Going to these games is getting tougher by the night. I find myself getting loaded by the end of the national anthem just to watch. I have no clue what he is doing with the lines but here is what they should be in my opinion:

Domi-Stepan-Keller
DuClair-Dvorak-Perlini (when healthy)
Marty-Strome-Crouse
Cousins-Richardson-Reider

OEL-Hammer
Goligoski-Demers
Schenn-Clendenning

Raanta being hurt is a huge loss because it shows our overall lack of organizational depth at goalie. Tomorrow night the hawks are in town, and the arena will be about 95% hawks fans. I will say though, in my experience they are fairly nice at least....
- gmiel1980

I thought Chykrin (spelled wrong) was supposed to be really good. What happened to him?

What and who is this?
- tomburton99

Tanner? I just picture a face like that when I read some of these silly exchanges.

Or.... It is all of us. Every single person that ever argues with strangers over the internet. That is what we end up looking like.

I thought Chykrin (spelled wrong) was supposed to be really good. What happened to him?
- BlazinMike

Knee Surgery

Go for the Number one overall pick in the draft That is about all they can hope for

James Tanner: Coyotes Lose to Dallas
- james_tanner1

Having to watch a team implode to an 0-8 start and a coach firing , yeah the season is over before it started ,Arizona would have to go for almost 0.775 a month to make the post season.

Having to watch a team implode to an 0-8 start and a coach firing , yeah the season is over before it started ,Arizona would have to go for almost 0.775 a month to make the post season.
- Alexzanki

Rough, back of the envelope math:

Coyotes currently playing at a 7% winning percentage. I'm guessing that won't continue.

To make the playoffs (based upon the 94 points required last year), they will need to play the rest of the season at a 62% winning percentage. That's the equivalent of earning 102 points over the course of an entire season.

Is it out of the question? Nope.

Is it unlikely? Ask Tanner's stats professor.

From the last blog, since it probably won't be read if I reply to it there.

There is a reason intelligent people ignore stupid people's "reasons."

Global Warming is a great example of something we know 100% to be true. It's really a catch-22. Acknowledge the arguments of people who are motivated by either greed, stupidity or bad information, or ignore them and be accused of 'cult like shunning of non-believers.'

I don't have a cult-like belief that two and two is four. That's just something I know to be objectively true. Anyone who says it's five is not someone worth arguing with. Doesn't mean I'm in a cult. It means I'm right.
- james_tanner1

James, you seem to think that the measure of intelligence is just how dismissive you can be of arguments and people that you disagree with, so you act as dismissive and morally correct as possible to convince yourself that you are correct. That's not intelligence. That's ignorance because you have no real sense of the competing arguments, since you don't listen to them, and it's insecurity because you're not willing to listen for fear that understanding those competing arguments might let a little doubt creep into your own assuredness.

Real intelligence isn't having no doubt that you're right. It's being open enough to listening to other arguments to recognize when you may be wrong. Even intelligent people are wrong about some things, and the really intelligent ones are the ones who eventually recognize it because they listened to other arguments and were open to modifying their position. Think about some extremely intelligent people in history. Are they recognized as that because they were just naturally right about everything or because they recognized when they were wrong and made the critical change in thinking that led to their breakthrough? Intelligence is self awareness and recognizing that we can't be right about everything, which helps us to learn to be right while others stubbornly stick to being wrong. If you honestly think that you're right about everything, then you're not intelligent, but far from it.

Here's another one:

Should only the top 1% buy a home?
- Atomic Wedgie

Rough, back of the envelope math:

Coyotes currently playing at a 7% winning percentage. I'm guessing that won't continue.

To make the playoffs (based upon the 94 points required last year), they will need to play the rest of the season at a 62% winning percentage. That's the equivalent of earning 102 points over the course of an entire season.

Is it out of the question? Nope.

Is it unlikely? Ask Tanner's stats professor.
- Atomic Wedgie

In advanced stats terms , it seems unsustainable ....

I have been critical of Crouse and Fischer, but they are both looking better every day. Last night they dominated at times.

OEL continues to look abysmal. I’m glad toch didn’t put him out against Seguin...we prob would’ve lost by more!

I actually loved toch s plan to put together a defensive first line a la kadri in Toronto. Dvorak is the right man for the job, and while rieder and Martinook are ok defensively, I think the long term goal should be crouse and Fischer. Let them eat up all the space on ice and make it hard on opponents.

My ideal lines:

Crouse Dvorak Fischer (go against top unit)
Domi step Duclair
Perlini Strome Keller
Martinook Richardson Rieder

Play the top 3 lines about 15 Minutes each 5v5, and give all PP time to the middle two lines. Middle two are basically interchangeable.

4th line can also kill penalties. C

Rough, back of the envelope math:

Coyotes currently playing at a 7% winning percentage. I'm guessing that won't continue.

To make the playoffs (based upon the 94 points required last year), they will need to play the rest of the season at a 62% winning percentage. That's the equivalent of earning 102 points over the course of an entire season.

Is it out of the question? Nope.

Is it unlikely? Ask Tanner's stats professor.
- Atomic Wedgie

I would like him to explain how a team with zero wins is winning at a seven percent clip.

Going to these games is getting tougher by the night. I find myself getting loaded by the end of the national anthem just to watch. I have no clue what he is doing with the lines but here is what they should be in my opinion:

Domi-Stepan-Keller
DuClair-Dvorak-Perlini (when healthy)
Marty-Strome-Crouse
Cousins-Richardson-Reider

OEL-Hammer
Goligoski-Demers
Schenn-Clendenning

Raanta being hurt is a huge loss because it shows our overall lack of organizational depth at goalie. Tomorrow night the hawks are in town, and the arena will be about 95% hawks fans. I will say though, in my experience they are fairly nice at least....
- gmiel1980

No no no...this is terrible. You are putting one of your most creative offensive minds (strome) with 2 non-shooters in Crouse and Martinook?!?! Might as well just pencils them all in for 10 pt seasons. Put Keller with strome and let him get strome going. Throw a shooter like Perlini or duclair with them and watch the line produce some 80 pt scorers.

From the last blog, since it probably won't be read if I reply to it there.



James, you seem to think that the measure of intelligence is just how dismissive you can be of arguments and people that you disagree with, so you act as dismissive and morally correct as possible to convince yourself that you are correct. That's not intelligence. That's ignorance because you have no real sense of the competing arguments, since you don't listen to them, and it's insecurity because you're not willing to listen for fear that understanding those competing arguments might let a little doubt creep into your own assuredness.

Real intelligence isn't having no doubt that you're right. It's being open enough to listening to other arguments to recognize when you may be wrong. Even intelligent people are wrong about some things, and the really intelligent ones are the ones who eventually recognize it because they listened to other arguments and were open to modifying their position. Think about some extremely intelligent people in history. Are they recognized as that because they were just naturally right about everything or because they recognized when they were wrong and made the critical change in thinking that led to their breakthrough? Intelligence is self awareness and recognizing that we can't be right about everything, which helps us to learn to be right while others stubbornly stick to being wrong. If you honestly think that you're right about everything, then you're not intelligent, but far from it.
- Osprey

Dude, I don't think I'm right about everything and I certainly don't have a problem changing my mind when I get new information. I for sure don't think people who disagree with me are stupid.

But we're talking specifically global warming, then yes, I do think anyone who is at this point is denying it is stupid.

No no no...this is terrible. You are putting one of your most creative offensive minds (strome) with 2 non-shooters in Crouse and Martinook?!?! Might as well just pencils them all in for 10 pt seasons. Put Keller with strome and let him get strome going. Throw a shooter like Perlini or duclair with them and watch the line produce some 80 pt scorers.
- Dahlmanyotes

toally agree:

Keller with Strome
Domi with Stepan
Perlini with Dvorak

then mix and match Duclair, Fischer, Martinook and you have a decent top-nine that should be able to run with anyone.

I would like him to explain how a team with zero wins is winning at a seven percent clip.
- james_tanner1

Happy to help.

They have one point in 7 games.

So out of 14 total points that they could have earned, they have earned 1.

1/14 is equal is equal to 0.0714285714285714...

Roughly 7 per cent.

But if you want to argue that an overtime loss isn't part of a winning percentage, I'm happy to continue to push you around like a cheap mop.

Hint: Red Fisher solved this little question years ago. But I'm sure you are more of a hockey expert than Red Fisher.

Go ahead, Jimmy....I dare you.

I double desert dog dare you.

Happy to help.

They have one point in 7 games.

So out of 14 total points that they could have earned, they have earned 1.

1/14 is equal is equal to 0.0714285714285714...

Roughly 7 per cent.

But if you want to argue that an overtime loss isn't part of a winning percentage, I'm happy to continue to push you around like a cheap mop.

Hint: Red Fisher solved this little question years ago. But I'm sure you are more of a hockey expert than Red Fisher.

Go ahead, Jimmy....I dare you.

I double desert dog dare you.
- Atomic Wedgie

So it's point percentage? Cause winning percentage is zero.

So it's point percentage? Cause winning percentage is zero.
- tomburton99

Oh Tom.

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom.

Pretty simple: think of a tie as half a win.

Think of an overtime loss as a tie.

Otherwise, you have to get into some ridiculous math.

If team A goes 0-0-82, they will finish the season with 82 points.

If a team B goes 40-42-0, they will finish the season with 80 points.

I don't give a poop that team B has "won" 40 more games than team A - they have finished below team A in the standings. That's all that matters.

FFS, even Wikipedia gets this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ge#National_Hockey_League

Oh Tom.

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom.

Pretty simple: think of a tie as half a win.

Think of an overtime loss as a tie.

Otherwise, you have to get into some ridiculous math.

If team A goes 0-0-82, they will finish the season with 82 points.

If a team B goes 40-42-0, they will finish the season with 80 points.

I don't give a poop that team B has "won" 40 more games than team A - they have finished below team A in the standings. That's all that matters.

FFS, even Wikipedia gets this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ge#National_Hockey_League
- Atomic Wedgie

No I get it. It's half a win, but it's still a loss. It's the NHL's version of a participation trophy.

No I get it. It's half a win, but it's still a loss. It's the NHL's version of a participation trophy.
- tomburton99

You know, I hate to sound like a grumpy old man (I actually love sounding like a grumpy old man), but back in the day, going into an opponent's building and getting a tie was a good thing.

I franking hate watching tie games with 6 minutes left, because you know both teams are not going to take any chances - get the point, then flip a coin for the extra point.

But I can't say I blame the teams - it's the smart move.

Happy to help.

They have one point in 7 games.

So out of 14 total points that they could have earned, they have earned 1.

1/14 is equal is equal to 0.0714285714285714...

Roughly 7 per cent.

But if you want to argue that an overtime loss isn't part of a winning percentage, I'm happy to continue to push you around like a cheap mop.

Hint: Red Fisher solved this little question years ago. But I'm sure you are more of a hockey expert than Red Fisher.

Go ahead, Jimmy....I dare you.

I double desert dog dare you.
- Atomic Wedgie

Happy to help.

They have one point in 7 games.

So out of 14 total points that they could have earned, they have earned 1.

1/14 is equal is equal to 0.0714285714285714...

Roughly 7 per cent.

But if you want to argue that an overtime loss isn't part of a winning percentage, I'm happy to continue to push you around like a cheap mop.

Hint: Red Fisher solved this little question years ago. But I'm sure you are more of a hockey expert than Red Fisher.

Go ahead, Jimmy....I dare you.

I double desert dog dare you.
- Atomic Wedgie

OEL despite not really being rated overly high to begin with, is still one of the most overrated defensemen in the league.

Some people are just in love with this guy and I just can't say I have ever seen it.

Was that game OELs first game with a positive goal differential when on the ice 5v5? He is what -9 on the year? I'm sure he would have righted the ship if only the coach played him correctly...

Dude, I don't think I'm right about everything and I certainly don't have a problem changing my mind when I get new information. I for sure don't think people who disagree with me are stupid.

But we're talking specifically global warming, then yes, I do think anyone who is at this point is denying it is stupid.
- james_tanner1

The point stands just for that, but you have called people "stupid" for believing all kinds of things, have called arguments that you disagree with "dumb" and, in general, act superior and condescending to others (ex. insulting their writing skills and portraying your argument as something that people learn in elementary). It's certainly not that one topic. You have a very general superiority complex that you're called on frequently by many different people, yet you continue to believe that the problem is with everyone else, instead.

From the last blog, since it probably won't be read if I reply to it there.



James, you seem to think that the measure of intelligence is just how dismissive you can be of arguments and people that you disagree with, so you act as dismissive and morally correct as possible to convince yourself that you are correct. That's not intelligence. That's ignorance because you have no real sense of the competing arguments, since you don't listen to them, and it's insecurity because you're not willing to listen for fear that understanding those competing arguments might let a little doubt creep into your own assuredness.

Real intelligence isn't having no doubt that you're right. It's being open enough to listening to other arguments to recognize when you may be wrong. Even intelligent people are wrong about some things, and the really intelligent ones are the ones who eventually recognize it because they listened to other arguments and were open to modifying their position. Think about some extremely intelligent people in history. Are they recognized as that because they were just naturally right about everything or because they recognized when they were wrong and made the critical change in thinking that led to their breakthrough? Intelligence is self awareness and recognizing that we can't be right about everything, which helps us to learn to be right while others stubbornly stick to being wrong. If you honestly think that you're right about everything, then you're not intelligent, but far from it.
- Osprey

TD;DR


But I completely agree.

Happy to help.

They have one point in 7 games.

So out of 14 total points that they could have earned, they have earned 1.

1/14 is equal is equal to 0.0714285714285714...

Roughly 7 per cent.

But if you want to argue that an overtime loss isn't part of a winning percentage, I'm happy to continue to push you around like a cheap mop.

Hint: Red Fisher solved this little question years ago. But I'm sure you are more of a hockey expert than Red Fisher.

Go ahead, Jimmy....I dare you.

I double desert dog dare you.
- Atomic Wedgie