Post-Game Talk: Training Camp Thread - Graovac, Bachman waived

Status
Not open for further replies.

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
You literally post in another thread whereby you openly wish this franchise to fail, miss the playoffs, lose all our draft picks and have all of management fired.

“Realist”

Edit: which if the Canucks youth do you see regressing this year, and what evidence do you have to support?


You understand the difference between wish and projection right?

He wishes for all of that to happen... he projects us to do the same as last season.
 

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
You imply that it really is calling him a “realist” after calling out his wish.

He called himself a realist and tries to frame his “projections” as objective findings. I’m merely pointing out that he’s not an objective viewer with a “realist” view.

He hates this team and wants them to fail. Or he is so fanatical he would burn the franchise to the ground. Either way, meh.

But yes, I understand the difference between a wish and a projection. Not a chance his projections are occurring in a vacuum free from bias though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NuxFan09 and bh53

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
He called himself a realist and tries to frame his “projections” as objective findings. I’m merely pointing out that he’s not an objective viewer with a “realist” view.

He hates this team and wants them to fail. Or he is so fanatical he would burn the franchise to the ground. Either way, meh.

But yes, I understand the difference between a wish and a projection. Not a chance his projections are occurring in a vacuum free from bias though.

Your point on what he wishes has nothing to do with if he is a realist or not. There is no point to bringing it up. It’s pointless. The only way would be if his bias matched his then projection, they clearly don’t.

He has also shown his work on how he came to this conclusion. He even actually admitted it is a better team than last year, then went into where the team will also regress to cause a flat point on points.

You can disagree with his work if you like, but you need to show your work, not call into question his character.
 

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
Your point on what he wishes has nothing to do with if he is a realist or not. There is no point to bringing it up. It’s pointless. The only way would be if his bias matched his then projection, they clearly don’t.

He has also shown his work on how he came to this conclusion. He even actually admitted it is a better team than last year, then went into where the team will also regress to cause a flat point on points.

You can disagree with his work if you like, but you need to show your work, not call into question his character.

I have not seen any work. I have been told that Myers is worse than Hutton, our gains are offset by regressions because we overachieved last year, and that youth development is not linear (of course it’s not).

I haven’t seen anything that supports these views, or that Pettersson et. al. will take a step back because life isn’t “linear”.

I am allowed to point out what I believe his motives are. It’s relevant because he framed his argument as objective in an attempt to give it weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
I have not seen any work. I have been told that Myers is worse than Hutton, our gains are offset by regressions because we overachieved last year, and that youth development is not linear (of course it’s not).

I haven’t seen anything that supports these views, or that Pettersson et. al. will take a step back because life isn’t “linear”.

I am allowed to point out what I believe his motives are. It’s relevant because he framed his argument as objective in an attempt to give it weight.


Motives? What a load.

That wasn’t what you were trying to do. Again this is shown by his wish not lining up with his wish, and the fact even if he was biased... that isn’t changing anything.

You want to see his work read farther back in the thread. You obviously can as you are pulling things from other threads he has said.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
Your point on what he wishes has nothing to do with if he is a realist or not. There is no point to bringing it up. It’s pointless. The only way would be if his bias matched his then projection, they clearly don’t.

He has also shown his work on how he came to this conclusion. He even actually admitted it is a better team than last year, then went into where the team will also regress to cause a flat point on points.

You can disagree with his work if you like, but you need to show your work, not call into question his character.

can you find me a single poster here whose "scientific" projection for the team is at odds with their personal bias? show me someone who actually changed their mind this offseason and said "well gosh darn, i thought/hoped benning's team would crash/make the playoffs but now that i crunch these numbers i realize the opposite is true and benning sucks/is on to something"?

just one poster. and don't pretend you don't know which way posters are biased.

y2k is obviously biased. but he wears it as a badge of honour. if you think that being biased about a sports team reflects adversely on his character that is on you. to me this place is full of biased people. comes with the territory. if you want a character issue to chew on, consider arguments that go to enormous effort to pretend this place and/or a poster in it are not biased yet always find their unbiased efforts magically end up pointing them in the same direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
Motives? What a load.

That wasn’t what you were trying to do. Again this is shown by his wish not lining up with his wish, and the fact even if he was biased... that isn’t changing anything.

You want to see his work read farther back in the thread. You obviously can as you are pulling things from other threads he has said.

I have read what has been posted and maintain that nothing has been provided. Perhaps I skipped over something, in which case, my bad.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
can you find me a single poster here whose "scientific" projection for the team is at odds with their personal bias? show me someone who actually changed their mind this offseason and said "well gosh darn, i thought/hoped benning's team would crash/make the playoffs but now that i crunch these numbers i realize the opposite is true and benning sucks/is on to something"?

just one poster. and don't pretend you don't know which way posters are biased.

y2k is obviously biased. but he wears it as a badge of honour. if you think that being biased about a sports team reflects adversely on his character that is on you. to me this place is full of biased people. comes with the territory. if you want a character issue to chew on, consider arguments that go to enormous effort to pretend this place and/or a poster in it are not biased yet always find their unbiased efforts magically end up pointing them in the same direction.


WTF is the point of this post?

Why do I need to? All I need to show is that his biased is not the same as his projection.

All I need to show is that they are using stats and analytics and analysis. This can go the other way to.
 

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
WTF is the point of this post?

Why do I need to? All I need to show is that his biased is not the same as his projection.

All I need to show is that they are using stats and analytics and analysis. This can go the other way to.

Can you show me the stats and analytics being used? I saw a brief reference to them explaining our bottom 6 position from last year. I have not read anything else that supports the position.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
I have read what has been posted and maintain that nothing has been provided. Perhaps I skipped over something, in which case, my bad.

Have you seen our OT and SO record and how that is unsuitable? How Pettersson faded at the end of the season as he faced stiffer comp? How adding to our top lines isn’t what we needed as our top lines came out on top last year, it was our bottom six that got destroyed? Or how Markstrom played out of his mind?

Sure there can be a lot made for improvements, but that already is a lot going the other way that you either missed or glossed over.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
WTF is the point of this post?

Why do I need to? All I need to show is that his biased is not the same as his projection.

you seem obsessed with questioning the point of other people's posts, yet quick to make posts of your own on the same subjects. it's a bad arguing tactic. my point is simply that all projections here are patently biased and should be weighed accordingly and also that saying so is not an attack on character on a fan site but a statement of the obvious. it's a valid on topic observation.

and lol at you pretending that y2k's projection is not salty as hell and totally consistent with his bias.

"they are slightly better than last year but this is more than offset by their luck from last year so i expect them to be worse"

yeah, the science and math inevitably led him there and only there to the absurd level of certainty he is asserting. sure it did. good one. haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo and Canucko

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
Have you seen our OT and SO record and how that is unsuitable? How Pettersson faded at the end of the season as he faced stiffer comp? How adding to our top lines isn’t what we needed as our top lines came out on top last year, it was our bottom six that got destroyed? Or how Markstrom played out of his mind?

Sure there can be a lot made for improvements, but that already is a lot going the other way that you either missed or glossed over.

Is the answer no then?
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
you seem obsessed with questioning the point of other people's posts, yet quick to make posts of your own on the same subjects. it's a bad arguing tactic. my point is simply that all projections here are patently biased and should be weighed accordingly and also that saying so is not an attack on character on a fan site but a statement of the obvious. it's a valid on topic observation.

and lol at you pretending that y2k's projection is not salty as hell and totally consistent with his bias.

"they are slightly better than last year but this is more than offset by their luck from last year so i expect them to be worse"

yeah, the science and math inevitably led him there and only there to the absurd level of certainty he is asserting. sure it did. good one. haha.

???

Bias... so four years straight of people like Y2K predicting something then it happening means there is going to be bias?

No your statement is just flat out wrong. I have a bias against both the bruins and leafs but I think they will both do well this year. My bias does not match my projections of them.

Is the answer no then?

No the answering is maybe you should read up on what has been said all summer long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisfortuneCookie

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
???

Bias... so four years straight of people like Y2K predicting something then it happening means there is going to be bias?

No your statement is just flat out wrong. I have a bias against both the bruins and leafs but I think they will both do well this year. My bias does not match my projections of them.

wow, four years of predicting a team with a collapsed core that needs a rebuild will do poorly. what amazing credentials you have. do you want a cookie?

and how does that refute bias exactly?

i am just amazed that you can argue with a straight face not only that there are people here strongly biased against current management to the point they want the team to fail, but also pick y2k as your particular hero of non-bias. he's literally praying for them to fail and celebrating every failure of this team. what a hill for your argument to die on.

to be honest, it's kind of awe inspiring how delusional your argument is.

anyway, we're going in circles here. i think your analysis on this point is among the worst i have ever seen on hfboards. you seem to think you're an impartial genius being troubled by fools. we're not bridging that gap using things like words, so let's call it a day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
you seem obsessed with questioning the point of other people's posts, yet quick to make posts of your own on the same subjects. it's a bad arguing tactic. my point is simply that all projections here are patently biased and should be weighed accordingly and also that saying so is not an attack on character on a fan site but a statement of the obvious. it's a valid on topic observation.

and lol at you pretending that y2k's projection is not salty as hell and totally consistent with his bias.

"they are slightly better than last year but this is more than offset by their luck from last year so i expect them to be worse"

yeah, the science and math inevitably led him there and only there to the absurd level of certainty he is asserting. sure it did. good one. haha.


Also I haven’t said my actual opinion yet so I haven’t said anything on the subject... just pointed out the statement made was wrong. As was yours.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
wow, four years of predicting a team with a collapsed core that needs a rebuild will do poorly. what amazing credentials you have. do you want a cookie?

and how does that refute bias exactly?

i am just amazed that you can argue with a straight face not only that there are people here strongly biased against current management to the point they want the team to fail, but also pick y2k as your particular hero of non-bias. he's literally praying for them to fail and celebrating every failure of this team. what a hill for your argument to die on.

to be honest, it's kind of awe inspiring how delusional your argument is.

anyway, we're going in circles here. i think your analysis on this point is among the worst i have ever seen on hfboards. you seem to think you're an impartial genius being troubled by fools. we're not bridging that gap using things like words, so let's call it a day.

Again as I said above I haven’t given an opinion... but now who is showing bias?
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
May 25, 2014
45,287
30,123
The Athletic projects 85 points for the Canucks this year, and probably no playoffs. I don't think it's because they hate Benning. Take that for what it's worth.
Thats my prediction too Darren

I would have to think Benning would be fired at the end of a 85 pt season
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
Again as I said above I haven’t given an opinion... but now who is showing bias?

thanks again for sharing your opinions about how other people's opinions about third party opinions are all wrong without sharing your own precious opinions. you really got us there somehow with that last part i guess.

as to my bias, well my opinion on the team's future is posted above along with my specific critique of y2k's analysis my post was prefaced with a discussion about the inherent bias of all posters that applied to myself. so yes, i am biased. i hope for good things to happen to the team and don't particularly like to dwell on negatives. i take little pleasure in a player failing to live up to expectations, and less pleasure in concluding that is a permanent state of affairs. i am also a canuck fan and don't care who the management is. all those things impact my outlook, especially at the beginning of a season when hope springs eternal. so yes, i am biased by all those things.

i look forward to your perfect unbiased opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NuxFan09 and Nomobo

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,154
5,850
Vancouver
thanks again for sharing your opinions about how other people's opinions about third party opinions are all wrong without sharing your own precious opinions. you really got us there somehow with that last part i guess.

as to my bias, well my opinion on the team's future is posted above along with my specific critique of y2k's analysis my post was prefaced with a discussion about the inherent bias of all posters that applied to myself. so yes, i am biased. i hope for good things to happen to the team and don't particularly like to dwell on negatives. i take little pleasure in a player failing to live up to expectations, and less pleasure in concluding that is a permanent state of affairs. i am also a canuck fan and don't care who the management is. all those things impact my outlook, especially at the beginning of a season when hope springs eternal. so yes, i am biased by all those things.

i look forward to your perfect unbiased opinion.

I like how you always miss points.

I never said you were biased, just that you were wrong. You bringing up you own biased again has little to do with any points, just that you are biased.

Did you want my opinion on how I think the Canucks will do?

Damn straight I am going to point out when someone is trying make a point that has nothing to do with the point on topic. How hard is that to understand?

My unbiased opinion is biased only matters if it is changing your opinion... which it isn’t.
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,374
4,125
Vancouver, BC
can you find me a single poster here whose "scientific" projection for the team is at odds with their personal bias? show me someone who actually changed their mind this offseason and said "well gosh darn, i thought/hoped benning's team would crash/make the playoffs but now that i crunch these numbers i realize the opposite is true and benning sucks/is on to something"?

just one poster. and don't pretend you don't know which way posters are biased.

y2k is obviously biased. but he wears it as a badge of honour. if you think that being biased about a sports team reflects adversely on his character that is on you. to me this place is full of biased people. comes with the territory. if you want a character issue to chew on, consider arguments that go to enormous effort to pretend this place and/or a poster in it are not biased yet always find their unbiased efforts magically end up pointing them in the same direction.

I personally remain hopeful that we show enough growth to push into the realm of being a bubble tea and think that our roster upgrades and player growth are unlikely to be completely offset by regression. My own projections come with error bars so large that y2k's projection are within what I expect is possible this season.

If anybody, let alone us forum-goers, could accurately predict a season they'd either be with a team or making a fortune on sports betting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->