ANTON LANDER 11-12: DON’T SPOOK THE HORSE

Watching any sports team graduate their prospects is an interesting follow. Edmonton used to do things in a very traditional manner but these days anything can happen.

Anton Lander 11-12

  • 5×5 points per 60: 0.62 (14th and last among regular forwards)
  • 5×4 points per 60: nil
  • Qual Comp: 12th toughest faced among forwards
  • Qual Team: 12th best available teammates among forwards
  • Corsi Rel: -11.3 (13th best among forwards)
  • Zone Start: 52.2% (6th easiest among forwards)
  • Zone Finish: 45.1% (12th best among regular forwards)
  • Shots on goal/percentage: 54/3.7% (10th best among F’s>50 shots)
  • Boxcars: 56, 2-4-6
  • Plus Minus: -8 on a team that was -26
  1. What the hell was that? They handled him horribly. Probably better to pretend he broke something and lost the season. I think he looked so damn good at camp (remember the talk of his improved footspeed?) the organization fell in love with the guy. No one on the coaching staff or in management could gather the courage to say “maybe we should send him out to OKC for a few weeks just to make sure” and it ended up being the nightmare on Elm street.
  2. What’s the lesson here? If your 20-year old center is getting drilled against the soft parade, send him down. This isn’t a good way to develop players. A complete train wreck with the added bonus that we didn’t get an answer on either question we had entering the season.
  3. What are the 2 questions? First, how unique is he defensively and second will he score enough to be something more than a 4th line curio.
  4. What do these numbers tell us? He wasn’t ready on any level. It’s too bad to, because the Oilers had all these other kid forwards knocking on the door and they kept Lander. It really was a crazy decision, made worse because they didn’t admit their mistake for so, so long.
  5. How Could these numbers be better? Experience in the AHL, gaining confidence and having success in all kinds of areas. He’s doing it now during the post-season in OKC.
  6. Did he perform better in the AHL? He certainly looked more at home based on reports. Lander went 14, 1-4-5 -1 at the end of the season and is 2, 1-0-1 +1 in the playoffs so far.
  7. Anything else? Yes. Lander has 7 SOG in the two post season games and had 29 in the 14 games at the end of OKC’s season. Tells me he’s been way more involved than his NHL time where he was getting (as noted above) less than one shot per game.
  8. Did they lose him? Probably not, they just have to make damn good and sure that his next 860 NHL shifts will be a helluva lot stronger than the first 860. Even if it takes another year in the AHL.
  9. Which player was more damaged by this strange decision–Paajarvi or Lander? Paajarvi for sure. That was a damn shame what happened to him. Ridiculous.
  10. How will we know Lander is back on track? Todd Nelson gives pretty good answers, he doesn’t really shower players with praise unless they’ve earned it. If during these playoffs we read coach Nelson talking about Lander as a strong option then that’s a nice arrow for the future.
  11. What were they thinking at the beginning of the year? Clearly they fell in love with the guy. He had worked hard on his footspeed, played with a bit of an edge and I’ll bet you a pile of money he’s a coachable guy who listens and hears well. He took the coaching staff’s words to heart, did those things and at the end of the day coach Renney couldn’t find a reason to cut him.
  12. Why didn’t they send him out when the results didn’t come? You got me there, he should have been offloaded in November at the very latest. Oilers did a few strange things over the last year, Barker’s signing and the Lander-Paajarvi-Omark-Hartikainen situation was baffling too.
  13. Why didn’t they protect him better? Against what? You can’t play softer minutes than Lander played and it would be folly to lend him good players for those minutes.
  14. If Ken Holland suddenly became Oilers GM, how would they handle Lander? Oh hell, he might not play in the NHL for another two seasons. That might be a stretch, but I do believe Lander would be a more seasoned pro when he got a return call.
  15. He did some good things? How can we tell? I liked his effort and he stood up to people, plus it was fun when he scored. But lordy I don’t recall watching an Oiler rookie who did less actual damage. Dan Lacouture maybe.
  16. I knew you hated him. I love the thought of an exceptional defensive center with some skill. If he’s Doug Jarvis it’ll make me so happy. But we didn’t get any answers this season and I’m frustrated.
  17. And mean. Dirt mean. I just think he needs time is all. If he can be an effective third line C–a Don Luce redux–Oiler fans will be thrilled with him.
  18. Oilers fans like him now! Sure, but he isn’t doing things that help them win. That will come based on the scouting reports and what we’ve read. But the numbers don’t indicate these things.
  19. Math. I know.

NHL Prediction for 11-12: 16, 1-3-4 (.250)

Actual 2011: 56, 2-4-6 (.107)

written by

The author didn‘t add any Information to his profile yet.

124 Responses to "ANTON LANDER 11-12: DON’T SPOOK THE HORSE"

  1. godot10 says:

    Yet apparently you think bringing back Renney is “okay”..

    The phenoms don’t really need coaches. The rest of the roster does. And Renney absolutely sucked with the rest of the forwards, apart from the phenoms.

    From Omark to Paajarvi to Lander to Belanger to Gagner to Eager to ETC…Renney sucked. He refused and resisted to utilize the talent he had properly.

  2. Jesse says:

    godot10,

    I think saying that 18 and 19 year olds “don’t really need coaches” is a little silly. They’re still teenagers for crying out loud. In my opinion, the coach has more pressure to coach the young phenoms properly, lest they all end up like paajarvi. Can you imagine if hall and eberle had had sophomore slumps? The fact that they didn’t is something to look at IMO.

  3. regwald says:

    I know off topic and didn’t get a chance to post it last night, but how about that former Oiler Jaret Stoll ? I heard it a couple times the past two Canucks games they called him the best center for LA in the series.

    I definitely did appreciate him burying the Canucks in OT last night. What a shot !!!

  4. rich says:

    Hard to argue the point that Renney completely missed on Lander- Paajarvi-Belanger and to some extent Harski as well.

    While there were nites as LT puts it that Renney was going to a gun fight with a knife, the fact is that the Swedes wound up abused, Belanger mis-used/over-used. And of course Omark, who just is a little too independent for management’s tastes.

    I would argue a more prudent coaching staff would keep Lander away next season unless injuries forced their hand as well…but I’m not convinced we have a prudent coaching staff. While Renney has done some good things with the more talented kids, I tend to think that was going to happen regardless of who was behind the bench.

  5. Woodguy says:

    I agree with Godot.

    After running 2 games with a Renney line up, Krueger put the line up together that he liked and they beat CAL 6-1 in CAL and PHI 2-0 in EDM.

    Super small sample size, but the point stands.

    My question is “did Renney want to keep Lander up, or was it Tambellini?”

    I don’t know the answer to that question, but based on how he deployed the non Super-Kids, I can’t let him off the hook at all.

    Lander has the makings of a solid C, they just have to not fuck it up by putting in position to fail.

    With this management crew, that is not a given.

    On the brighter side, signing and keeping Klefbom in the SEL is a good move. I’d prefer he play in the AHL, but it might be a logjam of kids there next year (Marincin, Fedun, and Davidson and Blain might be signed yet)

    The Oiler management isn’t completely destroying everything they touch. That’s a win given the track record.

  6. Henry says:

    Woodguy:
    I agree with Godot.

    After running 2 games with a Renney line up, Krueger put the line up together that he liked and they beat CAL 6-1 in CAL and PHI 2-0 in EDM.

    Super small sample size, but the point stands.

    My question is “did Renney want to keep Lander up, or was it Tambellini?”

    I don’t know the answer to that question, but based on how he deployed the non Super-Kids, I can’t let him off the hook at all.

    Lander has the makings of a solid C, they just have to not fuck it up by putting in position to fail.

    With this management crew, that is not a given.

    On the brighter side, signing and keeping Klefbom in the SEL is a good move.I’d prefer he play in the AHL, but it might be a logjam of kids there next year (Marincin, Fedun, and Davidson and Blain might be signed yet)

    The Oiler management isn’t completely destroying everything they touch.That’s a win given the track record.

    I have a similar question. Who makes the call on sending players to OKC? Is it the GM or the coach?

  7. Traktor says:

    Gagner
    Horcoff
    Belanger
    Lander
    Yakupov

  8. hunter1909 says:

    Jesse,

    I think the previous poster was alluding to the reality that elite talent is far above the heads of mediocre coaching, ala Renney. I think he also stated clearly that Renney in his opinion is a shite coach, something which I also totally agree with. I’ve seen Renney pull the exact same bullshit both in NY and now Edmonton…eg “listening” to the young players, then turn to veterans who suck while losing the room and finally getting(deservedly) sacked.

    PS: Does anyone know who shot that puck that concussed Renney? Probably Hall, lol.

  9. Woodguy says:

    Traktor:
    Gagner
    Horcoff
    Belanger
    Lander
    Yakupov

    Name 2 old centers, 2 young centers and the projected #1 over all selection in the 2012 NHL draft.

    What do I win?

  10. Woodguy says:

    Traktor:
    Gagner
    Horcoff
    Belanger
    Lander
    Yakupov

    Name 2 players Traktor hates, 1 who he is disappointed in, and Swede and the projected #1 overall draft pick in the 2012 NHL draft.

    Closer?

    Can’t be a list of C’s, RNH is missing.

  11. hunter1909 says:

    Lander can be added to MPS, and Omark as Swedish players that Renney absolutely fucked up this season.

    PREDICTION: Klefbom never plays a single game for the Oilers.

    I’m perfectly happy whoever comes out of the west for a shock new final four: The Blues have been waiting since the first couple of expansion finals and totally are cool to win their very first cup, ditto the LAKings, the Preds seem cool and have Trotz my fave NHL coach, and the Yotes would be a scandalous winner for sure!

    Meanwhile, you hope the fools in charge of this franchise don’t trade away the generational opportunity to draft another 1st overall pick in Yaks.

  12. Traktor says:

    woodguy:

    It’s a treasure map.

    I like Lander though. He is the 2nd most important center in the organization so I’m rooting for him to develop.

  13. Ducey says:

    Woodguy:
    Name 2 players Traktor hates, 1 who he is disappointed in, and Swede and the projected #1 overall draft pick in the 2012 NHL draft.
    Closer?
    Can’t be a list of C’s, RNH is missing.

    Sorry, you only get one guess. You have been disqualified. :)

    My guess is that Traktor had a great post going and then dozed off.

    Edit: Having now seen Traktor’s explanation, I think mine still makes more sense.

  14. bookje says:

    Traktor:
    Gagner
    Horcoff
    Belanger
    Lander
    Yakupov

    Who are five people who have never been in my kitchen?

    Does Cliff remind you of Tambellini?

  15. Benhur says:

    WOW!!! Your are 100% right about Lander and the Oilers. What were they thinking! SICK! And Paarvii is another one, your right. Hope they don’t screw them or others up by brtinging them up to soon.
    Not everyone is a Petry. If they don’t perform send them down and let them develop. We’ve got lots of prospects which need time to develop their game.

  16. Matt.N says:

    Traktor:
    Gagner
    Horcoff
    Belanger
    Lander
    Yakupov

    In order, Who are the top 5 PP minute players for the 2012/2013 Oilers?

  17. edwards_daddy says:

    Traktor:
    Gagner
    Horcoff
    Belanger
    Lander
    Yakupov

    Horcoff is the only one who is an Oiler and can speak Russian? While Yakupov speaks Russian and really wants to be an Oiler. The others are just Oilers.

  18. VOR says:

    I am trying to figure out a test that would allow us to identify trolls. I started thinking about it last night after I said the Canucks were slip sliding away. I mean we all know Art is a flat out troll. DSF on the other hand isn’t so clear cut. I keep responding to him because I buy his story that he is a long time and highly frustrated Oiler fan and I know that feeling. But maybe I am just being sucked in by a very talented troll.

    I have been working this monring on a test of true Oiler fandom in which all the answers have something to do with Anton Lander.

    For example, I would bet serious money if DSF was really the age he claims and an Oilers fan he could tell me what Oiler player was serenaded with Slip Slidin Away by our own organist nearly every time he stepped on the ice.

    He should be able to tell us what the rat ate. Or who became “squeaky” and how.

    He should also know which former #1 OV had the nervous tick of looking up at the score clock over and over again. (The clue would be he is the only person to ever be #1 OV in back to back years.)

    If he is a bit younger but still an Oiler fan he should know which graduate of Agincourt’s music program and opera lover scored an overtime goal to win a world championship.

    Or which of his former coaches was traded for Howdy Doody.

    He should also be able to name an Oiler who was once a Laker, won two Olympic Gold Medals and dominated DEL.

    I am open to suggestions for other questions, particlularly ones which younger Oiler’s fans might know and a troll wouldn’t.

    I realize DSF will never respond but I thought some of the rest of you might like to see if you can figure out the answers. Maybe you are really all just trolls. Lowetide may be troll in chief.

  19. bookje says:

    The thing about DSF is that he is a damn good troll (and an ex Oiler fan). He exposes Art as a total hack.

    I appreciate the effort DSF puts into his trolling, however, I do worry about the amount of time he spends doing it. It can’t be healthy.

  20. Woodguy says:

    Traktor:
    woodguy:

    It’s a treasure map.

    I like Lander though. He is the 2nd most important center in the organization so I’m rooting for him to develop.

    I think I get where you are going, but you can’t just erase RNH.

    He was a rookie, so its not like saying he contributed to a 29th place finish isn’t wrong.

  21. prairieschooner says:

    It looks like the Oilers have diificulty not rushing players to the show.
    When they had nothing to work with they had Gags and Cogs walking right into the team and the trend has continued.Perhaps they have rush to judgement syndrome.
    The Oilers Euros look to take longer to be NHL ready.
    Slightly counter to this
    Last season there was an article on Hartikanen that pointed out that his development tended to be slow initially when he moved to a higher level of competition but as soon a he became comfortable he would start putting numbers up
    LT wants Harti to have the at bats next season and I think he is spot on.

  22. Jordan says:

    Premise:

    The Oilers are in dire need of a tough minute two-way winger who brings size, grit, speed and is no fun to play against. (Sounds like the holy grail of procurement, no? Anyways, I digress…)

    There are few players with the perceived combination of these traits currently available on the FA market, and I have grave doubts that Mumbles, Vish, or Overpay are going to convince them to come to Edmonton.

    Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of listening to the pipeline show’s Guy flaming entertain Ross Maclean about the prospects in this years’ draft.

    The one that really caught my attention was Filip Forsberg. Based on the list of traits I have listed above, his scouting report suggests he has them all.

    The same could be said for Ulf’s kid Hank, who has been a real force this year in the playoffs for the Oilkings.

    Question for the assembled fibre-optic brain trust:

    Presuming the Oilers don’t trade their picks, how much value would there be in the Oilers selecting Forsberg? There has to be huge value in such a decision to Columbus, no? Would they be willing to give up a 3rd to get a guarantee of Nail?

    Hauling him and Hank 1st and 2nd round would sure help to build a stable of 2-way wingers who can do it all, no?

  23. Captain Obvious says:

    Renney really needs to go. His hand-chosen lineup at the start of the year is full of mistakes on the margins. Lander and Petrell making the team, playing Gagner on the wing, playing Belanger on the third line, exiling Omark to the boonies. All of these were terrible decisions at the time and turned out that way in practice. The first grave mark against Renney is that he is a bad judge of talent and/or lineup construction.

    Worse, the Oilers good start covered over these mistakes as the Oilers were winning. However, the Oilers were winning in spite of these moves not because of them. However, Renney didn’t understand why they were winning games and so he stubbornly kept with the same lineup. Surprise, surprise, the goalies clock struck midnight and Smyth–Horcofff couldn’t keep the team afloat by themselves all year and the team turned to shit.

    Given the surprising performance of Eberle and Hopkins this team should have been much better. The reason this team wasn’t better lies solely on Renney’s shoulders. Now the benefit of Renney’s incompetence is Nail Yakupov so I suppose we should be happy. But the time has come to realize that Renney is a sub-replacement coach. Anyone would be better.

    A name I’d like to hear discussed is Derek Laxdall (spelling help?). The Oil Kings are a juggernaut and they are doing it without a typical junior hockey loaded roster. They have a lot of good players but they don’t have the talent of Saint John.

  24. VOR says:

    Good for Eberle. Richly deserved. He is one of the best parts of the rebuild.

    Speaking of rebuild, I think the Oilers’ management believe they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Did any of you ever read Mad Magazine? They used to have this section on common cliches turned into cartoons. The dilemma was mean looking Genetically Modified Rhino.

    In any case, the Oilers management started into a rebuild. Unlike many of you I think the Oilers’ management were really committed to that idea and understood it was a five or six year process. Now the fans have grown restless and want the playoffs next year or else. That wouldn’t matter if one of those fans wasn’t Taylor Hall.

    Thus the Oilers’ managment sees its choices as

    1) Load up on pricey veterans and win now but screw development, at least at the NHL level

    or

    2) All kids all the time, maybe even dump some vets to make way for more kids.

    I think most of us here, though I don’t think we are typical of the Oilers’ fan base, believe this to be a false dichotomy.

    We think there is a third option

    3) Sign a handful of veterans who are young enough to be key pieces of the puzzle but collectively cheap enough to allow all the young guns to sign at least their second contracts here. We may disagree with the exact players and dollars but we think both a rebuild and a winning team can happen at the same time.

    But the Oilers starting last offseason began dithering between 1 and 2 and got a bad result because they still didn’t have the depth and experience to compete over an 82 game season. Coaching certainly seemed to exacerbate the situation but Renney wasn’t responsible for the roster that was too thin to withstand even the average season of injuries the Oilers had. He did, however, bury some talent in the AHL and give too many minutes to players who were struggling or vets who hadn’t earned it. Sometimes it almost seemed like he was saying to management, “look, I just don’t have the horses so I am forced to misuse these guys.”

    I think right now they can’t decide on 1 or 2 and haven’t even considered 3 and thus can’t make decisions on the GM the coach etc. because they have no idea what they are going to pick.

  25. ashley says:

    I don’t think the Oilers are in “dire” need of anything, really. I mean, they’re virtually last in the league for three straight seasons, so something has to change to make a difference. However, a lot of the change will come from within. Prospects get older, savvier, and more skilled.

    The Oilers have improved substantially this year over the past two seasons, and much of that can be attributed to internal maturation.

    All the farm kids are scorers at all the levels until they hit a wall at some point. Then they face a crossroad in their careers. If they can’t score, they won’t make it to the NHL, so they have to reinvent themselves (although Cogs took forever to relinquish his status as a goal scorer rather than a two way center…and he still hasn’t made his way that well on the defensive end).

    Role players from our talented farm system will identify themselves as such to make it to the show and fill out the “grit” and “tough” part of the roster. There is no need to overanalyze anything. Most of this is coasting at this point, and then fine tuning when we look to be contenders.

    It will never be perfect. No roster is. Teams have won without a true #1D, without a big center, without a tough gritty winger, and without a faceoff specialist. Those are good things to have, but to say we are in desperate need of them goes too far. We don’t need to paint a masterpiece. Just something that we can cast our eyes upon without grimacing.

    That was what was so curious about last year’s July 1st moves. We have all kinds of talent bubbling under in need of ice time in the NHL to see what they can do and become, and we go out and sign a bunch of guys in the twilights of their careers? Marginal players no less?

    The time for fine tuning will come. Today is not that day.

  26. "Steve Smith" says:

    Henry,

    Ultimately, it would have to be the GM, since there are all sorts of cap/player rights implications there, and GMs are directly responsible for those (as they are, to some extent, for development decisions). I presume that there would be considerable deference given to a coach’s preference, and in Lander’s case the evidence from the decisions that were directly in Renney’s purview suggests that he was a Lander booster.

    I have it on fairly good authority that, when Lowe was GM and MacTavish was coach, Lowe made at least some decisions not only on who was up and who was down but, of those who were up, who dressed and who didn’t (the specific context is that Lowe apparently said that Igor Ulanov would never dress another game as an Oiler as long as he was GM).

    VOR,

    I’m actually undecided on whether DSF is a troll, and it depends largely on the definition of “troll”. If it’s somebody who posts just to goad other people into a reaction, I don’t think he is; I think he’s sincerely interested in defending his position. But I also think he knowingly uses intellectually dishonest arguments, and pretends not to understand accusations that he is doing so. Does that make him a troll?

    (This is why it’s frustrating when people suggest that DSF is lambasted for being a contrarian. I like contrarians. Ducey and Bookie are a couple who spring immediately to mind. DSF is lambasted for being intellectually dishonest. It is possible to dispute conventional wisdom with coherent arguments.)

    I think he probably is telling the truth about being nominally an Oilers fan, but he’s now so invested in his narrative that he’d be sincerely disappointed if they started winning. He may not realize this yet.

    (On another note, I decided some time ago that Traktor is not a troll. So, um, congrats, Trak.)

    Finally, I’m not even going to attempt to answer your questions, because I’m pretty obviously a troll (and a young-ish one, to boot).

  27. "Steve Smith" says:

    hockeyguy10,

    On Campbell: six PIMs for a defenceman while leading the league in minutes played is absolutely crazy. I’m not saying that he should win the Lady Byng, because PIMs are a crude proxy for “gentlemanly play”, but that’s just an insane statistic.

  28. DSF says:

    VOR:
    Good for Eberle. Richly deserved. He is one of the best parts of the rebuild.

    Speaking of rebuild, I think the Oilers’ management believe they are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Did any of you ever read Mad Magazine? They used to have this section on common cliches turned into cartoons. The dilemma was mean looking Genetically Modified Rhino.

    In any case, the Oilers management started into a rebuild. Unlike many of you I think the Oilers’ management were really committed to that idea and understood it was a five or six year process. Now the fans have grown restless and want the playoffs next year or else. That wouldn’t matter if one of those fans wasn’t Taylor Hall.

    Thus the Oilers’ managment sees its choices as

    1) Load up on pricey veterans and win now but screw development, at least at the NHL level

    or

    2) All kids all the time, maybe even dump some vets to make way for more kids.

    I think most of us here, though I don’t think we are typical of the Oilers’ fan base, believe this to be a false dichotomy.

    We think there is a third option

    3) Sign a handful of veterans who are young enough to be key pieces of the puzzle but collectively cheap enough to allow all the young guns to sign at least their second contracts here. We may disagree with the exact players and dollars but we think both a rebuild and a winning team can happen at the same time.

    But the Oilers starting last offseason began dithering between 1 and 2 and got a bad result because they still didn’t have the depth and experience to compete over an 82 game season. Coaching certainly seemed to exacerbate the situation but Renney wasn’t responsible for the roster that was too thin to withstand even the average season of injuries the Oilers had. He did, however, bury some talent in the AHL and give too many minutes to players who were struggling or vets who hadn’t earned it. Sometimes it almost seemed like he was saying to management, “look, I just don’t have the horses so I am forced to misuse these guys.”

    I think right now they can’t decide on 1 or 2 and haven’t even considered 3 and thus can’t make decisions on the GM the coach etc. because they have no idea what they are going to pick.

    Nice post.

    3) is the Tallon model.

    Seems to be working.

  29. Dipstick says:

    VOR,

    I have been a fan of the Oil continuously since the WHA days, and I can’t answer your questions. Must be old age.

  30. Ducey says:

    (This is why it’s frustrating when people suggest that DSF is lambasted for being a contrarian. I like contrarians. Ducey and Bookie are a couple who spring immediately to mind.

    I disagree.

    As for DSF,

    I don’t mind him for the most part. He raises good points fairly frequently, but he tends to go too far in his Oilers bashing/ Canucks lovin’. There is a reasonable person in there somewhere. Perhaps the Canuck’s crashing down to earth will moderate his “trolling” somewhat.

  31. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    Henry,

    Ultimately, it would have to be the GM, since there are all sorts of cap/player rights implications there, and GMs are directly responsible for those (as they are, to some extent, for development decisions).I presume that there would be considerable deference given to a coach’s preference, and in Lander’s case the evidence from the decisions that were directly in Renney’s purview suggests that he was a Lander booster.

    I have it on fairly good authority that, when Lowe was GM and MacTavish was coach, Lowe made at least some decisions not only on who was up and who was down but, of those who were up, who dressed and who didn’t (the specific context is that Lowe apparently said that Igor Ulanov would never dress another game as an Oiler as long as he was GM).

    VOR,

    I’m actually undecided on whether DSF is a troll, and it depends largely on the definition of “troll”.If it’s somebody who posts just to goad other people into a reaction, I don’t think he is; I think he’s sincerely interested in defending his position.But I also think he knowingly uses intellectually dishonest arguments, and pretends not to understand accusations that he is doing so.Does that make him a troll?

    (This is why it’s frustrating when people suggest that DSF is lambasted for being a contrarian.I like contrarians.Ducey and Bookie are a couple who spring immediately to mind.DSF is lambasted for being intellectually dishonest.It is possible to dispute conventional wisdom with coherent arguments.)

    I think he probably is telling the truth about being nominally an Oilers fan, but he’s now so invested in his narrative that he’d be sincerely disappointed if they started winning.He may not realize this yet.

    (On another note, I decided some time ago that Traktor is not a troll.So, um, congrats, Trak.)

    Finally, I’m not even going to attempt to answer your questions, because I’m pretty obviously a troll (and a young-ish one, to boot).

    “intellectually dishonest arguments” are like libel.

    Truth is the ultimate defense.

    Of course you already knew that.

  32. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF,

    Arguments are the process by which we determine the truth. Saying that fallacious arguments are justified where they are defending a true proposition is nonsensical, but does make me understand a lot more about your approach.

  33. Ducey says:

    DSF:
    “intellectually dishonest arguments” are like libel.
    Truth is the ultimate defense.
    Of course you already knew that.

    Libel is an untrue statement usually made by a writer calculated to lower the reader’s opinion of a third party.

    Intellectually dishonest arguments usually tend to lower the reader’s opinion of the writer.

    Thats kind of the point, DSF.

  34. FastOil says:

    Captain Obvious,

    There was confusion everywhere this season. Poor player management, poor acquisitions. The first thing to decide is whether to win or lose. Then take the appropriate course of action. What we saw was half way in between and really just caused damage other than the first.

    The team could also have had a lottery pick while using the time to develop the players they hope are the future. The roster is and was cluttered. If they want to win, pick the keepers and clear out bodies and find some good NHL players where there are holes. If they want to go through the draft, make sure every player brought up (meaning they have earned a shot) has a spot and enough cover to develop to an NHL level, and let them play a lot and iron out the kinks.

    This post season has been very instructive as to what makes a good team with new powers emerging. It’s just a matter of seeing it. Don’t devalue your own players through the media or through usage. Trade players you don’t want and get different ones. Do any of the teams that have gone through have a goon or non productive truculence?

  35. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    DSF,

    Arguments are the process by which we determine the truth.Saying that fallacious arguments are justified where they are defending a true proposition is nonsensical, but does make me understand a lot more about your approach.

    In your chosen profession…walking step by step through an argument to reach a conclusion is de rigueur, as it should be.

    But you should realize that there are other ways to reach conclusions, some of which don’t involve the same process but may be intellectually sound and, at the end of the day, at least as accurate.

    For example, it is conventional wisdom here that Klefbom is a bonafide top end prospect.

    How was that conclusion reached?

    It seems most are reaching that conclusion in isolation, with very little in the way of hard data just because the was an Oiler first round pick and Stu is a “Magnificent Bastard”. (there is mounting evidence that he’s pretty average but that’s a discussion for another time).

    Instead I might suggest taking a look at other Swedish defensemen who were chosen recently in the first round and see how Oscar stacks up.

    Erik Karlsson – 15th overall 2008

    Oliver Ekmann-Larsson 6th overall 2009

    Victor Hedman – 2nd overall 2009

    David Rundblad -17th overall 2009

    Tim Erixon – 23rd overall 2009

    Adam Larsson – 2nd overall 2011.

    When you have a moment, take a look through the performance of these players in the SEL at the same age as Klefbom and let me know how you think Klefbom compares to the group.

    Now, Klefbom may get an opportunity to shine this coming season and may well deliver but he also may not.

    While another season in the SEL plays out, it is worth noting that many of the players on the above list were already playing in the NHL (and some very well) at the same age Klefbom will be at the beginning of next season.

    Now, you may find that using comparables in this fashion is “intellectually dishonest” but I would wager Klefbom is not likely going to have as good a career as any of those others players barring misfortune or injury.

    It could happen, of course, but I wouldn’t bet much on it.

  36. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    DSF,

    Arguments are the process by which we determine the truth.Saying that fallacious arguments are justified where they are defending a true proposition is nonsensical, but does make me understand a lot more about your approach.

    Only if the arbiter of what is or is not fallacious is able to understand that because he has an opinion does not make it fact.

  37. mattwatt says:

    “Steve Smith”: Henry, Ultimately, it would have to be the GM, since there are all sorts of cap/player rights implications there, and GMs are directly responsible for those (as they are, to some extent, for development decisions). I presume that there would be considerable deference given to a coach’s preference, and in Lander’s case the evidence from the decisions that were directly in Renney’s purview suggests that he was a Lander booster.I have it on fairly good authority that, when Lowe was GM and MacTavish was coach, Lowe made at least some decisions not only on who was up and who was down but, of those who were up, who dressed and who didn’t (the specific context is that Lowe apparently said that Igor Ulanov would never dress another game as an Oiler as long as he was GM).VOR, I’m actually undecided on whether DSF is a troll, and it depends largely on the definition of “troll”. If it’s somebody who posts just to goad other people into a reaction, I don’t think he is; I think he’s sincerely interested in defending his position. But I also think he knowingly uses intellectually dishonest arguments, and pretends not to understand accusations that he is doing so. Does that make him a troll?(This is why it’s frustrating when people suggest that DSF is lambasted for being a contrarian. I like contrarians. Ducey and Bookie are a couple who spring immediately to mind. DSF is lambasted for being intellectually dishonest. It is possible to dispute conventional wisdom with coherent arguments.)I think he probably is telling the truth about being nominally an Oilers fan, but he’s now so invested in his narrative that he’d be sincerely disappointed if they started winning. He may not realize this yet.(On another note, I decided some time ago that Traktor is not a troll. So, um, congrats, Trak.)Finally, I’m not even going to attempt to answer your questions, because I’m pretty obviously a troll (and a young-ish one, to boot).

    That is the issue with one DSF. I love a great contrarian. If one can make me question my view, in an factual, reasonable message, I tip my hat to that man. That is the beauty of this blog, so many on here do just that. However, when one goes runs along with wherever the wind is blowing that day, discussions no longer become an area of fostering ideas; they just become annoying and grating.

    Best thing to do for those who want to discuss hockey talk on this blog is to not respond to DSF anymore. Which is what I am going to do from here on out.

    As for Lander, is he as defensive as we like to think he is? I don’t know if his game has the defensive awareness right now it needs for him to compete at the NHL level. LT has always talked about how many great defensive players were once solid offensive players while coming up, then realized later on that their talent level did not translate as well to the NHL. Wonder if Lander is of this mold.

    That said, I still feel a player is here. Damn well hope so, for Lander has a bit of the Kesler-assery to his game that this Edmonton club so sorely needs.

  38. Captain Obvious says:

    I didn’t get a chance to mention it at the time but the Torres suspension is completely ridiculous. I’ve been vocal about the need for the NHL to hand out larger suspensions. However the capricious targeting of a single incident/player for punishment undermines the whole process. It isn’t just a gross miscarriage of justice that violates elementary principles of the rule of law. By confusing what is, and is not, an illegal hit it undermines the pedagogical effect of punishment, and by punishing Torres the person rather than the hit itself, it will have a reverse deterrent effect.

    The message isn’t don’t target the head, late, when that guy doesn’t have the puck. The message is don’t do those things if your name is Raffi Torres.

    Only the rule of law can solve this problem. In order for this to happen all incidents need to be treated the same.

  39. VOR says:

    Captain Obvious,

    I couldn’t agree with you more, all incidents need to be treated the same by the system.

    The problem is that the incidents are never identical and that gives the NHL tons of wiggle room to play silly bugger games and play favorites. I think the best we can hope for and the least fans, coaches, and players should demand is that the process for adjudicating infractions and establishing punishments be well thought out, consistent, and transparent to all the parties. At the moment, and for years, the NHL has been 0 for 3 in meeting those goals. This post season is just making it more obvious than usual.

  40. Gerta Rauss says:

    VOR,

    All I got is Anson Carter scored the OT goal.

    I remember Kenny Linseman and Glenn Anderson used to model fur coats in the early 80s-and Lee Fogolin used to push the building supplies.

    I’m drawing blanks on the rest of your quiz.

  41. VOR says:

    Gerta,

    Anson Carter is right.

  42. hockeyguy10 says:

    “Steve Smith”,

    Agreed about Campbell.6 PIMS is insane for that amount of ice time.Chicago seems to be missing him more than they thought they would.

  43. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF: In your chosen profession…walking step by step through an argument to reach a conclusion is de rigueur, as it should be.

    But you should realize that there are other ways to reach conclusions, some of which don’t involve the same process but may be intellectually sound and, at the end of the day, at least as accurate.

    There are a couple of responses to this:

    1. It is entirely legitimate to engage in shortcuts, with the proviso that, if challenged, you need to be prepared to dispense with the shortcuts. The example I gave here sometime ago was appeals to authority, which are logically fallacious. Most people, including me, still engage in them as a shortcut, because it’s a lot more efficient to take a trusted authority’s word for some proposition than it is to prove the same proposition from first principles. But if somebody responds that they do not accept the authority for the proposition, you have to realize that you can’t retort by buttressing the authority’s credibility.

    That’s not “another way to reach conclusions”, though: that’s the same way, dispensing with the more laborious bits. You’re still accepting the method of walking step by step through an argument; you’re just proposing, by mutual agreement, to skip some of those steps.

    2. There is, in fact, another legitimate way to reach conclusions: intuition. We all use it. At least, I think it’s legitimate, both because it’s faster and because a lot of the time I suspect we’re actually subconsciously engaged in a lot of the logical process. But the catch with this one is that intuition has literally no persuasive value. If somebody challenges your conclusion, you can reasonably say “I reached that conclusion on intuition, and I am consequently unable to defend it. I still believe in its truth, but further discussion of it would be fruitless.” But you can’t expect to convince anyone with it.

    If two people with different intuitive responses (i.e. any two people, given the right circumstances) want to debate a conclusion, cold, hard logic is the only way to proceed. Logic is actually what you’re trying to use with your example of Klefbom (on whom I have no strong views, owing to insufficiency of data). You’re relying on at least two propositions that you haven’t bothered to establish (per #1, above): that the Swedish defencemen you cite are a representative sample, and that the performance of past Swedish defenceman selected in the first round has good predictive value for Klefbom’s career. Those propositions may or may not be correct (the second one, at least, probably is). But you’re not using some mysterious other method to reach your conclusion; you’re using logic.

    In any event, this is your cue to offer a response showing that you’ve deliberately missed the point.

  44. VOR says:

    Gerta,

    The connection between Carter and Lander is that their offence was badly under-rated at the time of the draft. They didn’t look pretty scoring. Perhaps it would be better to say that neither guy looked like they should be able to score and thus their offensive stats got devalued.

    Oddly there were also questions about Carter’s skating ability. If the scouts are as wrong about Lander as they turned about to be about Carter’s speed then the Oilers stole him in the draft. Hard to tell from this season, there were Lander looked like a tug boat and times he flew.

  45. Gerta Rauss says:

    I’ll guess the rat ate at Swiss Chalet. There was a time in the 80′s when you couldn’t swing a cat and hit some Oiler that was on the TV pimping some product or other. I seem to remember Linseman pimping a steakhouse however…

    And Randy Gregg was the Olympian.

  46. rickithebear says:

    DSF: How was that conclusion reached?

    Heard on one of the hockey Shows. Parts of the Swedish hockey Comunity (Scouts, Coaches, National Selection) believe klefbom to be the next great corner stone Swedish Dman.

    Gregor had recently stated conversation with swedish hockey people supported the same belief..

    Being the best shutdown Dman at the WJC @ 18Yr 4 Months is not a bad sign.

  47. Gerta Rauss says:

    Actually,forget Randy Gregg, that can’t be correct.

    This is hard.

    And I suddenly have a craving for a 1/4 chicken with mashed potatos.

  48. VOR says:

    Gerta,

    The rat (Kenny Linseman) ate his future teammate’s (Lee Fogolin’s) ear.

  49. bookje says:

    "Steve Smith": There are a couple of responses to this:

    1. It is entirely legitimate to engage in shortcuts, with the proviso that, if challenged, you need to be prepared to dispense with the shortcuts.The example I gave here sometime ago was appeals to authority, which are logically fallacious.Most people, including me, still engage in them as a shortcut, because it’s a lot more efficient to take a trusted authority’s word for some proposition than it is to prove the same proposition from first principles.But if somebody responds that they do not accept the authority for the proposition, you have to realize that you can’t retort by buttressing the authority’s credibility.

    That’s not “another way to reach conclusions”, though: that’s the same way, dispensing with the more laborious bits.You’re still accepting the method of walking step by step through an argument; you’re just proposing, by mutual agreement, to skip some of those steps.

    2. There is, in fact, another legitimate way to reach conclusions: intuition.We all use it.At least, I think it’s legitimate, both because it’s faster and because a lot of the time I suspect we’re actually subconsciously engaged in a lot of the logical process.But the catch with this one is that intuition has literally no persuasive value.If somebody challenges your conclusion, you can reasonably say “I reached that conclusion on intuition, and I am consequently unable to defend it.I still believe in its truth, but further discussion of it would be fruitless.”But you can’t expect to convince anyone with it.

    If two people with different intuitive responses (i.e. any two people, given the right circumstances) want to debate a conclusion, cold, hard logic is the only way to proceed.Logic is actually what you’re trying to use with your example of Klefbom (on whom I have no strong views, owing to insufficiency of data).You’re relying on at least two propositions that you haven’t bothered to establish (per #1, above): that the Swedish defencemen you cite are a representative sample, and that the performance of past Swedish defenceman selected in the first round has good predictive value for Klefbom’s career.Those propositions may or may not be correct (the second one, at least, probably is).But you’re not using some mysterious other method to reach your conclusion; you’re using logic.

    In any event, this is your cue to offer a response showing that you’ve deliberately missed the point.

    Shortcuts (including intuition) are critical for our survival, imagine what would happen if every time you took a shower you had to run through the positive and negative merits of using shampoo, so we don’t bother, we simply defer to habit. Deferring to authority (and imitating others who we perceive to be successful/attractive/etc) is another way of shortcutting (again to save the high time costs and energy consumption of a full rational evaluation).

    I know a number of people who are terrible at rational thinking, so they depend more upon intuition or upon set ways of doing things (i.e. following the rules of some self help book) and then when asked to defend their decisions/arguments they try to construct some rational argument to defend them, however, being terrible at rational thought makes them really poor at doing this.

    Anyway, I don’t really have a point, I am just procrastinating from the work I am supposed to be doing. I hope I helped you do the same.

  50. DSF says:

    rickithebear: Heard on one of the hockey Shows. Parts of the Swedish hockey Comunity (Scouts, Coaches, National Selection) believe klefbom to be the next greatcorner stone Swedish Dman.

    Gregor had recently stated conversation with swedishhockey people supported the same belief..

    Being the best shutdown Dman at the WJC @ 18Yr 4 Months is not a bad sign.

    Now, you see, that would run afoul of the “appeal to authority” provision of the SS Code of Logic.

    Making the WJC all star team is certainly a promising sign but all it proves is that he was better than most defensemen playing in that tournament.

    Nik Lidstrom played in the 1990 WJC.

    The tournament all star defensemen were Jiri Slegr and Alexander Godynyuk.

  51. "Steve Smith" says:

    "Steve Smith": In any event, this is your cue to offer a response showing that you’ve deliberately missed the point.

    DSF: Now, you see, that would run afoul of the “appeal to authority” provision of the SS Code of Logic.

    Thank you.

  52. "Steve Smith" says:

    bookje,

    I agree with everything you say, and I think it’s all consistent with what I wrote (not that you’ve suggested otherwise, so far as I can tell).

    (In other words, you’re a terrible contrarian. You should take a lesson from Ducey, above.)

  53. vishcosity says:

    Clearly by the VOR metric I am a troll, because the only answer i knew was Linseman as the rat.

    As a troll I can add that scientists are generally appreciated by society because we’ve been trained to take a series of reproducable numbers and hypothesize a conclusion from there. Lawyers are trained to take a predetermined conclusion and find facts to support an unreproducable perspective. Generally speaking I have disrespect for DSF’s constant efforts to selectively choose stats to support his preconceived conclusions, aka him doing exactly what he has been trained to do.

    The effort of trying to prove a preconceived notion by way of selected stats, say, that Lidstrom not being the most outstanding player in the 1990 tournament is evidence that Kelfbom isn’t an elite talent, is exactly the process of thinking that makes people call lawyers bad names. And while that doesn’t necessarily make DSF a troll, but it clearly makes him an ass.

  54. bookje says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    bookje,

    I agree with everything you say, and I think it’s all consistent with what I wrote (not that you’ve suggested otherwise, so far as I can tell).

    (In other words, you’re a terrible contrarian.You should take a lesson from Ducey, above.)

    I prefer to think of myself as a randomarian – my approach to posting changes up depending upon which synapses are firing that day.

    On that note, if you had an ‘expert’ who could not explain his/her method of decision making to you (because they don’t understand it themselves), but had demonstrated on 1000+ occasions that they were always correct (with no errors) would that be an inferior or superior method of decision making relative to logical arguments based on facts and should it be admissible in a court of law?

  55. Captain Obvious says:

    bookje,

    What you describe is known as an oracle. One of the reasons oracles have gone out of fashion is because being able to account for your reasoning (i.e. becoming self-conscious) has turned out to be an integral part of being “correct.”

    This is the essence of the Socratic idea of “know thyself” or self-knowledge. Understanding how you came to hold a piece of knowledge is an indispensable element of that knowledge. Or as I like to say, “if you can’t say it, you don’t know it.”

  56. VOR says:

    Linesman bit Fogolin in the left cheek and tried to tear off his left ear, or so Fogolin said after the game. The teeth marks in Fogolin’s cheek took a long time to heal and he needed tetanus shots. Linseman later said something to the effect of, “the guy just brings out the crazy in me.” A lot of people felt that way over the years about Fogolin. He was the definition of hard to play against.

    The connection to Lander is he brings out the crazy in people. Ott, Polak, Fistric, Hamonic, and of all people, Derrick Brassard totally abandoned their defensive assignment to take major runs at Lander this year. Seems a bit odd if he wasn’t getting under their skin, a lot. How isn’t apparent, but then it was never apparent with Fogolin, and isn’t with Smid.

    Lander shows promise as a second line center who can score goals and agitate which is of course pretty much the description of Linseman’s career. Fourth line minutes NHL style would be a poor place for the kind of talent to develop.

  57. dawgbone says:

    Woodguy,

    3 games vs Colorado, Chicago and Detroit… 3-2, 8-4, 5-4. So yeah, the sample size is a bit too small to draw conclusions from.

  58. raventalon40 says:

    VOR,

    VOR:
    Linesman bit Fogolin in the left cheek and tried to tear off his left ear, or so Fogolin said after the game. The teeth marks in Fogolin’s cheek took a long time to heal and he needed tetanus shots. Linseman later said something to the effect of, “the guy just brings out the crazy in me.” A lot of people felt that way over the years about Fogolin. He was the definition of hard to play against.

    The connection to Lander is he brings out the crazy in people. Ott, Polak, Fistric, Hamonic, and of all people, Derrick Brassard totally abandoned their defensive assignment to take major runs at Lander this year. Seems a bit odd if he wasn’t getting under their skin, a lot. How isn’t apparent, but then it was never apparent with Fogolin, and isn’t with Smid.

    Lander shows promise as a second line center who can score goals and agitate which is of course pretty much the description of Linseman’s career. Fourth line minutes NHL style would be a poor place for the kind of talent to develop.

    I think it’s a great place to start. If he’s better than the 2nd line center option, then move him up. Until then, he should play on the bottom two lines. I remember when Quinn played Gagner on the bottom two lines until Gagner played so well he had no choice but to move him back. Until Lander’s offensive promise shows through, I see no reason why he can’t do the job on the 4th line. If it’s good enough for Sean Couturier… it’s good enough for Anton Lander.

  59. gogliano says:

    The response to libel isn’t truth it is state intervention because the marketplace of ideas can’t sort truth out when individuals can engage in intentionally dishonest speech.

    I raise this point for absolutely no reason, of course. But when state intervention isn’t possible one’ s options are left to mocking the conclusions of the poster, ignoring them, or the like. Responding to untruth with truth is a waste of time if those who intentionally distort the truth can do so with impunity.

    Again, I say this for no particular reason. Just random reflections on the idea of free speech.

  60. Ducey says:

    Until Lander’s offensive promise shows through, I see no reason why he can’t do the job on the 4th line. If it’s good enough for Sean Couturier… it’s good enough for Anton Lander.

    Except they already tried that. See 1 and 2 in LT’s post at the beginning.

    He needs AHL time.

  61. Gret99zky says:

    Some IMO points:

    a) The way Renney has been sent out to twist in the wind until June pretty much spells out that Tambi will try to scoop up a freshly pink slipped coach for next season.

    b) Hall wants to win now and doesn’t have the patience of Mr. Dithers.

    c) Those are some damn challenging questions from Vor.

    d) I need DSF around here to balance LT’s eternal optimism. Besides, LT always says the posters and their comments are the best part of the blog. I’m bias so it’s a tie in my eyes.

    e) The “bring back the former Oilers” cheer squad always sets my teeth on edge.

  62. vishcosity says:

    Anton Lander was regarded by his peers as a leader type iirc. Edmonton brass seems down on Omark beause he displayed an attitude quite different than Lander, seems. While I too am generally a Lowe apologist, what I cannot stand is the Stalin like media and player gags. If Brad Marchant were somehow an Oiler prospect, he’d likely have long ago been rn out of town. Sometimes it seems that players are kept or dumped not according to ability but instead according to how well they tow party line.

    Maybe Lander is the perfect non troll, and while he clearly cannot play at the NHL level, and while it seems that Omark maybe can (in the saw him good dept), I wonder how much ice time would have been given to Omark if his word choices were more like Lander.

    My general disposition is to defend KLo, but somehow in this situation it seems that the facts dictate something non empirical in nature, as in Lander doesn’t belong and the fact that he got so many starts says something like ability and playing time do not correlate.

    Then again, if Lander can get under the skin of the opposition, without disturbing the brass, maybe he is in fact the perfect troll and thus we have the explanation for what actually is the goings on.

    Sorry to slander the attorneys. I sure would love to see everyone peruse the facts then draw conclusions. Granted the win loss stats would suffer, the carriage of justice and clarity of the truth may however foster.

    I can’t really proof read on this phone and the photographer currently has dibs on the tower. hope this works.

  63. Woodguy says:

    dawgbone:
    Woodguy,

    3 games vs Colorado, Chicago and Detroit… 3-2, 8-4, 5-4. So yeah, the sample size is a bit too small to draw conclusions from.

    I loved the way Krueger put the lines together though.

    Every line was balanced, had a role, and the correct match up.

    Was a breath of fresh air.

    If you’re stuck in a smokey house, even 2 breaths of fresh air feel good, regardless of the sample size.

  64. VOR says:

    I thought I’d see if I can make some of the questions easier.

    Squeaky was one of my all time favorite Oilers. He hailed from Prince Albert and sprinkled his interviews with PAisms. One of my favorites was “don’t pat a burning dog.” Squeaky was the sort of D-Man we could use now. He could move the puck and had a cannon of a shot. He was also scary as hell being both a head hunting open ice hitter and a ferocious fighter. He had two seasons of 15 goals, 40+ points and over 200 penalty minutes for the Oilers. He had (and sadly they haven’t been able to fix it with surgery) vocal chord damage that began when Sergio Momesso punched him in the throat and then he reinjured it when somebody, I don’t remember who, elbowed him in a scrum. At best he talks in a whisper. Is that helping identify him?

    Most importantly he brought leadership. He was good in the room and even better on the ice. His teammates adored him. He was the leader of men as a boy. Wherever he went, shattered voice or not, the other players followed him willingly into battle. That part of his resume reads a lot like Lander’s. Some guys just make you want to play for them and with them. You can’t have enough of them on your team. Lets hope Lander can be one of them for many years with the Oilers.

  65. "Steve Smith" says:

    vishcosity,

    I can’t speak for others in my profession, but at work I generally try to approach issues with an open mind and draw my conclusions from the available evidence. Then, if my conclusions match the conclusion I’m supposed to be advancing, I’m fine. If they don’t, I look for flaws (real or arguable) in my analysis. I find reverse-engineering from a preconceived destination, for me at least, results in less persuasive arguments.

    Fundamentally, of course, you’re right that litigators (which not all lawyers are) argue one side regardless of what conclusions they would have reached themselves, but the process with which I approach something like that is much the same as the process with which I approach issues where I’m not paid to support one side.

    bookje: On that note, ifyou had an ‘expert’ who could not explain his/her method of decision making to you (because they don’t understand it themselves), but had demonstrated on 1000+ occasions that they were always correct (with no errors) would that be an inferior or superior method of decision making relative to logical arguments based on facts and should it be admissible in a court of law?

    Inferior, and I’d no more want to see that admitted to court than I would evidence that a given coin landed on heads one thousand straight times admitted to prove that it couldn’t land on tails. Evidence has to be testable, at least to some degree, to be meaningful, and that’s true in law as much as in science.

    Gret99zky: d)I need DSF around here to balance LT’s eternal optimism.

    Bwuh?

  66. raventalon40 says:

    Ducey,

    I’m saying at best. He’s not going to be a 2nd line player off the bat, and like you say, the jury is out on whether he is an NHLer at that level as well. Not sure if you read the original comment I was responding to.

  67. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    Dave Manson?

  68. "Steve Smith" says:

    Woodguy,

    That’s right, I dimly remember something about him blocking a shot with his Adam’s Apple, resulting in permanent damage to his voice.

    I probably never appreciated him as much as I should have given who we gave up to get him…

  69. VOR says:

    Dave Manson it is.

  70. Lowetide says:

    Can’t believe how many people I know who live at least part of the year in Phoenix. It’s like Snowbird catnip.

  71. vishcosity says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    vishcosity,

    I can’t speak for others in my profession, but at work I generally try to approach issues with an open mind and draw my conclusions from the available evidence.Then, if my conclusions match the conclusion I’m supposed to be advancing, I’m fine.If they don’t, I look for flaws (real or arguable) in my analysis.I find reverse-engineering from a preconceived destination, for me at least, results in less persuasive arguments.

    Fundamentally, of course, you’re right that litigators (which not all lawyers are) argue one side regardless of what conclusions they would have reached themselves, but the process with which I approach something like that is much the same as the process with which I approach issues where I’m not paid to support one side.

    Sounds like the difference between a lawyer and an attourney. IMO, lawyers deal within the law (not to be confused with statutes) and attourneys deal with spin. I can wish for all those who graduate from law school to focus on the law as described by Roman Maxims, I fear that anyone who professes allegiance to the British Accreditation Regency are pledged to do the exact opposite. Hope you (and others) maintain such an attempt at honour and decency as you describe.

    I looked up “troll” and it suggests that it can include one who posts an electronic message designed to instigate an angry response. If we can extend that to the NHL, Lander by that description may actually be the perfect fit. Though, it also means to fish. So I don’t think VOR got the term straight because it seems the more casual fan such as myself (who went to my first Oilers game in 1976) is still a troll despite yelling at a television when the original set of kids upset the Habs in 1981.

    And so probably DSF is exactly a troll, despite the VOR metric, and probably an attourney too.

    Its 102 degrees in Phoenix right now and tonight is scheduled a hockey game about fifteen miles from here. While I’m grateful to Bettman for keeping the team local, it behooves all logic to consider ice hockey to belong, and thus Bettman is likely too an attourney, and probably a troll too, but I say that because really I’m from Canada and he looks a little bit like Trotz. Which kinda freaks me out.

    Go little puter! Hope that didn’t double post.

  72. vishcosity says:

    blast. LT can you delete the first one? sorry.

  73. VOR says:

    The guy who won two Olympic Gold medals is a D-man who once suffered the most humilating moment imaginable. Dropped in the deep end way too young on Hockey’s biggest stage he found himself confronting the ultimate nightmare, with his country’s pride on the line he got trapped defending perhaps the most famous three on one in Canada’s hockey history. Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky and Larry Murphy broke in on him in the 1987 Canada Cup and he played it as badly as you can imagine. Lemieux scores, Canada goes nuts. Just 21 years old and forever known for possibly the worst defensive play in your country’s history. That sort of thing could kill a promising career.

    Instead this guy would go on and have a twenty year professional career, score fifty points in a single season for the Oilers, and hang around for years in the NHL by being a useful player. He overcame bad development. The scouting report on him always was he never stopped trying to get better. He didn’t always succeed but he never stopped trying. Lander is apparently, like this guy, incredibly coachable. At the same time they both have the reputation for boldly marching to their own drummer. It is that sort of personality that can probably rise above the gong show Lander faced this year.

    The next guy never overcame bad development.

  74. Lowetide says:

    Vish: Done. OTT is shooting themselves in the foot in a very winnable game. Silly people.

  75. Lowetide says:

    Well that was Igor Kravchuk.

  76. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    vishcosity,

    I can’t speak for others in my profession, but at work I generally try to approach issues with an open mind and draw my conclusions from the available evidence.Then, if my conclusions match the conclusion I’m supposed to be advancing, I’m fine.If they don’t, I look for flaws (real or arguable) in my analysis.I find reverse-engineering from a preconceived destination, for me at least, results in less persuasive arguments.

    Fundamentally, of course, you’re right that litigators (which not all lawyers are) argue one side regardless of what conclusions they would have reached themselves, but the process with which I approach something like that is much the same as the process with which I approach issues where I’m not paid to support one side.

    Inferior, and I’d no more want to see that admitted to court than I would evidence that a given coin landed on heads one thousand straight times admitted to prove that it couldn’t land on tails.Evidence has to be testable, at least to some degree, to be meaningful, and that’s true in law as much as in science.

    Bwuh?

    Of course, there is a far more prevalent and much older method of getting at the “truth”.

    The scientific method, which statisticians must, by definition, adhere to, is a rather recent human phenomenon and is fraught with peril.

    Here is a recent and thought provoking New Yorker article entitled The “Truth Wears Off”.

    Here’s the money shot.

    The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved.

    And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe. ♦

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer#ixzz1sumLcG00

  77. "Steve Smith" says:

    DSF: Of course, there is a far more prevalent and much older method of getting at the “truth”.

    Sure – it’s called “guessing”, and it’s what got us medicine so effective that homeopathy looked good by comparison.

    (I’m not ignoring the article you linked to – I just don’t have time to read and digest it right now.)

  78. cabbiesmacker says:

    DSF:

    For example, it is conventional wisdom here that Klefbom is a bonafide top end prospect.
    How was that conclusion reached?

    He had 43 second assists and only “I” know about it.

  79. "Steve Smith" says:

    Okay, I lied – I just finished the article, which itself makes clear that this “decline effect” is probably a combination of regression to the mean and human frailty, which in turn reinforce each other (the human frailty of publication bias means that reported studies are more likely to be outliers, which in turn means that they have a lot more regression to do). There’s nothing in there that makes me question the fundamentals of the scientific method, though there’s a whole lot that makes me question the way it’s applied. If you want to use it to justify ignoring empirical evidence, “fill yer boots”, but don’t expect it to get you taken more seriously among right-thinking people.

    (Though I fundamentally reject the last two sentences of the article:

    “And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”

    If we still have to choose what to believe, then the experiments are, by definition, not done.)

    But now I really have to go – there’s an election on, and I need to get drunk and yell at TV screens.

  80. cabbiesmacker says:

    When we all stop talking about what raw deals Linus and players of his ilk are getting it’ll probably mean that we have a decent hockey team to watch.

    Find some players with a little more Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero in their skillset and we’ll be fine.

    Traktor? Your point was “3 of these players will never contribute to a winning Oilers team and should be the hell and gone down the road?

    For sock tape if that’s what it takes?

  81. VOR says:

    Igor Kravchuk is correct.

  82. VOR says:

    The guy who looked at the clock all the time will forever be known as one of the great draft flops of all time even though he played more than 700 NHL games. He once put up 300+ penalty minutes in a single season and became a solid veteran blue liner. However, once you’ve been compared (with some cause) to Bobby Orr a solid NHL career leaves you a permanent disappointment and cautionary tale about how much maturity matters. He is absolute prove of how easy it is for bad coaching and management decision making to put a young man’s career in jeopardy. Lets hope we won’t some day say that about Lander.

    I mean honestly, how many guys have ever been back to back #1s, admittedly in differrent pro leagues but still?

  83. VOR says:

    I thought the two Olympic Gold medals would be a really good tip off so went with a couple of much more fan cult facts.

  84. DSF says:

    “Steve Smith”: Sure – it’s called “guessing”, and it’s what got us medicine so effective that homeopathy looked good by comparison.

    (I’m not ignoring the article you linked to – I just don’t have time to read and digest it right now.)

    Nah…it’s not called guessing at all.

    It’s called Zen (and many other things).

    The difference between believing and knowing.

    Western science and culture has, to a large degree, been affected by geography, where a handful of crazed prophets roamed the desert under an empty sky and became convinced that that must be the place where the rules were made.

    In the East, prophets formulated their ideas in the fecund jungles where the processes of creation and “science” were abundantly clear if only the observer could develop the ability to do “nothing” but observe.

    Now, back to penning the first chapter of “Zen and the Art of Tarasov”.

  85. DSF says:

    "Steve Smith":
    Okay, I lied – I just finished the article, which itself makes clear that this “decline effect” is probably a combination of regression to the mean and human frailty, which in turn reinforce each other (the human frailty of publication bias means that reported studies are more likely to be outliers, which in turn means that they have a lot more regression to do).There’s nothing in there that makes me question the fundamentals of the scientific method, though there’s a whole lot that makes me question the way it’s applied.If you want to use it to justify ignoring empirical evidence, “fill yer boots”, but don’t expect it to get you taken more seriously among right-thinking people.

    (Though I fundamentally reject the last two sentences of the article:

    “And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”

    If we still have to choose what to believe, then the experiments are, by definition, not done.)

    But now I really have to go – there’s an election on, and I need to get drunk and yell at TV screens.

    “right thinking people”.

    Hmmmm.

    Must be only one way to think.

  86. hockeyguy10 says:

    Vor….Pat Price

  87. Lowetide says:

    Pat Price? Old guys like me have a rolodex in our brain for Orr comps. Jim McKenny, Allan Hamilton, Brad Park, Denis Potvin, Pat Price, a few more over the years. Poor McKenny. Never had a chance.

  88. VOR says:

    Cabbiesmacker.

    I am going to use your comment to segue into the question about Howdy Doody. Sometimes those sock tape trades actually work out.

    Imagine Geln Sather. He had a player who had bled for the Oilers and wanted to be reunited with his friends in the Big Apple. Sather also needed to cut some salary. He traded one of the best two way centers in hockey for sock tape, a 164 OV kid who Sather would later admit he didn’t know from Adam. He didn’t know the kid looked a lot like the puppet Howdy Doody from the kids’ show of the same name. He didn’t know the kid was tiny. He didn’t know the kid could flat out fly. Sather actually had the kid confused with someone else. Mostly he didn’t know he was trading one great two way center for another. He certainly had no idea the vet he traded away would return to Edmonton to coach the kid he had acquired from the Rangers.

    I think that former Oiler coach might well be a good comparable for Lander. We should be so lucky.

    By the way Howdy Doody decided he wanted a nickname change as he became a veteran and his teammates picked T-Bone.

  89. cabbiesmacker says:

    If the Hawks end up winning this series it will be in spite of every Dman not named Seabrook. Oduya and Leddy suck worse than cantina hookers.

    Maybe as bad as the officiating in this series.

  90. VOR says:

    Yes LT, Pat Price. My point being when screwed up coaching and management meets the immature ego all hell can and does break loose. Lord help us if Lander is as fragile and immature as Price at the same age.

    Loved Al Hamilton by the way, great guy off the ice as well.

  91. cabbiesmacker says:

    VOR:

    Loved Al Hamilton by the way, great guy off the ice as well.

    Still is

  92. Lowetide says:

    VOR:
    Yes LT, Pat Price. My point being when screwed up coaching and management meets the immature ego all hell can and does break loose. Lord help us if Lander is as fragile and immature as Price at the same age.

    Loved Al Hamilton by the way, great guy off the ice as well.

    Yeah, Price went for the money (WHA Blazers and Pattison) and by the time he jumped back to the Islanders he had a sense of entitlement. They say he straightened out later, but Sather traded him and Slats hated trading good defensemen who had tread left.

  93. PunjabiOil says:

    DSF on the other hand isn’t so clear cut. I keep responding to him because I buy his story that he is a long time and highly frustrated Oiler fan and I know that feeling. But maybe I am just being sucked in by a very talented troll.

    The two items aren’t necessary mutually exclusive.

    DSF may be a frustrated Oiler fan, but he’s also a troll. He averaged 30 posts per day on HFboards before posters on that site grew tired of his act and got him banned.

    Oilers win draft lottery, and this guy is trying to ruin everyone’s mood by comparing the Oilers to Atlanta.

    What a sad, sad, situation – a fully grown adult, devoting hundreds of man hours to piss off a bunch of faceless strangers.

    It’s quite sad, actually.

  94. gogliano says:

    "Steve Smith":
    Okay, I lied – I just finished the article, which itself makes clear that this “decline effect” is probably a combination of regression to the mean and human frailty, which in turn reinforce each other (the human frailty of publication bias means that reported studies are more likely to be outliers, which in turn means that they have a lot more regression to do).There’s nothing in there that makes me question the fundamentals of the scientific method, though there’s a whole lot that makes me question the way it’s applied.If you want to use it to justify ignoring empirical evidence, “fill yer boots”, but don’t expect it to get you taken more seriously among right-thinking people.

    (Though I fundamentally reject the last two sentences of the article:

    “And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.”

    If we still have to choose what to believe, then the experiments are, by definition, not done.)

    But now I really have to go – there’s an election on, and I need to get drunk and yell at TV screens.

    Good luck proving everything via scientific method. Science itself gave up that dream in the 19th century.

  95. Woodguy says:

    VOR,

    That’s Todd Marchant.

    Sather thought he was trading for someone who was 6’1 200lbs, and Todd showed up all 5’10 (not really) 165lbs.

    Sather read the wrong line in the Rangers info pack.

  96. Woodguy says:

    gogliano: Good luck proving everything via scientific method.Science itself gave up that dream in the 19th century.

    I believe in magic.

  97. VOR says:

    Finally we come to the possible upside for Anton Lander, and my first question is now my last post on the subject of Lander.

    I hated Simon and Garfunkel. My wife has been trying to teach me how to sing the 59th Street Bird Song since the day we met. I am apparently a slow learner.

    Thus hearing Slip Sldin Away played every time this guy stepped on the ice was not my idea of a good time. I don’t have a clue why the organist insisted on doing it. In all my years of going to hockey games it is the only time I have seen a player have his own personal theme song. What is worse is that the organist started playing the song as the guy was winding up his last season of professional hockey making it either exceedingly unkind, bittersweet or something. I honestly am not sure what the song means so it is hard to say. Certainly made it memorable. It was also the last season of the WHA so we were all slip slidin away.

    I think the player in question has some similarities to Lander. They both announced their leadership skills early on, both first class forecheckers who are great at circling back to cover the point allowing their D-men to pinch, and both with the ability to puck handle and maintain possession. Relentless forecheck pressure and puck possession is actually Lander’s calling card and one the Oilers as currently constructed don’t give him much chance to use. Both players clearly struggled with adjusting to the NHL despite playing well in a professional league against men before making the transition.

    As far as I know this guy is the only player ever to play for the Edmonton Oil Kings, the Edmonton Flyers, and the Edmonton Oilers.

    And Oh Lord, please let Lander have the modern equivalent of the offence of the little center from Provost.

  98. Lowetide says:

    One of my favorites. Loved Norm Ullman.

  99. gogliano says:

    Woodguy: I believe in magic.

    Nah, just antiquated notions of science.

  100. jake70 says:

    DSF, thanks for posting that article on the truth wearing out. As someone working in the medical/health field, find this very intersting, and frustating at the same time as it just muddies the waters even more.

  101. Woodguy says:

    gogliano,

    I have a crystal ball.

    Not as clear as DSF’s though. If you ask him.

  102. DSF says:

    jake70:
    DSF, thanks for posting that article on the truth wearing out.As someone working in the medical/health field, find this very intersting, and frustating at the same time as it just muddies the waters even more.

    Glad you liked it.

    Our society assumes many things are certainties when, in fact, that is far from reality.

    There is much more art in science than there is science in art.

  103. DSF says:

    Woodguy:
    gogliano,

    I have a crystal ball.

    Not as clear as DSF’s though.If you ask him.

    Dustin Brown 19.

    Ales Hemsky 9.

    Who knew?

  104. whale says:

    VOR,

    Thanks for the stories and the memories.

  105. Schitzo says:

    “Steve Smith”:
    vishcosity,

    I can’t speak for others in my profession, but at work I generally try to approach issues with an open mind and draw my conclusions from the available evidence.Then, if my conclusions match the conclusion I’m supposed to be advancing, I’m fine.If they don’t, I look for flaws (real or arguable) in my analysis.I find reverse-engineering from a preconceived destination, for me at least, results in less persuasive arguments.

    Fundamentally, of course, you’re right that litigators (which not all lawyers are) argue one side regardless of what conclusions they would have reached themselves, but the process with which I approach something like that is much the same as the process with which I approach issues where I’m not paid to support one side.

    To add my two cents, I definitely agree that the toughest cases are the ones where you read the other side’s argument and think “yeah, that sounds right”. I find the best way to approach that situation is to research the issue as if you were arguing against your own client, and try to figure out those weak spots in “your” argument. Flip that around and hope the weak spot can be developed into a full-fledged argument.

  106. DSF says:

    Brule with his second.

    Dogs lead 2-0

  107. hunter1909 says:

    DSF: Western science and culture has, to a large degree, been affected by geography, where a handful of crazed prophets roamed the desert under an empty sky and became convinced that that must be the place where the rules were made.
    In the East, prophets formulated their ideas in the fecund jungles where the processes of creation and “science” were abundantly clear if only the observer could develop the ability to do “nothing” but observe.

    Bloody hell, now we also have to read about your religious/cultural biases?

    Careful man, you’re starting to actually believe yourself. Keep this up, and you’re going to wake up one morning with a bad hangover, and from-the-basement-apartment pics all over the internet.

  108. hallberle says:

    Does the Brown vs. Hemsky bet include playoff/preseason games or regular season games only?

  109. FPB94 says:

    Well, well. The Yotes might just break even this year.

  110. VOR says:

    Lowetide,

    Me too. He was great his first year with the Oilers and all those years with Detroit and Toronto,.

    Whale,

    Your welcome.

    I hope my history didn’t interfere too much with the epistemological discourse.

  111. pboy says:

    hallberle:
    Does the Brown vs. Hemsky bet include playoff/preseason games or regular season games only?

    I believe its just for the regular season.

  112. DSF says:

    pboy: I believe its just for the regular season.

    Yep.

    Including the playoffs just wouldn’t have been sporting.

  113. vishcosity says:

    It’s amazing how smart the mgmt appears when the goaltending resembles plywood. What a game. Are there advanced statistics for a forty minute psudeo power play? And did OEL then score a short handed goal? Most lopsided 4 – 0 game I’ve probably ever seen.

    Pretty sure the scientific method has nothing to do with any cultural influences or art, unless you think that Econ is science. If I can produce a result in my lab, and you can produce the same result in yours, then probably it’s approaching science. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen over a catalyst pretty much is the same regardless of where or who.

    What schitzo describes was what I previously called spin by an attourney. It does not resemble that which I would call law, or anything remotely like science. That is also why attourneys and justice are rarely intermixed.

  114. hunter1909 says:

    Lowetide:
    One of my favorites. Loved Norm Ullman.

    Which player of today does Ullman remind you of?

  115. Ryan says:

    Hey everyone,

    You know who would have been an upgrade over Lander at 4C? There’s this guy who plays for the Coyotes named Gilbert Brule.

  116. Ryan says:

    Woodguy,

    I saw Todd Marchant without his skates once. He looked like I did in grade 8.

  117. art vandelay says:

    Re I mean we all know Art is a flat out troll. and that hack crack from bookie.
    You guys are spending a lot of time thinking about me.
    Aaaaahhh, and here I thought you didn’t care.

    The best part of the comments is the completely unfounded optimism and delusional sense of entitlement. The Oilers are a sack-0-sh!t franchise in a town that ranks 31 out of 30 NHL cities where players might want to sign.

    In a cap world, your core of star players – if they haven’t been ruined by the clown town management team – will bolt at 26. And you’ll all still be hanging around pining for a confluence in 2023 after another string of lottery picks.

    How are those Doug Weight Falling Asteroid retro jerseys doing in your mom’s closet? Do moth balls really work?

  118. Ducey says:

    Ryan:
    Hey everyone,

    You know who would have been an upgrade over Lander at 4C?There’s this guy who plays for the Coyotes named Gilbert Brule.

    Yeah, he’s really good. So good that PHX wanted to save him for the big game, so they healthy scratched him earlier in the playoffs. So good that he has scored on 2 of his 3 shots.

  119. hunter1909 says:

    art vandelay,

    While basically agreeing with a lot of what you say, as a recently made delusional fan…since the team now possesses 3 certified genius forwards and the dazzling prospect of adding another…

    What exactly drives you to even bother with the franchise? I gave up hockey almost 100% as a teenager after they traded away Mark Messier for a bum player – knowing the team was doomed then made it an easy choice.

    Similarly I got sucked back in around 2001, with the Lowe/MacT debacle/era. Then, I always used to like to say the best thing for the team to do would be tank as long as they can stand and collect the top talents neccessary to win cups – and now they have them.

    The team stinks, naturally, and of course I dont 100% believe in everything i read..but wtf if i had zero faith or if that day happens i am sure to find other things to do.

  120. DeadmanWaking says:

    Think I posted this once before.

    Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

    This is a natural consequence of an asymmetrical, bright-line system: positive results get published, negative results are shoved into a bottom drawer. Publish or perish. Design your studies accordingly. Same thing in banking. There were guys who pocketed half a billion dollars for decisions that nearly ruined the banking system, and there’s no provision for a claw-back after the dust settles. Nice world. Doesn’t replicate? Oh well, you’re a full professor already, and fully deserving of your success nevertheless, fine chap as you are.

    On the coaching front, I agree with Ashley that we’re over-analyzing things. I also think a coach has his hands full with a bunch of teenage stars. It’s not just about the risk that they fail to develop (unlikely with the elite prospects). But there are other factors to proper development. Chemistry and hard work. I recall that Gretzky credits Sather for really pushing the group to be the best they could be. If they were good, he wanted great. If they were great, he demanded transcendence. Sometimes they hated it, but it made them better. It actually surprises me on past comments that Godot hails from the Alfred E. Neuman school of coaching where you devote 90% of your time to bottle-feeding the runt of the litter.

    Concerning DSF, I have this mental image of some ratty used bookshop long ago where some patron misfiled a copy of How to Lie with Statistics in the self-help section, until one day DSF wandered past, and took the advice to heart. DSF is one of the clearest cases in my experience of an intellect that switches off at precisely the place where a more serious thinker would stick around and grind off the burrs.

    Most of us here are afflicted with wanting our ideas to grow and thrive. We tend to constrain our thinking in the early stages to breeding lines with long-term promise. DSF shows up with a champion dog who wins best in show as a three year old, then winds up on the blue juice two years later after succumbing to congenital hip dysplasia, which was rampant on both sides of the breeding stock. DSF’s ideas have a superior sheen, but the expensive surgery required is usually more bother than simply starting over with breeding stock screened for genetic defects, as any sensible breeder would have done in the first place.

    I believe DSF could go to any kennel and breed a great specimen in the next generation, but there’s almost no chance his superior specimen will breed true in the next generation after that. DSF is a grand master of one-offs-manship.

    Registration indicates only that the dog’s parents were registered as one recognized breed; it does not necessarily indicate that the dog comes from healthy or show-quality blood lines. Nor is registration necessarily a reflection on the quality of the breeder or how the puppy was raised. Registration is necessary only for breeders (so they can sell registered puppies) or for purebred conformation show or purebred dog sports participation. Registration can be obtained by mail or online at their website.

    So he’s not wrong, but what’s it worth? Is the AKC populated by self-serving trolls? Hard to say, but I’m personally wary of any mutt they’ve had their mitts on.

  121. russ99 says:

    The mishandling of Lander, Omark and Paajarvi present a view of the hockey club that’s not flattering.

    Sadly our management team seems to prefer our players conforming to misplaced ideals of the coaching staff to what players can bring to the team on the ice.

    I shudder to think what this group would do with headstrong talent like Pavel Bure…

    Hmmmm….

  122. Ryan says:

    Ducey,

    Haha, just saying he would have been an upgrade on 4C over Lander last season. Hard to argue against that. Would have given Lander time to season in the AHL.

    Lander:

    GP 56 2 4 6 +/- -8

    Brule:

    GP 33 5 9 14 +/- 7

  123. ashley says:

    That’s a great article DMW. A quote from one of the first paragraphs:

    “He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.”

    This is true up to the “rely” part. I would even go as far to say that 95% of published medical research is flawed and virtually useless. However, starting in the early-mid 90′s, MD’s have all been intensively trained to critically evaluate medical research. Biases, confounders, sample size problems etc abound, and are easily identified. At our journal clubs the vast majority of articles are presented, torn apart, and thrown in the garbage, branded as useless….and these are handpicked for the discussion because of something potentially interesting that might change our practice.

    So to say that we are relying on all this research is incorrect. We look at it, but unless the research is bullet-proof, it does not change practice. I would suggest that we even go to the opposite extreme in that nothing short of a multi-center, double blind, randomly controlled trial (with its multimillion dollar price tag) will even make us blink these days. Creativity is being stifled. Good ideas start small with small budgets.

    Nonetheless, the evidence-based movement for the practice of medicine has been very good for patients with much improvement bucking conventional care even in recent years.

    How many of you have had your tonsils out? How about your kids? Why the change? One of evidence-based medicine’s finest victories.

    The NHL parallel would be made with advanced statistics which seems to be making its way to the fore in the past two years. This will change the way people value players and how teams are constructed, and probably already has for those on top of the data. However, I’m not convinced that a pure mathematical approach to player evaluation is possible in hockey. There seems to be some art to it. Stats just don’t tell the whole story. It’s like trying to figure out how the soup is going to taste by looking at the nutritional information and ingredients.

    Just look at all the math debate for the #1OV pick last year. Yet it was no contest for most experts who had watched RNH play. He was #1.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

© Copyright - Lowetide.ca