Confirmed with Link: Boucher: to return or not to return, that is the question

[Satoru Gojo]

Chaos Theory is exactly what we see with Boucher coaching this team. The only emergent dynamic of his coaching is mounting losses into black holes of making fans anti-matter about the team.

Chaos is a ladder

 

[coladin]

Still needs to go.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I'm smug? yes I mocked you.

why did you feel the need to give me a full blown explanation talking about science and math? was that an I'm superior thing you did there?

I'm not here using fancy words and then providing a full blown explanation of what the words mean...all while presuming the person I'm talking to doesn't understand them

I have degrees in computer science and commerce and a lifetime of professional experience in analyzing data and drawing inference from it. but I can talk about hockey without using correlation and causation.

so ya I mocked you.

If I do find the time to go through your points....I'll go down the path of correlation and causation and the inferences you can and cannot make.

Wow you seem really insecure about your own intellect and competence. I would have assumed that someone with "degrees in computer science and commerce and a life of professional experience in analyzing data and drawing inference from it" would not feel such a need to compensate.
Yeah you are smug and you caused a lot of the things that you are now complaining about. I wrote a pretty detailed post and made reference to causality, coincidence and correlation. Your response was the short and oh so smug "causality and causation my favorite hfboards keywords". The implied message is how smart you are and how dumb everyone on hfboards is. You basically thought you were smarter than me and that you could lord your supposedly higher IQ over me by talking down to me. That rather than actually expending effort to challenge my position that you could just mock my use of causality and make that the central arguing point. Firstly, that approach is actually a logical fallacy used by sophists to try and win arguments using fallacious tactics. It is easier to try and argue that I am somehow a fool and by extension that anything I say is foolish than to actually challenge the merits or lack thereof of my position.
Secondly, I was aware that you were trying to bait me and playing the role of a troll. You are on a computer and anonymous and on a site that has strict rules. You can act as smug as you want without consequence. There is no risk of physical harm based on your behavior and if I directly insult you or threaten you then I risk punishment by the moderators. So another cheap tactic on your behalf to act that way knowing full well how safe you actually are..just like a troll.

So I took the time to write up a detailed explanation to the fact that causality and causation are scientific words used by highly intelligent people. They may be misused in certain contexts on hfboards but you also have no clue how intelligent the posters may be on here. Clearly my response irritated your ego because you chose to respond smuggly again with "In part I do data analytics for a living so ya I think I have the concept down". The implied message was grand standing of oh look at me i'm a data scientist so I clearly know more than everybody about the intricacies of causality, causation, correlation and coincidence. Then you added another response of "they are fancy words..I read them here more than I hear them at work" which again smuggly implies smart people don't use those words, that they aren't used by real data scientists, only simpletons like the people here on hfboards. I have no clue where you work or if you are a data scientist. But just because you don't hear or use the word very often at your job that doesn't mean those words aren't important. You probably just do data analytics for some marketing company tracking social media trends where causality and causation are relatively unimportant. Those types of roles are only concerned with practicalities and operate much like the limited heuristics that humans use to process information. I guess you could call yourself a data scientist in some respect but the scientist part might be pushing it a bit. More like a data analyst for practical purposes.

Then I mention about the application and how it would be challenging to find exact causation given that these are complex adaptive systems subject to chaotic dynamics. Clearly implying the limitations in any assessment and the confidence in it that I could make given how difficult it is to make accurate predictions in chaos theory and complexity theory. Then your response is again to laugh at the "big words" I use and then your response that it is so hypothetical and theoretical that you have no clue whether or not these concepts apply or make any sense when discussing whether or not a coach is successful. Yet the top scientists in the world use complexity theory and chaos theory to try to understand and predict outcomes in open systems with multiple independent agents having a myriad of inter-relationships leading to an array of emergent dynamics. Given its application in economics, political science and sociology it seemed like it could be also applicable in making predictions in hockey coaches. But it seems like you are more interested in practicality than accuracy and hence highly theoretical and abstract models are not of interest to you.

Finally, I got fed up in dealing with you and when you suggested that you would write a more detailed response I made it clear that I didn't want to hear it. I also called you smug because you were the one to decide to try and mock me rather than address my points and when I overlooked it you decided to be smug again and again. Now that I have given you an out and that you don't have to respond and that I don't want to hear what you have to say look at what your response was. You acted like you were the one that was insulted even though you initiated it. You projected your insecurities about your own intellect and competence into my statements which then lead you to read into my messages as somehow insults on your intelligence. In which case you must really hate being around intelligent people as their constant use of fancy words must really make you feel insecure or something. Are you this rude to everyone who is smart? Can you even last a few minutes around someone as intelligent or more intelligent than you or do you automatically insult them? You then had to grand stand again and tried to show off your intelligence talking about your multiple degrees and lifetime as a professional analyzing data. Which is really nothing more than you saying look at me, I'm so smart, I am so much smarter than you, see all of my degrees and my lifetime experience as a data analyst isn't it so clear how much smarter and better than you I am. I don't know how smart you are but I do know that lots of moderately intelligent people get multiple degrees are work as a professional doing all kinds of intellectual jobs. There are brilliant people in various fields of knowledge and then at the other end of the spectrum are the people in the field that just barely get by. Not everyone with a degree in computer science and commerce know what they are talking about and not everyone who has spent a lifetime as a professional doing data analytics knows a lot about the intricacies of causation as that is highly theoretical and above the cognitive capacity of many.

Then in the end you said you were going to take the time to write a detailed response going down the path of correlation, causation and inferences. Why would you possibly do that? I said I wasn't interested in reading it. Was your ego that wounded in our exchanges? The only reason why you would waste time doing that is that you want to try to prove how smart you are our how dumb you think I am. I am flawed and I have flawed and fallible positions at times that are certainly in need of adjustments but I am not dumb. Going down this path will just be masochistic for you. Maybe it will work out well and you will somehow prove how dumb I am and then you can finally rest. Or maybe it will turn our that I might in fact be smarter than you. Which even stating that must infuriate you and probably makes you even more driven to somehow prove your superiority. In the end you will be just trying to prove your intellect to yourself more than anyone else. You honestly don't have to interact with me anymore on hfboards I don't see how it would be productive for you.

P.S. Yeah and my ego is inflated as well and that is why I wasted time writing this lol

 

[IpsoPostFacto]

Wow you seem really insecure about your own intellect ... writing this lol

someone got Rafi Bombed.

 

[Alex1234]

Boucher needs to go and bring his sonwith him

 

[JD1]

Wow you seem really insecure about your own intellect and competence. I would have assumed that someone with "degrees in computer science and commerce and a life of professional experience in analyzing data and drawing inference from it" would not feel such a need to compensate.
Yeah you are smug and you caused a lot of the things that you are now complaining about. I wrote a pretty detailed post and made reference to causality, coincidence and correlation. Your response was the short and oh so smug "causality and causation my favorite hfboards keywords". The implied message is how smart you are and how dumb everyone on hfboards is. You basically thought you were smarter than me and that you could lord your supposedly higher IQ over me by talking down to me. That rather than actually expending effort to challenge my position that you could just mock my use of causality and make that the central arguing point. Firstly, that approach is actually a logical fallacy used by sophists to try and win arguments using fallacious tactics. It is easier to try and argue that I am somehow a fool and by extension that anything I say is foolish than to actually challenge the merits or lack thereof of my position.
Secondly, I was aware that you were trying to bait me and playing the role of a troll. You are on a computer and anonymous and on a site that has strict rules. You can act as smug as you want without consequence. There is no risk of physical harm based on your behavior and if I directly insult you or threaten you then I risk punishment by the moderators. So another cheap tactic on your behalf to act that way knowing full well how safe you actually are..just like a troll.

So I took the time to write up a detailed explanation to the fact that causality and causation are scientific words used by highly intelligent people. They may be misused in certain contexts on hfboards but you also have no clue how intelligent the posters may be on here. Clearly my response irritated your ego because you chose to respond smuggly again with "In part I do data analytics for a living so ya I think I have the concept down". The implied message was grand standing of oh look at me i'm a data scientist so I clearly know more than everybody about the intricacies of causality, causation, correlation and coincidence. Then you added another response of "they are fancy words..I read them here more than I hear them at work" which again smuggly implies smart people don't use those words, that they aren't used by real data scientists, only simpletons like the people here on hfboards. I have no clue where you work or if you are a data scientist. But just because you don't hear or use the word very often at your job that doesn't mean those words aren't important. You probably just do data analytics for some marketing company tracking social media trends where causality and causation are relatively unimportant. Those types of roles are only concerned with practicalities and operate much like the limited heuristics that humans use to process information. I guess you could call yourself a data scientist in some respect but the scientist part might be pushing it a bit. More like a data analyst for practical purposes.

Then I mention about the application and how it would be challenging to find exact causation given that these are complex adaptive systems subject to chaotic dynamics. Clearly implying the limitations in any assessment and the confidence in it that I could make given how difficult it is to make accurate predictions in chaos theory and complexity theory. Then your response is again to laugh at the "big words" I use and then your response that it is so hypothetical and theoretical that you have no clue whether or not these concepts apply or make any sense when discussing whether or not a coach is successful. Yet the top scientists in the world use complexity theory and chaos theory to try to understand and predict outcomes in open systems with multiple independent agents having a myriad of inter-relationships leading to an array of emergent dynamics. Given its application in economics, political science and sociology it seemed like it could be also applicable in making predictions in hockey coaches. But it seems like you are more interested in practicality than accuracy and hence highly theoretical and abstract models are not of interest to you.

Finally, I got fed up in dealing with you and when you suggested that you would write a more detailed response I made it clear that I didn't want to hear it. I also called you smug because you were the one to decide to try and mock me rather than address my points and when I overlooked it you decided to be smug again and again. Now that I have given you an out and that you don't have to respond and that I don't want to hear what you have to say look at what your response was. You acted like you were the one that was insulted even though you initiated it. You projected your insecurities about your own intellect and competence into my statements which then lead you to read into my messages as somehow insults on your intelligence. In which case you must really hate being around intelligent people as their constant use of fancy words must really make you feel insecure or something. Are you this rude to everyone who is smart? Can you even last a few minutes around someone as intelligent or more intelligent than you or do you automatically insult them? You then had to grand stand again and tried to show off your intelligence talking about your multiple degrees and lifetime as a professional analyzing data. Which is really nothing more than you saying look at me, I'm so smart, I am so much smarter than you, see all of my degrees and my lifetime experience as a data analyst isn't it so clear how much smarter and better than you I am. I don't know how smart you are but I do know that lots of moderately intelligent people get multiple degrees are work as a professional doing all kinds of intellectual jobs. There are brilliant people in various fields of knowledge and then at the other end of the spectrum are the people in the field that just barely get by. Not everyone with a degree in computer science and commerce know what they are talking about and not everyone who has spent a lifetime as a professional doing data analytics knows a lot about the intricacies of causation as that is highly theoretical and above the cognitive capacity of many.

Then in the end you said you were going to take the time to write a detailed response going down the path of correlation, causation and inferences. Why would you possibly do that? I said I wasn't interested in reading it. Was your ego that wounded in our exchanges? The only reason why you would waste time doing that is that you want to try to prove how smart you are our how dumb you think I am. I am flawed and I have flawed and fallible positions at times that are certainly in need of adjustments but I am not dumb. Going down this path will just be masochistic for you. Maybe it will work out well and you will somehow prove how dumb I am and then you can finally rest. Or maybe it will turn our that I might in fact be smarter than you. Which even stating that must infuriate you and probably makes you even more driven to somehow prove your superiority. In the end you will be just trying to prove your intellect to yourself more than anyone else. You honestly don't have to interact with me anymore on hfboards I don't see how it would be productive for you.

P.S. Yeah and my ego is inflated as well and that is why I wasted time writing this lol

your pretty riled up and you have the crucial pieces of the time line wrong

I said very early that I didn't have the time to respond. go look. I said it.

this discussion took a different tone when you talked down to me. not the other way around. I said they were my favourite words. then you wrote a long post explaining what they meant, presuming I didn't understand. at that point I started mocking you. eventually I told you the terms you were using were things I studied your feathers got pretty ruffled when I acknowledged I was mocking you.

I did not talk down to you. you talked down to me and I mocked you for it. when I said I see those terms more here than at work...what did you think I meant? I said that before commenting I had degrees and a career in the field. you doubled down on the "see how smart I am"

I'm not trying to prove my intellect to anyone. certainly not you.

your comment that you study stuff and apply it in the real world. good for you. In my spare time I go to the pub, drink beer and eat pub food....

have a good day

 

[DJB]

We no longer are forechecking with 3 forwards, it's back to the 2 with one forward high near the top of the circles.

Boucher needs to go!!!!!

 

[Yourkeyparka]

Any coach who thinks that Tom Pyatt and Zach Smith are defensively responsible players should be fired. Pronto. Stubborn Boucher never learns, in spite of being told by Dorion last year that he was almost gone for exactly that reason. We can't posess the puck to save our lives and their is no offensive system. We handle it like a grenade all over the ice. Only Stone and White are making plays right now. And it looks like Chabot has regressed, We should be getting better - not worse.

 

[Yak]

I was not a fan of the Boucher hiring to begin with , we minus we'll pick up a good college coach/AHL coach next season fro the rebuild. This team needs a defensive minded coach, a real one. Boucher is a hack and at best a Asst Coach and other teams have his number when it comes to defense. I bet after the New Year he gets fired and Crawford coaches for the rest of the year.

 

[Tuna99]

I was not a fan of the Boucher hiring to begin with , we minus we'll pick up a good college coach/AHL coach next season fro the rebuild. This team needs a defensive minded coach, a real one. Boucher is a hack and at best a Asst Coach and other teams have his number when it comes to defense. I bet after the New Year he gets fired and Crawford coaches for the rest of the year.

And the. what, they call up Marcus Hogberg and we go on a Hogburglar run and finish the season 21-1-1 to make the playoffs? That’ll never happen

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I was not a fan of the Boucher hiring to begin with , we minus we'll pick up a good college coach/AHL coach next season fro the rebuild. This team needs a defensive minded coach, a real one. Boucher is a hack and at best a Asst Coach and other teams have his number when it comes to defense. I bet after the New Year he gets fired and Crawford coaches for the rest of the year.

I dunno. Another "defensive coach" doesn't sound appealing to me.

Can't we find a coaching staff that can bring a solid all-around team game to the table? A team that focuses on speed, skill, forechecking, puck possession, yet also plays a responsible game and supports one another (aka, forwards helping out the D and vice versa) when we don't have possession?

Relying on pure defense or pure offense just doesn't work in today's game.

 

[topshelf15]

Meh ,finding a coach that not only comes cheap...But also can walk on water ,is going to be difficult

 

[Cosmix]

I dunno. Another "defensive coach" doesn't sound appealing to me.

Can't we find a coaching staff that can bring a solid all-around team game to the table? A team that focuses on speed, skill, forechecking, puck possession, yet also plays a responsible game and supports one another (aka, forwards helping out the D and vice versa) when we don't have possession?

Relying on pure defense or pure offense just doesn't work in today's game.

Add a new GM with the same philosophy and we will have a team in the near future we would enjoy watching.

 

[Fandlauer]

Boucher can't win. It's like asking a guy to win the Daytona 500 driving a 98' Corolla.

 

[4thlineduster]

Hire Sheldon Keefe. I’ve watched the guy coach since his days in Pembroke and he brings a proven ability to take mediocre at best teams and turn them into contenders (at literally every level he’s coached).

He’s also never coached in the show so he shouldn’t be overly expensive either.

Sadly, however, he likely knows his opportunity in the NHL is a couple years away at most and likely has little incentive to sign with this dumpster fire of a front office.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I like Boucher but his inability to improve the defensive side of things has gone on for far too long.

I'm fine with him getting the can as long as the next coach prioritizes defense. I'll take Ws over high scoring losses.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I dunno. Another "defensive coach" doesn't sound appealing to me.

Can't we find a coaching staff that can bring a solid all-around team game to the table? A team that focuses on speed, skill, forechecking, puck possession, yet also plays a responsible game and supports one another (aka, forwards helping out the D and vice versa) when we don't have possession?

Relying on pure defense or pure offense just doesn't work in today's game.

If the team was able to play competent defense I'd be on board with you. Those last two games were so bad that it wasn't even funny.

We should have hired Hitchcock to get ready for the future.

 

[topshelf15]

If the team was able to play competent defense I'd be on board with you. Those last two games were so bad that it wasn't even funny.

We should have hired Hitchcock to get ready for the future.

Come on man he doesnt walk on water,which is a must before we even look at him as our coach...lol

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

We are here to coach you up today. Are you paying attention?

 

[Ice-Tray]

I’m not sure we really should be expecting this team to be playing a defensively sound game. We have like 4 rookies on Defence.

This is a rebuild and it will be a while before these guys have rounded out the D side of things. There is a reason why rebuilds take a few years.

The good news is that GB has done things differently where he focused on freewheeling offense and let all of the kids play and score. Now we’re comfortable being one of the highest scoring teams in the league, the PP looks dangerous, and the games are fun to watch, and likely to play as well.

If we all of a sudden had the defensive side of things sorted out we’d be a playoff team. That’s not realistic yet, we really do need to be patient and let all of the kids develop, on offense and Defence. There should be no rushing, no trades for vets unless we’re able to add another HHOF mentor like we did with Gonchar.

This is a rebuild, we need to be patient for a few seasons if we’re honest, but man, GB has the kids scoring in bunches I the meantime, and that’s an awesome win in my opinion.

 

[HSF]

the players arent that good and the depth isnt there

Boucher is doing what he can

 

[Adrianopolous]

Boucher has done a great job imo. He is doing the best he can. He's a brilliant mind.

 

[thesensguy]

I think we should look elsewhere for new staff for next year, however I do not put any responsability for our on ice product this year on him.

 

[coladin]

I think we should look elsewhere for new staff for next year, however I do not put any responsability for our on ice product this year on him.

That is quite the free pass for the coach. There are a lot of things that he can do to make the team more competitive. Just look up the 417 in Montreal and see what a coach can do.

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

The rookies excuse is such bullshit, even before the rookies this team sucked defensively, allowed a shit ton of shots, was regularly out out chanced, had the worst puck possession #s in the league, among the worst special teams in the league, and this was when we actually had a winning record.

Blaming it on rookies is such a cop out.

The rookies aren't sending Zack Smith and Cody Ceci over the boards to start a 3 on 3, the rookies aren't the ones playing on the worst PK in the league, the rookies aren't the ones that constantly get hemmed in their zone (unless they are paired with a vet, see Lajoie + Ceci). The rookies aren't the ones sending Pyatt to the top line.

Our roster isn't that bad actually, our deployment of the weakest links on the roster and decision making from our coaches is the worst in the league though.