Confirmed with Link: Canucks place Jake Virtanen on unconditional waivers for buyout purposes

[MS]

so, to summarize, if you express a tenuous opinion about what nhl teams should be able to do without citing a source for your opinion, i cannot dispute your opinion by pointing out you have no idea what you are talking about because, by doing so, i am making an appeal to authority?

Uh, yes. That is literally the definition of an appeal to authority.

You are not rebutting his argument with any logic or facts, and your response is solely based on the fact that he has never hired anyone ... which has absolutely nothing to do with whether his opinion is correct or not. No different to how someone who has never been an NHL coach or GM can make completely correct points about what an NHL coach or GM is doing wrong.

If you said 'I've spent a lifetime hiring people, and here is a list of reasons why your opinion is incorrect' that is not an appeal to authority.

 

[F A N]

Personally, I don't think most of our "real world" experience in being part of the hiring process is all that relevant. I mean this is a league where you can literally accidentally fling a straw at a new teammate, refuse to apologize, fights two of your teammates as a consequence, and get a contract offer.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

that is not even remotely my take.

i am going to start counting the number of times you completely mischaracterize other people's arguments and then blast them for something they did not say. there are many past examples, but let's start with this one as number one.

how long do you think it will take me to get to ten? a week?

You’re not a professional Counter so you have no say in counting to 10.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Yeah, nope.

He made a criticism of the team.

Rather than point out logical reasons why that criticism was unfair (of which there are many) your rebuttal was that he had never hired anyone so therefore his criticism of people that had was invalid.

This is no different from saying 'Have you ever been an NHL head coach? Then stop criticizing Green!' as a rebuttal to criticism of the team's defensive system.

I would like this post if HF ever gives me my ability to like back.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Uh, yes. That is literally the definition of an appeal to authority.

You are not rebutting his argument with any logic or facts, and your response is solely based on the fact that he has never hired anyone ... which has absolutely nothing to do with whether his opinion is correct or not. No different to how someone who has never been an NHL coach or GM can make completely correct points about what an NHL coach or GM is doing wrong.

If you said 'I've spent a lifetime hiring people, and here is a list of reasons why your opinion is incorrect' that is not an appeal to authority.

well no. let me illustrate.

if you were to say "nhl teams use ouija boards to draft"

and i were to say "lol, have you actually seen this?

your argument above would be that my rebuttal is an appeal to authority.

with the greatest respect, it is not. i don't think you understand how this particular logic fallacy works (which is also not an appeal to authority by the way). my rebuttal is skepticism.

i questioned whether he had interviewed any 17 year olds so as to form a basis for being able to formulate the opinion he expressed. i thereby expressed skepticism that he had no idea what he was talking about, not that a different person had a better opinion than his because of their training or experience, which would be an appeal to authority. i in no way shape or form said "the canucks know how to interview". i said "johnny canucker has no idea what he is talking about as regards interviewing 17 year olds upon which to found his opinion".

again, i think you are a little too intent on protecting your own ability to shoot from the hip here. an appeal to authority is a narrowly defined logical fallacy. it is not a licence to express any opinion you like, no matter how ill informed, without being called out on your personal ignorance.

 

[MarkMM]

Personally, I don't think most of our "real world" experience in being part of the hiring process is all that relevant. I mean this is a league where you can literally accidentally fling a straw at a new teammate, refuse to apologize, fights two of your teammates as a consequence, and get a contract offer.

Yeah, I think interviews might provide some limited value but mostly in screening someone out rather than in, as in someone may interview great but that could just be good coaching from their agent, but if someone is an absolute jerk or obviously brain dead then that can put them on a do not draft list (I think Burke has some good stories about players who interviewed their way into a DND list).

Beyond that, interviews might have some value if they're used to confirm or explain something they found in researching the player, ie, a bad incident where they let the player tell their side of the story, and also I wonder how much they bring evidence/science in the room, like I've heard that some teams have psychologists in the room, would that be the only chance for an analysis, or can they have players fill out psychometric tests (for those who believe in them...FTR, I've used them in the past but not as a huge thing, more as a piece of background info).

 

[krutovsdonut]

You’re not a professional Counter so you have no say in counting to 10.

well done. you completely misstated my argument again.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Yeah, I think interviews might provide some limited value but mostly in screening someone out rather than in, as in someone may interview great but that could just be good coaching from their agent, but if someone is an absolute jerk or obviously brain dead then that can put them on a do not draft list (I think Burke has some good stories about players who interviewed their way into a DND list).

agreed, except some of those dnd decisions will be wrong.

 

[vancityluongo]

my rebuttal is skepticism.

Fwiw, that's how I read it haha

Reading into the interview process is stupid. If anything, you'd expect a 17 year old athlete who played in a major Canadian market to be a bit of a moron with a lot of growing up to do. If they were too mature that might be because of coaching to hide some serious character flaws. Or they're an absolute square that their future teammates will hate. Etc.

There are lots of things that NHL teams are the authority on, and should be able to perform better than most average people. Interviewing is not really one of them. I've professionally interviewed hundreds of people and it is an absolute coin toss on what you get. It is impossible to boil down the human psyche and the entire personality and culmination of lived experiences of a person into questioning them for 45 minutes lol.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Fwiw, that's how I read it haha

Reading into the interview process is stupid. If anything, you'd expect a 17 year old athlete who played in a major Canadian market to be a bit of a moron with a lot of growing up to do. If they were too mature that might be because of coaching to hide some serious character flaws. Or they're an absolute square that their future teammates will hate. Etc.

There are lots of things that NHL teams are the authority on, and should be able to perform better than most average people. Interviewing is not really one of them. I've professionally interviewed hundreds of people and it is an absolute coin toss on what you get. It is impossible to boil down the human psyche and the entire personality and culmination of lived experiences of a person into questioning them for 45 minutes lol.

thanks

long long ago i used a performance review assessment form that had a category titled "undesirable self confidence". just imagine trying to walk that particular line when interviewing a 17 year old consensus top ten draft pick.

 

[joelCAMEL]

Will the Danton Heinen for Jake Virtanen trade happen? - NHL Trade Rumors

Eliot friedman reported it that it was a principle 1v1 trade where both teams kinda agreed to it. However because Jake made more money, Anaheim wanted Vancouver to take another back in return to balance out the salary going back, and essentially the trade never happened...

We both read the same source, except that I read your post incorrectly, when you stated that it was Heinen+ for Virtanen.

We both agree that it would never be a 1 for 1 trade, it would be either Heinen+ a salary dump for Virtanen, or Heinen for Virtanen+ an incentive (like salary retention, draft pick or prospect). When I read your post, I interpreted it to mean Heinen+ an incentive for Virtanen. Apologies, this was my mistake.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

Jake Virtanen - "He's Jimmy Sandlak with a Fox attitude!"

 

[MS]

well no. let me illustrate.

if you were to say "nhl teams use ouija boards to draft"

and i were to say "lol, have you actually seen this?

your argument above would be that my rebuttal is an appeal to authority.

with the greatest respect, it is not. i don't think you understand how this particular logic fallacy works (which is also not an appeal to authority by the way). my rebuttal is skepticism.

i questioned whether he had interviewed any 17 year olds so as to form a basis for being able to formulate the opinion he expressed. i thereby expressed skepticism that he had no idea what he was talking about, not that a different person had a better opinion than his because of their training or experience, which would be an appeal to authority. i in no way shape or form said "the canucks know how to interview". i said "johnny canucker has no idea what he is talking about as regards interviewing 17 year olds upon which to found his opinion".

Again, nope.

Poster X makes a criticism of something.

Poster K does not refute the actual merits of the argument but instead implies that their argument is invalid because they have never done the task being criticized.

The implication is that the initial action is correct because it has been done by experts.

Authority is a real thing but it needs to be backed up with actual facts and evidence.

Again, this is no different to :

Poster X : Travis Green should have a better defensive system!

Poster K : Have you ever coached an NHL team to be able to form a basis for being able to formulate the opinion you are expressing?

Your Ouija board example doesn't fly because we've seen endless video of teams at the draft table and behind the scenes with no Ouija board present ever. The fact that nobody has ever seen this is actual evidence.

again, i think you are a little too intent on protecting your own ability to shoot from the hip here. an appeal to authority is a narrowly defined logical fallacy. it is not a licence to express any opinion you like, no matter how ill informed, without being called out on your personal ignorance.

What?

Any ill-formed opinion should be easily refuted by facts and evidence. 'You've never done the thing!' is not facts or evidence.

There have been multiple reasons presented in this thread why the initial poster's take was wrong, based on facts and logic and evidence. You presented none of these and defaulted to an attack on his authority which proved nothing.

 

[MarkMM]

agreed, except some of those dnd decisions will be wrong.

True, true, I think this starts to be a game of statistics, you'll always get some wrong so the best you can do is to put the odds in your favour, give yourself as many chances (ie draft picks), and then trust the system to develop consistent production over time.

 

[vancityluongo]

Again, nope.

Poster X makes a criticism of something.

Poster K does not refute the actual merits of the argument but instead implies that their argument is invalid because they have never done the task being criticized.

The implication is that the initial action is correct because it has been done by experts.

Authority is a real thing but it needs to be backed up with actual facts and evidence.

Again, this is no different to :

Poster X : Travis Green should have a better defensive system!

Poster K : Have you ever coached an NHL team to be able to form a basis for being able to formulate the opinion you are expressing?

Your Ouija board example doesn't fly because we've seen endless video of teams at the draft table and behind the scenes with no Ouija board present ever. The fact that nobody has ever seen this is actual evidence.



What?

Any ill-formed opinion should be easily refuted by facts and evidence. 'You've never done the thing!' is not facts or evidence.

There have been multiple reasons presented in this thread why the initial poster's take was wrong, based on facts and logic and evidence. You presented none of these and defaulted to an attack on his authority which proved nothing.

I think you're maybe just misinterpreting his comment.

You don't need to be a "professional" to know that 17 year old superstar athletes probably don't interview "well" under any circumstances. My interpretation of krutov's comment is that it's a bit of a stretch to blame Benning/whoever for the interview process of all things, wrt the Jake Virtanen pick. There are many other things to question about the pick, but I don't know if it's really fair to imply (and apologies to JC if this is not what he meant in his initial comment) that Virtanen's recent [alleged] actions should have been an apparent risk from the interview conducted at the draft. Even that implication is a stretch.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Your Ouija board example doesn't fly because we've seen endless video of teams at the draft table and behind the scenes with no Ouija board present ever. The fact that nobody has ever seen this is actual evidence.

i think the law of averages says we are all wrong sometimes. you may wish to consider that if you are reduced to typing the above paragraph, this may be one of those times for you.

 

[joelCAMEL]

I am sure I have heard Ray Ferraro say the same thing to Donnie and the Moj, on the radio...something like, "I have played in the NHL and you have not, so your opinion means nothing to me". Who cares about the lack of logic, that's an amusing putdown.

No one ever resorts to this type of putdown unless the original statement was glib and a glib statement that blames a poor interview deserves a sarcastic response.

 

[Nolan Bombgardener]

Reunited with Leipsic (sort of).

 

[krutovsdonut]

I think you're maybe just misinterpreting his comment.

You don't need to be a "professional" to know that 17 year old superstar athletes probably don't interview "well" under any circumstances. My interpretation of krutov's comment is that it's a bit of a stretch to blame Benning/whoever for the interview processi of all things, wrt the Jake Virtanen pick. There are many other things to question about the pick, but I don't know if it's really fair to imply (and apologies to JC if this is not what he meant in his initial comment) that Virtanen's recent actions should have been an apparent risk from the interview conducted at the draft. Even that implication is a stretch.

that would be putting it more politely than i would put it, but essentially, yes. i was expressing skepticism about an opinion from another poster that the canucks should have caught virtanen's flaws in the interview process. i did so by asking, skeptically, how many 17 year old athletes the person expressing that opinion had interviewed. the intent is made clear by the "lol", an indication i find the opinion sufficiently far fetched to be humorous.

there is no implication in my comment that the canucks should be assumed to have done a competent job of the interview because they interview all the time, which would be an appeal to authority. the clear and direct implication of my remark is that i think 17 year old athletes would be hard to definitively interview. which is an appeal to common sense and life experience. those are still allowed here on hfboards. for now.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

well done. you completely misstated my argument again.

You’re not a professional sentence interpreter, so you don’t have the ability to comment on that.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You’re not a professional sentence interpreter, so you don’t have the ability to comment on that.

lol, have you ever interpreted any sentences?

 

[Johnny Canucker]

lol, have you ever interpreted any sentences?

You should probably see yourself out now …. A few different posters agreed with me that you’re wrong and for others to agree with me (and I’m an idiot) then you must be wrong.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You should probably see yourself out now …. A few different posters agreed with me that you’re wrong and for others to agree with me (and I’m an idiot) then you must be wrong.

@MS this is what an appeal to authority to looks like.

 

[Petey But Really Jim]

I am sure I have heard Ray Ferraro say the same thing to Donnie and the Moj, on the radio...something like, "I have played in the NHL and you have not, so your opinion means nothing to me". Who cares about the lack of logic, that's an amusing putdown.

No one ever resorts to this type of putdown unless the original statement was glib and a glib statement that blames a poor interview deserves a sarcastic response.

I like this story I heard about Ray Ferraro and Brett Hull on tv together doing an intermission show. They’re disagreeing about something regarding the powerplay, and Hull comes with something like “I think I know a little something about powerplays”, to which Ferraro replies along the lines of “Hey, I played on the powerplay too.”

Hull- “Yeah, on the Thrashers.”

 

[MS]

I think you're maybe just misinterpreting his comment.

You don't need to be a "professional" to know that 17 year old superstar athletes probably don't interview "well" under any circumstances. My interpretation of krutov's comment is that it's a bit of a stretch to blame Benning/whoever for the interview process of all things, wrt the Jake Virtanen pick. There are many other things to question about the pick, but I don't know if it's really fair to imply (and apologies to JC if this is not what he meant in his initial comment) that Virtanen's recent [alleged] actions should have been an apparent risk from the interview conducted at the draft. Even that implication is a stretch.

I agree completely that it was a stretch to blame Benning for the interview process, for reasons I've documented. Krutov and I are on the same side of the initial argument here.

My initial comment that he took offense to was that he should have just provided actual reasons why it was unfair to blame Benning rather than playing the 'What do you know, how many job interviews have you conducted?' card which was a) inflammatory and b) not actual evidence but instead an appeal to authority.

i think the law of averages says we are all wrong sometimes. you may wish to consider that if you are reduced to typing the above paragraph, this may be one of those times for you.

I mis-read where you were going with your weird Ouija board example but it doesn't really change anything. Your claim that that example (ridiculous claim -> rebuttal is a demand for actual evidence) is the same thing as my Travis Green criticism example (reasonable criticism -> rebuttal is an attack on the authority of the person making the argument) is just completely incorrect.