Unfortunately, in order to claim Appeal to Authority error, you actually need to be able to argue that point.
So let's be honest - are you a sports fan who watches from his couch, and spends maybe 20-30 minutes of his day thinking or talking about his team? How many hours have you coached professional calibre players? How many hours have you spent practicing with the Leafs? How many hours of film of Boston have you watched and analyzed? When you claim Appeal of Authority error, you actually need to support it with evidence that supports your opinion. Unfortunately for you, I am guessing that you think losing somehow validates your shallow and poorly reasoned arguments, arguments which are off the hip and based on your self-inflated knowledge of the game.
If you provided any kind of solid argument, I might agree that Babcock's background isn't a good basis for forgiving him in our loss, but you haven't. Nobody really has, to be honest. A lot of "what ifs".
By blaming coaching, you are giving a free pass to the guys who actually have a huge impact on the game.
lol. so many things to address. you've committed what's called a 'strawman argument' on several points.
-by blaming the coach, i'm giving a free pass to the guys who actually have a huge impact on the game? i never said that. EVERYONE is at fault. including the coach. this should be a no brainer. because in my specific post i'm mentioning babcock and not others doesn't suddenly absolve the overall poor performance of said others. or are you maintaining that babcock was flawless?
-losing validates my arguments? did i ever say that? also how do you know that my arguments are shallow and poorly reasoned arguments when you haven't even heard them? lol. it's because i haven't coached according to you and have self-inflated knowledge? now that's called an ad hominem attack. aside from the fact that you have no idea if i've played or coached at any level.
-if only nhl level coaches are allowed to give opinions, then i guess that your opinion is equally invalid, according to your definition. also, we shouldn't have this board.
-so your first paragraph is simply confirming the appeal to authority error. let me spell it out for you:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
that's from a simple wiki. unfortunately, you are completely wrong about logical fallacies. whether or not i come up with a better argument doesn't change the fact that the original fallacy was presented and is in fact independent of whether or not i come up with an original argument. an identifier doesn't need to be proven.
i am sorry to have triggered you, but let's be honest, you need to breathe.