Toggle sidebar

2014-15 Standing Predictions

bobbygore

Registered User
Jun 27, 2011
342
86
JenniferHanson531 said:
The notion that one "needs to have a real intimate knowledge", or be employed with the Knights, to analyze the pendulum between Dale's development and Mark's attainment of talent commits a fallacy in reasoning. Under your circular logic, you can't prove your claim either because you're not employed by the Knights, resulting in a strawman argument.

Look at the players I listed. How many would you categorize as simply 'undervalued by the league/or impactful upon arrival/or pedigree made production predictable' and how many would you categorize as 'prime benefactors of Dale's development'?

The players one can irrefutably categorize under the former:
- Watson
- Houser
- Stolarz
- Mermis
- Yakimowicz
- Namestnikov
- Maatta
- Zadorov
- Marner
- Broadhurst
- Dvorak
- Domi
- Horvat
- Matt Rupert
- Ryan Rupert
- Tierney
- Griffith
- Harrington

Each of the above players fit at least two of the following three themes:
- Already entered London with a promising pedigree, whether derived from JrB/USA/AAA/Europe (I've researched each one), to the point their production was reasonably predictable before playing a game
- Immediately impactful
- Was acquired because others undervalued and overlooked said player

Since the above players fit at least two of those themes, we can deduct that no significant influence/ability of Dale's was responsible for these players. These players would've developed on a similar path given any competent OHL coach. Thus, the bulk of credit for these players goes to the front office/scouting staff for identifying and signing players someone else undervalued. It's this list of 18 players that's symptomatic of what separates London from (mostly) everyone else -- front office, scouting, intrinsic advantages.

That list contained 18 of 25 (72%) off my original list, leaving 7 players up for debate:
- Fox
- Athanasiou
- Welychka
- Raine
- Platzer
- Elie
- Anderson

Even if one liberally accounts the bulk of development for the above 7 to Dale, one has to attempt to isolate London's advantageous environment conducive to development from Dale, ie. state-of-the-art facilities, technology, physiotherapist, etc.

When one factors in London's intrinsic advantages, can we really claim the development of these players as benefactors of 'Dale's innate ability' regarding development? If so, is the list of players' development attributable to Dale in the past 5 years anything more than 'decent' when compared to his peers? Wouldn't you agree that a handful of coaches could walk into Dale's shoes of being handed the OHL's most effective front office and intrinsically advantageous environment, and produce the same results?

Dale is absolutely a decent coach, but any notion that some innate ability of his to develop players is responsible for the bulk of London's success, as opposed to Mark/scouts, is a myth. Dale might be tough to replace, but he absolutely is replaceable. Any 'developmental' advantage Dale may hold (which as this post demonstrates, is a moderate advantage but in no way significant), could be countered by a hypothetical coach's improvement in 'asset management' - Dale's achilles heel. Conversely, Mark and the scouting staff are irreplaceable. History has shown that in the rare years Mark failed to ice a contender on paper, the team finished according to collective talent level, rendering Dale's effect moderate in the big picture, but minimal compared to Mark's/scouting's significant impact. Mark and scouting (and intrinsic advantages) drive the bulk of London's success -- not Dale.
Click to expand...

First off Id like to apologize to readers of this thread as this Dale Hunter discussion doesn't really belong here. I promise this will be my last comment on the subject.

Jennifer - You should be a politician . You provide long windy , droning explanations but you sidestep the simple question that was asked of you - How do you know how integral Dale Hunter was in developing players ? Formulating a list and stating that certain players came in already developed is a little lame don't you think ? . This is all totally subjective . The truth is you have no clue what role Dale had in developing the players. Can you explain why there have been a plethora of ex Knight players over the years who have commented on what an integral the Hunter' s have been in their development ? Who would know more about the situation them or you ? Now that you've provided us all with your list I guess we know that these guys have no idea what they are talking about ? lol

And in regards to your theory that any team that had Mark Hunter is the Super GM - Why was it that when Mark was the GM of the Sarnia Sting that the team could never even get out of the first round of the playoffs ? Surely any coach that was handed such a high percentage of laydown prospects that don't need development would be easily able to have great success. After all with a Super GM at the helm development isn't necessary

Do you think it might have been his Coach's fault ? Ifso you better Google up who his coach was when Mark was the GM of the Sting because their names are strikingly similar . It kind of blows your whole Super GM theory to pieces

The fact ( not subjective opinion !) is that Mark Hunter didn't have any real success as a GM until he and Dale got together and bought the Knights and together they made the London juggernaut what it is today. You could easily make the case that Dale was the key to making Mark successful as the facts ( not subjective opinion ! ) support this. To try and minimize Dale's role is laughable .

When you respond to this (and I'm sure you will . lol ) please try and keep your essay to less than 1000 words and please do it on the Knights thread .

Once again I apologize for responding here.
 
DrJenniferHanson

DrJenniferHanson

Cursed By A Gypsy
Aug 31, 2011
1,783
2
43° N lat 81° W long
bobbygore said:
First off Id like to apologize to readers of this thread as this Dale Hunter discussion doesn't really belong here. I promise this will be my last comment on the subject.
Click to expand...

Yet, your 'apology' is contradicted by your 'action'. The only avenue to back this apology up would be to private message me.

bobbygore said:
Jennifer - You should be a politician . You provide long windy , droning explanations
Click to expand...

Look at all these endearing ad hominems -- what a wonderful person you are!

Your post just oozes of irony. Attack for 'lengthiness' and 'droningness' (translation: "I can't refute the substance my opponent provided, so I'll revert to smoke-and-mirror tactics and hope no one notices"), then consume your 5 first sentences with smoke-and-mirror tactics -- phony apologies and ad hominems. Awesome.

bobbygore said:
but you sidestep the simple question that was asked of you - How do you know how integral Dale Hunter was in developing players ?
Click to expand...

There was no sidestep -- I addressed it head on. Not my fault you failed to comprehend my post. Let's review your exact quote, and mine, since you're now distorting what you previously stated.

you said:
Can you provide some detail on how you know that Dale had a minimal role in developing the players you mentioned ? Are you connected with the Knights organization ? Because you would have to be to have a real intimate knowledge of this .
Click to expand...

me said:
The notion that one "needs to have a real intimate knowledge", or be employed with the Knights, to analyze the pendulum between Dale's development and Mark's attainment of talent commits a fallacy in reasoning. Under your circular logic, you can't prove your claim either because you're not employed by the Knights, resulting in a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

Another poster also reiterated the inherent logical fallacy in your reasoning.

My entire post, sans the initial paragraph, analyzed why I deem the development of the vast majority of players as mostly independent of Dale, relative to the debate's context that Dale nearly-exclusively develops better than everyone else. That's about as direct an answer as one could expect. You're grasping at straws, buddy.

bobbygore said:
Formulating a list and stating that certain players came in already developed is a little lame don't you think ? .
Click to expand...

Your exact question:
"Can you provide some detail on how you know that Dale had a minimal role in developing the players you mentioned ?"

How would formulating a list of players to counter your assertion be "lame"? Is that not logically the exact counterargument necessary to directly refute your quoted assertion? :laugh:

But keep ignoring and downplaying the meat of my post -- smoke and mirrors have never been so transparent!

bobbygore said:
This is all totally subjective . The truth is you have no clue what role Dale had in developing the players.
Click to expand...

Is this serious? Your refutation is this is "subjective"? We're debating opinions, which are.... wait for it... subjective by definition. Subjectivity is inherent to a debate. No one's definitively right or wrong -- they're opinions. From there, it's what logic/reasoning and empirical evidence one uses to support their assertion. I've pointed out your logical fallacies (ad hominem, ad verecundiam, strawmans, etc.), and you haven't attempted to use one iota of empirical evidence, instead relying on logical fallacies and anecdotal evidence. Conversely, I at least attempted empirical evidence, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. I think it's very telling you didn't attempt to refute any of my evidence.

As for the "no clue" part, that's just a loaded attempt to grasp at straws. Formulating a list with empirical evidence registers "as no clue"? ;)

bobbygore said:
Can you explain why there have been a plethora of ex Knight players over the years who have commented on what an integral the Hunter' s have been in their development ? Who would know more about the situation them or you ? Now that you've provided us all with your list I guess we know that these guys have no idea what they are talking about ? lol
Click to expand...

First off, I highly suggest indulging in logic & reasoning literature because chronically committing the ad verecundiam fallacy only weakens your argument.

To answer the question, nearly every coach plays a role in a player's development. I never said otherwise. I even stated in my original post that Dale is moderately above average in developing players. My argument centered around why London's front office/scouting staff warrant the bulk of the credit and are irreplaceable to the operation; whereas, Dale could replaced by a minority/handful of other coaches, who would yield similar results (also citing Dale's troubles with asset management as sabremetrics this season attested to). My list juxtaposed with my analysis dissected why. Ironically, you steered clear of refuting even one name with one iota of empirical evidence.

Players attributing segments of their development to the Hunters' doesn't disprove my above italicized text. Rather, I'd need proof of Dale's superiority relative to his OHL peers in the development department. More importantly, the vast majority of players compliment their coach's role when solicited publically. That goes for the vast majority of nearly any team in any league with a public audience. That's part of the Public Relations game embedded at this level. That's common sense, man.

bobbygore said:
And in regards to your theory that any team that had Mark Hunter is the Super GM - Why was it that when Mark was the GM of the Sarnia Sting that the team could never even get out of the first round of the playoffs ? Surely any coach that was handed such a high percentage of laydown prospects that don't need development would be easily able to have great success. After all with a Super GM at the helm development isn't necessary
Click to expand...

First off, for the sixth instance in your post, you blatantly distorted my words (see: bolded) to generate a strawman to knock down with ease. At no point did I state anything close to resembling "development isn't necessary". My argument very clearly outlined the developmental factors extrinsic to Dale, and why I posited his effect is overstated.

Regarding the balance of your quote, there are several factors:
*Hunter was at the helm of a far less resourceful environment than contemporary London. The intrinsic differences between contemporary London and Sarnia of Hunter's time are vast. Additionally, the current OHL's widening gap in wealth compounds this factor. This effect is monumental in attracting elite talent.
*Vast difference between London's current scouting staff and Sarnia's of the time.
*A much younger, less experienced Mark Hunter was not as savvy as he is today.
*You're glossing over the situation Mark inherited, and Mark's significant improvement of that situation:
'95 Sting:
.303 PT% before Hunter
.474 PT% after Hunter

bobbygore said:
Do you think it might have been his Coach's fault ? Ifso you better Google up who his coach was when Mark was the GM of the Sting because their names are strikingly similar . It kind of blows your whole Super GM theory to pieces
The fact ( not subjective opinion !) is that Mark Hunter didn't have any real success as a GM
Click to expand...

Success is relative, as each situation has a different context (as I've illustrated the vast intrinsic differences between London and Sarnia).

In fact, let's review Sarnia's history.
(1) '03: .662
(2) '96: .621
(3) '98: .606
(4) '04: .603
(5) '99: .596
(6) '97: .583
(7) '07: .574
(8) '09: .566
(9) '08: .559
(10) '13: .551
(11) '12: .551
(12) '00: .544
(13) '02: .485
(14) '01: .478
(15) '11: .419
(16) '95: .402
(17) '05: .316
(18) '14: .301
(19) '10: .287
(20) '06: .287

After Mark finished cleaning up the mess he inherited (which saw that team improve from .303% to .474% when Mark coached), any team Mark had a hand in the blueprint in (whether it was head coach or gm) placed 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 12th in Sarnia history. Can you look at yourself straight and stick to your claim, "he didn't have any success at all"? ;) [Note: You can remove '97 when Mark was in St. John's, which is 6th place, but the point still remains]

bobbygore said:
until he and Dale got together and bought the Knights and together they made the London juggernaut what it is today. You could easily make the case that Dale was the key to making Mark successful as the facts ( not subjective opinion ! ) support this.
Click to expand...

I find it ironic that I peg my words as 'opinion' while backing myself up with empirical evidence, while you chronically label your arguments as 'fact' without using an ounce of empirical evidence. Quite the contrast.

Or the inherent hypocrisy just a few sentences prior of your soapbox preaching, 'this is all subjective' in response to my words, but now you coin your words as 'fact'. Double whammy of self-contradiction and the epitome of hypocrisy.

Anyway, the empirical evidence I provided above strongly, strongly disagrees with this supposed God-given fact.


bobbygore said:
To try and minimize Dale's role is laughable .
Click to expand...

Here you go with loaded words again, which is fine, but void of substance.

If my opinion is so laughable, then why have I contributed 100% of the empirical evidence in this debate? Given the laughability of my argument, shouldn't be easy for you to not only provide empirical evidence, but also clock the empirical evidence/logic I provided? You're two posts in, and it hasn't happened yet.

bobbygore said:
When you respond to this (and I'm sure you will . lol ) please try and keep your essay to less than 1000 words and please do it on the Knights thread .

Once again I apologize for responding here.
Click to expand...

Hip-hip hooray -- more ad hominems!


Let's review:
*Chronic use of ad hominems
*Multiple instances of committing ad verecundiam
*Multiple strawmans
*Zero empirical evidence

And the granddaddy of 'em all....

*A message board martyr preserving the sacredness of this thread, all while self-contradicting what he just preached against.

Oops, I committed an ad hominem. I'm on the scoreboard now, aw shucks.
 

bobbygore

Registered User
Jun 27, 2011
342
86
West Only as I don't follow the East closely enough :
1. Soo
2. Guelph
3. Erie
4. Windsor
5. London
6. Plymouth
7. Sarnia
8. Kitchener
9. Owen Sound
10. Saginaw

<mod>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

avalanches78

Registered User
Aug 27, 2014
65
0
West:
Soo
Guelph
Plymouth
Kitchener
Erie (Unless they trade a ton of pick to boost there line up before Mcdavid leaves)
London
Sarnia
Windsor
Owen Sound
Saginaw

If London sells everything the way Kitchener did last year, they could fall out of the playoff picture, but I just don't know if the Hunters would allow that. The big question marks in the West are Kitchener's goaltenting. Erie's willingness to loose all their picks to London for another run at it with McDavid. If Erie does that then they might leap frog everyone in the West except the Soo. Windsor might surprise but I still see them as quite young, and they have no first round draft pick from 2013 because of the sanctions. So I think they will be strong in 2015, but not that strong this year.
 

hockeylegend11

Registered User
Sep 11, 2010
15,799
3,817
avalanches78 said:
West:
Soo
Guelph
Plymouth
Kitchener
Erie (Unless they trade a ton of pick to boost there line up before Mcdavid leaves)
London
Sarnia
Windsor
Owen Sound
Saginaw

If London sells everything the way Kitchener did last year, they could fall out of the playoff picture, but I just don't know if the Hunters would allow that. The big question marks in the West are Kitchener's goaltenting. Erie's willingness to loose all their picks to London for another run at it with McDavid. If Erie does that then they might leap frog everyone in the West except the Soo. Windsor might surprise but I still see them as quite young, and they have no first round draft pick from 2013 because of the sanctions. So I think they will be strong in 2015, but not that strong this year.
Click to expand...

Erie has lost 250 goals from last yr,plus Adam Pelech,Abraham and Macdermid on the back end,Dansk too so 1 trustworthy goalie left in Williams,only2 top 6 forwards, a young d and mediocre O/As,easily could finish despite Mcdavid
Aside from SSM and Guelph,not alot of spearation between the other 8 teams,they all have weaknesses some similiar with others
Its true Windsor does not have a 1st rder from 2013,neither does Plymouth btw,but they have 2 from 2014,and Luke Kirwan picked up from Guelph would have gone
top 5 had he committed in 2013,instead of going in round 2,so actually they have a 1st rder from 2013 just not their own,think they will surprise
 

EON

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 31, 2013
8,043
1,688
Raleigh, NC
hockeylegend11 said:
Erie has lost 250 goals from last yr,plus Adam Pelech,Abraham and Macdermid on the back end,Dansk too so 1 trustworthy goalie left in Williams,only2 top 6 forwards, a young d and mediocre O/As,easily could finish despite Mcdavid
Aside from SSM and Guelph,not alot of spearation between the other 8 teams,they all have weaknesses some similiar with others
Its true Windsor does not have a 1st rder from 2013,neither does Plymouth btw,but they have 2 from 2014,and Luke Kirwan picked up from Guelph would have gone
top 5 had he committed in 2013,instead of going in round 2,so actually they have a 1st rder from 2013 just not their own,think they will surprise
Click to expand...

I agree Erie is in tough offensively for supporting McDavid and Strome. They will be both leaned on heavily. A talented group but too young right now. MacDermid isn't much of a loss. He was more of a hindrance than a help to last year's team. Pelech is the big loss, he logged a lot of minutes.

But the problem i have with your statement is about Dansk. All of last season people ragged on Dansk and he was hardly regarded as trustworthy goalie (which I agree with). But now that he's gone you say "so 1 trustworthy goalie left in Williams". If you ask me and many posters around here Williams was the only trustworthy goalie on the team the last few months of the season and playoffs so it's a good thing he is the full time starter now.
 

avalanches78

Registered User
Aug 27, 2014
65
0
I agree about the quote that Dansk was not the Goalie that everyone was thinking he would be in the second half and into the playoffs. Actually I think they would have won one more game against Guelph if Dansk had not started one of those games, and allowed a crazy number of goals only to be replaced by Williams who should have started IMO (I didn't get the call to coach Erie yet :)). So Dansk is not a lost for Erie in my opinion. I agree they are not the team they were last year, but if Horvat is sent back and Erie goes into buying mode, I believe they still have a lot of picks, then I could see them picking him and try to replace there OA with people who are going to have an impact. That would empty their draft cupboard for quite a few years but they are not going to have another McDavid for quite a few years. I also read that Burowkowsky could be send back in one of the NHL blog, that is speculation but if that happens then that makes them a stronger team instantly. So that's why I placed them 5th in the WC but with a note that if they go in buying mode they could still be become a strong team in the WC. I still don't see anyone beating the Soo though and Guelph will be hard to beat.

As for Plymouth not having a 1st round draft pick in 2013 I was not aware that their pick did not report, cause they could not trade the pick before the draft that's for sure. The only team that could not draft in 2013 was Windsor from what I know because of the sanctions against them.
 
Last edited:

Voice from the North

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
936
490
East

Oshawa
Niagara
Peterborough
Barrie
Kingston
Belleville
North Bay
Ottawa
Mississauga
Sudbury

Any one of the top three could win the conference, East is pretty wide open this year. Watch out for Niagara in 2015-16 as well.

West

Soo
Erie
Guelph
Plymouth
London
Owen Sound
Kitchener
Windsor
Sarnia
Saginaw

Soo looks like the team to beat here while Erie loads up for this year and the others find out whether they are buyers or sellers.
 

Petes1987

Registered User
Oct 13, 2013
1,126
847
East Conference:
Niagara
Peterborough
North Bay
Oshawa
Kingston
Barrie
Mississauga
Ottawa
Belleville
Sudbury

West Conference:
Sault Ste Marie
Guelph
Plymouth
Windsor
Kitchener
Saginaw
London
Erie
Owen Sound
Sarnia
 
Robray12

Robray12

Registered User
Jun 6, 2011
351
78
Ottawa
East Conference:

Niagara
Kingston
Peterborough
Oshawa
North Bay
Barrie
Ottawa
Mississauga
Belleville
Sudbury

West Conference:

Sault Ste Marie
Guelph
Plymouth
Windsor
London
Erie
Kitchener
Saginaw
Owen Sound
Sarnia
 

storm2storm

Registered User
Apr 15, 2014
18
0

EON

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 31, 2013
8,043
1,688
Raleigh, NC
Regular season in two days! Time for the final prediction.

WEST:

1. Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds
2. Guelph Storm
3. Plymouth Whalers
4. Erie Otters
5. Windsor Spitfires
6. Owen Sound Attack
7. London Knights
8. Sarnia Sting
9. Kitchener Rangers
10. Saginaw Spirit

EAST:

1. Peterborough Petes
2. Niagara Ice Dogs
3. Barrie Colts
4. Kingston Frontenacs
5. Oshawa Generals
6. North Bay Battalion
7. Ottawa 67's
8. Belleville Bulls
9. Mississauga Steelheads
10. Sudbury Wolves
 
HLLYWD99

HLLYWD99

Registered User
Mar 8, 2011
3,362
1,638
Amherstburg
West:
1- Erie
2- Soo
3- Plymouth
4- Guelph
5- Windsor
6- London
7- Owen Sound
8- Kitchener
9- Sarnia
10- Saginaw

East:
1- Niagara
2- Peterborough
3- North Bay
4- Oshawa
5- Barrie
6- Mississauga
7- Kingston
8- Ottawa
9- Belleville
10- Sudbury
 

RayzorIsDull

Registered User
Nov 16, 2007
14,458
3,273
bp on hfboards
Brock I find your stuff very insightful. What would you say to those Windsor fans if they do finish 9th with all this young talent? They were told a few years ago the young talent would develop into something good and it didn't. Is there any track record of a team making a huge jump for a 9th seed to top of the conference? This is a big year for the Windsor organization imo.
 

hockeylegend11

Registered User
Sep 11, 2010
15,799
3,817
RayzorIsDull said:
Brock I find your stuff very insightful. What would you say to those Windsor fans if they do finish 9th with all this young talent? They were told a few years ago the young talent would develop into something good and it didn't. Is there any track record of a team making a huge jump for a 9th seed to top of the conference? This is a big year for the Windsor organization imo.
Click to expand...

The fans were also told after the 1st draft by the Boughner regime that things would be special and what happened,an tie for 1st with SSM despite a tragic death,2 Mem cups and a final 4 ,u win some u lose some
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom