playoffs will live and die with Anderson IMO

( secretly I cheer for the Sens when the Leafs are out )


- Garnie

Actually- I pretty much agree with this. Anderson (the sens one) is criminally underrated. Phaneuf/Ceci can be a tire fire in their own end, Wideman and Claesson should be playing more, and I would definitely take a Rielly in my top 4. Meth looks off a little this year, but I don't know if he's interchangeable with Hunwick.

I think better team defense is the difference for the sens this year; the forwards are doing a better job of coming back in their own zone. People like Pyatt have been life savers for this team

I point this out only to make the point that one single example as proof is called "bulls*it." Anecdotal arguments are not arguments. One example proves nothing. In this case, less than nothing.

This brought to you by a severe lack of understanding of logic, similar to Tanner's complete failure to actually understand how research or the scientific method works.

"Anecdotal" evidence is not applicable to all situations. It is applicable to the situation it is describing. "When I put my dog in the pool, he sank and started drowning" is a perfectly good argument that your dog can't swim, despite it technically being anecdotal evidence. It's just not an argument that all dogs can't swim, because research is only applicable to the population or random sample of a population that it is done on. "When Gardiner was given Rielly's minutes, the results were poor" is a valid argument Gardiner can't handle Rielly's minutes. It's not a valid argument Gardiner can't handle anyone else's minutes.

Actually- I pretty much agree with this. Anderson (the sens one) is criminally underrated. Phaneuf/Ceci can be a tire fire in their own end, Wideman and Claesson should be playing more, and I would definitely take a Rielly in my top 4. Meth looks off a little this year, but I don't know if he's interchangeable with Hunwick.

I think better team defense is the difference for the sens this year; the forwards are doing a better job of coming back in their own zone. People like Pyatt have been life savers for this team
- AlexBoucher

I think Methot's better then Hunwick...I was probably off a little there. haha

I think Methot's better then Hunwick...I was probably off a little there. haha
- Garnie

Methot has been generally solid top 4 guy in career; he's just had some uncharacteristic brain cramps in his own zone that I haven't seen before. Hunwick did look good in limited minutes, Babcock found something there. I think it was when he played above the bottom pairing

This brought to you by a severe lack of understanding of logic, similar to Tanner's complete failure to actually understand how research or the scientific method works.

"Anecdotal" evidence is not applicable to all situations. It is applicable to the situation it is describing. "When I put my dog in the pool, he sank and started drowning" is a perfectly good argument that your dog can't swim, despite it technically being anecdotal evidence. It's just not an argument that all dogs can't swim, because research is only applicable to the population or random sample of a population that it is done on. "When Gardiner was given Rielly's minutes, the results were poor" is a valid argument Gardiner can't handle Rielly's minutes. It's not a valid argument Gardiner can't handle anyone else's minutes.
- Antilles

Well said.

This brought to you by a severe lack of understanding of logic, similar to Tanner's complete failure to actually understand how research or the scientific method works.

"Anecdotal" evidence is not applicable to all situations. It is applicable to the situation it is describing. "When I put my dog in the pool, he sank and started drowning" is a perfectly good argument that your dog can't swim, despite it technically being anecdotal evidence. It's just not an argument that all dogs can't swim, because research is only applicable to the population or random sample of a population that it is done on. "When Gardiner was given Rielly's minutes, the results were poor" is a valid argument Gardiner can't handle Rielly's minutes. It's not a valid argument Gardiner can't handle anyone else's minutes.
- Antilles

Thanks for pointing out something that everyone knows. It is no more necessary to point out that anecdotal evidence is acceptable in some situation than it is to point out that air is necessary to breath, and that the sun is hot.

One game of Gardiner getting Rielly's minutes (which hilariously, are only slightly tougher) is an example of when anecdotal evidence fails us.

It happened once. It doesn't mean it will continue to happen.

I love when, instead of just making a point, people try to be all condescending and smart and are still wrong.

Well said.
- 21peter

Actually, it was incredibly poorly said.

Actually, it was incredibly poorly said.
- James_Tanner

...in your opinion.*

Actually, it was incredibly poorly said.
- James_Tanner

Well said, Tanner. You do have a way with words...

Thanks for pointing out something that everyone knows. It is no more necessary to point out that anecdotal evidence is acceptable in some situation than it is to point out that air is necessary to breath, and that the sun is hot.

One game of Gardiner getting Rielly's minutes (which hilariously, are only slightly tougher) is an example of when anecdotal evidence fails us.

It happened once. It doesn't mean it will continue to happen.

I love when, instead of just making a point, people try to be all condescending and smart and are still wrong.
- James_Tanner

They're not slightly tougher...every teams top line is better then the rest of their team....Gard's 1st game he was 15%CF and his 2nd game he was on the wrong side of 50 too....could be the 1st time ever for Gards....funny Rielly was on the + side of 50 both games.

Last year we showed you all the tough mins Gardiner vs Rielly....Rielly's was tougher by miles. I find it weird that you argue QOC doesnt matter with these 2...but people point at OEL and you jump right to his QOC?

Anyways...I've changed my mind with a few things regarding analytics - thanks to you...it's strange that you can't regarding top line D and how it skews the CF% etc....ie Gardiner vs Rielly.

There's only so many elite talents on each team...the shut down D get all of them usually...the rest of the D get easier mins.

Yes, but are they going to? The guy at E.B games said probably not, but he didn't sound confident.
- James_Tanner

They were supposed to, but I'm guessing at least not until this Christmas because they're doubling Switch production now.

Minus: Using Eichel's BU jersey in the thumbnail.

Plus: He's finally getting some credit for the mind boggling things he does on a nightly basis even if his team isn't good.

world cup is awful, it's not the same teams and it's not even best on best because the made up joke teams

The Windwaker was epic! I played it all day and night for a month. I almost lost my job because of it. Then I went right into the next Zelda game The twilight princess. It consumed me. I'm not even a gamer, but I always loved Zelda. Good blog, and great music!

Only if she gets to share a cell with Hillary

- Yikes726

Gonna wear my "Hillary for prison: 2016" at bowling this week just cuz I know it will set off one of our opposing team's players. Plus we need to build up award points for the season and what better way than to screw with a guy's head who has a 217 average.

This brought to you by a severe lack of understanding of logic, similar to Tanner's complete failure to actually understand how research or the scientific method works.

"Anecdotal" evidence is not applicable to all situations. It is applicable to the situation it is describing. "When I put my dog in the pool, he sank and started drowning" is a perfectly good argument that your dog can't swim, despite it technically being anecdotal evidence. It's just not an argument that all dogs can't swim, because research is only applicable to the population or random sample of a population that it is done on. "When Gardiner was given Rielly's minutes, the results were poor" is a valid argument Gardiner can't handle Rielly's minutes. It's not a valid argument Gardiner can't handle anyone else's minutes.
- Antilles

Outstanding point, and supporting example. Good job.

Outstanding point, and supporting example. Good job.
- blackhawk24

Even for a guy who owns a Hillary should be in Jail tshirt, it's pretty embarrassing you think that was a good post.

Jake Gardiner doing poorly in one game doesn't mean anything. Drawing conclusions from one example is why anecdotal arguments are bad.


Jesus, I know it's on me for expecting an internet comments board to be better than this, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.

Even for a guy who owns a Hillary should be in Jail tshirt, it's pretty embarrassing you think that was a good post.

Jake Gardiner doing poorly in one game doesn't mean anything. Drawing conclusions from one example is why anecdotal arguments are bad.


Jesus, I know it's on me for expecting an internet comments board to be better than this, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.
- James_Tanner

...in your opinion.*
- tomburton99

No. Not everything is an opinion. There is objectively bad and that was it.

And I guess it's on us expecting a hockey blogger to understand basic hockey.

Even for a guy who owns a Hillary should be in Jail tshirt, it's pretty embarrassing you think that was a good post.

Jake Gardiner doing poorly in one game doesn't mean anything. Drawing conclusions from one example is why anecdotal arguments are bad.


Jesus, I know it's on me for expecting an internet comments board to be better than this, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.
- James_Tanner

Read what Antilles said. Please. Its not that conclusion(s) drawn are invalid, its what kind of conclusion drawn, which could be invalid. His dog explanation is a perfect example.

And for the record, I couldn't find a "Hillary should be executed for Treason t-shirt".

Read what Antilles said. Please. Its not that conclusion(s) drawn are invalid, its what kind of conclusion drawn, which could be invalid. His dog explanation is a perfect example.

And for the record, I couldn't find a "Hillary should be executed for Treason t-shirt".
- blackhawk24

How about Mike Pence?

Emails!

And, before you freak out, yes, I know it's totally different.

Good blog.

Congrats on the quitting smoking.