put Karlsson on a team with some offensive forwards (Pens, Caps, Hawks) and watch him put up 90 pts. Best in the league.
- ...sbs138...

I highly doubt that, actually. These teams have more options in terms of who they can put out there, and his ice time would be cut pretty significantly, as a result. he may actually be put on a little bit more of a depth line, and given more PP time. Additionally, those teams wouldn't allow him to play with complete disregard to defense like Ottawa allows him to.

I think it highly likely his points would drop by 15 or 20.

James Tanner
Arizona Coyotes

"Based on what? I just gave you some pretty objective information that suggest he's (Yandle) an elite #1 and in the top 5 at the worst."

-------------------

Opinions change.
- Reeder17

-------------------

James Tanner
Arizona Coyotes

"If I recall correctly, that was a from a statistical analysis of the past five years. Of which Yandle absolutely dominates from a stats perspective. "

-------------------

I told you....opinions change.
- Reeder17

First of all, I don't think my opinion has changed. But let's say it has? What of it? This is probably the most annoyed I've ever been simply because the idea that changing your mind about things is a weakness is the stupidest idea that our society perpetrates.

Actually, being wrong is one of the best thins you can do, so you learn from it. Changing your mind shows character because it's shows an ability to process new information and make adjustments accordingly.

If it wasn't for the phony and hurtful idea that changing your mind is a personal weakness we wouldn't currently be killing ourselves with pollution despite having definitively known for decades how harmful most of human activities are.

Again, I don't think I get what you're saying here, because I still agree with the quotes, but if I did or do change my mind, good for me.

why do none of these lists have Justin Schultz????

I mean MacT told me he is a Norris caliber defenseman

So I have a question.

Maybe I didn't understand this correctly but, Tanner said it makes you a better D if you have more starts in your own zone than in the offensive zone.

How is that so?

I looked up stats to try to figure how this could be a point. By the way, I'm not trying to blast any D, they are all great, but will talk about Gio and Suter.

I then found out that 61% of Giordono's shifts start with a faceoff. 39% of those end up being in the defensive end.

For Suter, 73% of his shifts start with a Faceoff. 27% of those start in the defensive end.

To me, what this shows is Giordono isn't as capable of getting the puck out of his end and the result of the play ends with a goalie making the save. Suter gets the puck moving and the play ends in the other end.

What am I missing here?

(Edit: I'll retract my stats since I looks at total shifts, but only the faceoffs on 5v5 situations...)
- l3ig_l2ecl

I think you have it backwards. The stats your siting mean that the coach puts Suter out more often to take faceoffs in the O zone where he can't screw it up. Gio starts more of his shifts in the D zone because the coach wants him on the ice when the puck is starting so close to his goalie.

There are stats that show where you finish, in which case you would be correct, but based on what you're saying, I don't think these are it.

The one stat I used here was Ofaceoffs taken relative against D faceoffs taken, which just gives you a % of who is used where. So in the stats I used, more of Gios shifts started in the Dzone, which means what I said at the begnining of this response.

First of all, I don't think my opinion has changed. But let's say it has? What of it? This is probably the most annoyed I've ever been simply because the idea that changing your mind about things is a weakness is the stupidest idea that our society perpetrates.
- James_Tanner

First of all, I don't think my opinion has changed. But let's say it has? What of it? This is probably the most annoyed I've ever been simply because the idea that changing your mind about things is a weakness is the stupidest idea that our society perpetrates.

Actually, being wrong is one of the best thins you can do, so you learn from it. Changing your mind shows character because it's shows an ability to process new information and make adjustments accordingly.

If it wasn't for the phony and hurtful idea that changing your mind is a personal weakness we wouldn't currently be killing ourselves with pollution despite having definitively known for decades how harmful most of human activities are.

Again, I don't think I get what you're saying here, because I still agree with the quotes, but if I did or do change my mind, good for me.
- James_Tanner

Calm down dude, we haven't known for decades how harmful human activities are, nevermind the fact they aren't as harmful as you are making it sound like. We are only now really starting to understand the effects of industrialization 150 years ago, let alone the effects of the last 30 years. It doesn't help that everyone is afraid of nuclear power, which is the cleanest, most efficient source of energy available to us. It also doesn't help that everything we do to become greener has a limited or even a negative effect, like hybrid vehicles. Mostly it doesn't help that you can take every single harmful activity ever in the entire history of human civilization and add it all together and you still will have produced fewer harmful emissions than 1 single volcanic eruption. Stick to hockey, man.

You made quite the leap about changing your mind. All he said was that you were going to change your mind because the statistics are changing. No top 5 defender is going to stay in the top 5 forever, it was an argument he couldn't lose. Although you say you didn't change your mind, you certainly changed the way you presented your opinion. He pulled a Tanner on you and baited you into it. But it is nice to know that from now on, when you annoy me, I can always annoy you back by calling you weak for changing your mind, lol.

Calm down dude, we haven't known for decades how harmful human activities are, nevermind the fact they aren't as harmful as you are making it sound like. We are only now really starting to understand the effects of industrialization 150 years ago, let alone the effects of the last 30 years. It doesn't help that everyone is afraid of nuclear power, which is the cleanest, most efficient source of energy available to us. It also doesn't help that everything we do to become greener has a limited or even a negative effect, like hybrid vehicles. Mostly it doesn't help that you can take every single harmful activity ever in the entire history of human civilization and add it all together and you still will have produced fewer harmful emissions than 1 single volcanic eruption. Stick to hockey, man.

You made quite the leap about changing your mind. All he said was that you were going to change your mind because the statistics are changing. No top 5 defender is going to stay in the top 5 forever, it was an argument he couldn't lose. Although you say you didn't change your mind, you certainly changed the way you presented your opinion. He pulled a Tanner on you and baited you into it. But it is nice to know that from now on, when you annoy me, I can always annoy you back by calling you weak for changing your mind, lol.
- sniper11

Worst. Post. Ever. Enjoy your Fox News buddy.

Worst. Post. Ever. Enjoy your Fox News buddy.
- James_Tanner

Not really.

Fox news denies anything we do is bad at all.

Most of what he says is bang on. Realizing what we are doing is killing the environment, is probably a twenty year new phenomenon. At least to the masses. And things like hybrids, while great in theory, aren't that great when you break it down. The monetary and environmental cost of shipping batteries from China, producing electricity, which is still done using coal often, etc, really isn't much help.

That said, it's a start. Companies like Tesla realize it has to be done on a mass scale to become efficient.

But anyway, why aren't we talking hockey? Hey James, tell us what other dmen that are completely inept in their own end are top 5.

if youre trying to diminish anthropogenic climate change with a statement about the type of damage a volcano does in relation, you fundamentally misunderstand the science behind it all.

This blog is a mess. I knew you'd find a way to get your boy up there.

if youre trying to diminish anthropogenic climate change with a statement about the type of damage a volcano does in relation, you fundamentally misunderstand the science behind it all.
- Ihateallofu

Admittedly, I skimmed over that part,and missed that.

That's bs.

if youre trying to diminish anthropogenic climate change with a statement about the type of damage a volcano does in relation, you fundamentally misunderstand the science behind it all.
- Ihateallofu

And yet anthropogenic climate change is nothing compared to climate change caused by an epoch transition or a major natural occurrence, like an asteroid impact for instance. The idea that "we are killing the earth" has absolutely no merit. Just because science says that humans effect climate change, doesn't mean that it is on such a massive scale that all life on the planet (or the planet itself) is in danger. Seriously, I was right about volcanoes. Your comment is exactly the same thing as saying that the roots of a rose bush are so aggressive that every other species of plant life is in danger of going extinct. Just because the science says that it is technically possible for roses to extinguish all plant life in North America, doesn't make it anywhere close to being likely to happen. You are the one who fundamentally misunderstands the science and treats the results as if they are prophecy.

And yet anthropogenic climate change is nothing compared to climate change caused by an epoch transition or a major natural occurrence, like an asteroid impact for instance. The idea that "we are killing the earth" has absolutely no merit. Just because science says that humans effect climate change, doesn't mean that it is on such a massive scale that all life on the planet (or the planet itself) is in danger. Seriously, I was right about volcanoes. Your comment is exactly the same thing as saying that the roots of a rose bush are so aggressive that every other species of plant life is in danger of going extinct. Just because the science says that it is technically possible for roses to extinguish all plant life in North America, doesn't make it anywhere close to being likely to happen. You are the one who fundamentally misunderstands the science and treats the results as if they are prophecy.
- sniper11

To the tune of “All life is in danger”, no, we’re not in danger of wiping out the Earth. But you’re kidding yourself if humans haven’t had a negative impact on climate. Or the environment. And the life within it. It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other. The conclusions that you, or we, come to, don’t have to be limited to a) we’re wiping out all life on the planet, and potentially the planet itself, and b) we’ve had no impact whatsoever. Look around. There are plenty of cases/places/instances, that we have undoubtedly caused major problems for ourselves, our planet, and the environment around us.

You may think it’s never going to bite us in the a$$. You may be right. Personally, I’d rather not chance it, and find out. Making smart choices (I mean TRULY smart choices, not just those intended to be), can’t HURT us in the long run. Not making those choices might.

To the tune of “All life is in danger”, no, we’re not in danger of wiping out the Earth. But you’re kidding yourself if humans haven’t had a negative impact on climate. Or the environment. And the life within it. It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other. The conclusions that you, or we, come to, don’t have to be limited to a) we’re wiping out all life on the planet, and potentially the planet itself, and b) we’ve had no impact whatsoever. Look around. There are plenty of cases/places/instances, that we have undoubtedly caused major problems for ourselves, our planet, and the environment around us.

You may think it’s never going to bite us in the a$$. You may be right. Personally, I’d rather not chance it, and find out. Making smart choices (I mean TRULY smart choices, not just those intended to be), can’t HURT us in the long run. Not making those choices might.
- prock

I agree with this and have said as much twice in this thread. There is definitely a measurable impact from humans, but it is also not as much "serious or dire" as it is "potentially serious." There is a significant difference. People should not be chastised for their lifestyle choice on the basis of environmentalism, excluding those who are actually trying to do harm, like pouring toxic chemicals into lakes and whatnot. The guilt trips coming from those claiming to be on the side of the environment is getting ridiculous. Standards are much higher than they have ever been, but any changes to those standards need to rigorously scrutinized before being implemented. Environmental efficiency is not the only form of efficiency.

And yet anthropogenic climate change is nothing compared to climate change caused by an epoch transition or a major natural occurrence, like an asteroid impact for instance. The idea that "we are killing the earth" has absolutely no merit. Just because science says that humans effect climate change, doesn't mean that it is on such a massive scale that all life on the planet (or the planet itself) is in danger. Seriously, I was right about volcanoes. Your comment is exactly the same thing as saying that the roots of a rose bush are so aggressive that every other species of plant life is in danger of going extinct. Just because the science says that it is technically possible for roses to extinguish all plant life in North America, doesn't make it anywhere close to being likely to happen. You are the one who fundamentally misunderstands the science and treats the results as if they are prophecy.
- sniper11

jesus


This is the same stuff parroted by people who don't understand what they're reading.
of course events like the last glacial maximum etc. had more significant levels of carbon. In fact some numbers have had carbon levels at about ten thousand million tons. completely unlivable conditions But those levels were reached over enormous amounts of time. Like thousands of years. While fossil fuels and human actions have hugely contributed to reaching an eighth of that total in just a couple hundred years since the industrial revolution. and why do we even mention glacial maximum numbers? we cant sustain life anywhere near those totals. so how is that the bar?

those who deny anthropogenic climate change choose to scutinize every sentence and word and if its plausibly denial, they do it. Or worse, because the scientist happens to drive a car that uses alot of gas, somehow his scientifically proven words become less meaningful or he's a hypocrite. You used petroleum products!! hypocrite!!!
standards still aren't enough and policy is always made with lobbyists for big oil and their profit margins in mind. This isnt conspiracy, this is how our democratic process works.
the wrong decisions with the wrong groups benefitting.

and did u actually compare volcanos and human footprint and then say I didn't fundamentally understand!!? Wow.
the point of what we're learning of volcanos is that they not only do they contribute to climate change, but climate change contributes to them through sea level change and retreating ice sheet weight on the aesthenosphere. this is the crux, they aren't mutually exclusive. This is alarming as volcanos in one part of the world can and have affected life over the entire globe. this isn't hypothesis as you so naively suggest. this is fact. they've been the root cause of massive drops in climate ver long periods and may have even been the biggest cause of an almost total extinction event. you were right about volcanoes in one specific point, but you didn't understand the comparison nor the bigger picture reference you were attempting to make. that much is abundantly clear


go to school bro. take some environmental science classes. or read a book. do something positive.
education is the first step to reversing this mess our grandkids are probably headed for