Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART II

Status
Not open for further replies.

RAFI BOMB

Registered User
May 11, 2016
7,389
7,646
Your response to my post amounted to "you think you're superior to Trent Mann? Who do you think you are?"

And you think you're the reasonable one here? Give me a break.
You have been hammering away at this same line of reasoning ever since the draft. I have seen you make similar arguments in the past but for whatever reason it has become very important for you to argue that "amateurs" can scout as good as "professionals". It just seems like you are really, really upset that the Sens drafted Boucher at 10th overall. That it has upset you so much that you feel the need to make it abundantly clear that you feel the competency of professional scouts should be questioned and that non-professionals are as capable, if not more than those actually employed by the NHL. When people on here argue that they like the pick or that they trust Mann and his staff you have argued that they are appealing to authority and that they are falling trap to a logical fallacy.

You are essentially arguing that the Boucher pick is a bad choice at 10, that Mann and his staff made a big mistake, that because of that their competency should be put into question, and that anyone who doesn't question the pick and the rationale behind it are being irrational and succumbing to a logical fallacy.

Would you even be making such a suggestion if the Senators drafted a player that you were high on? Would you be questioning the competency of scouts and stressing how amateurs could be just as, if not, more competent in that case? If the Sens took Chaz Lucius, who you have been high on n the past, would you still be making the same claims? What about Aleksi Heimosalmi, who you argued could be a darkhorse off the wall pick for the Sens at 10? If the Sens took Heimosalmi instead of Boucher would you still be doubting the competency of these scouts or would you be singing their praises?

Appeal to authority isn't just limited to credentialed persons, it can also be applied to the self as a form of rationalization, if one convinces themselves that they are in fact that authority. It is a way of replacing the authority to appeal to. Scouting is about making approximations. It is collecting evidence, identifying variables and coming up with some kind of model (most likely a heuristic) to make a projection of upside and guestsimating a probability of attaining it. How can we compare the competency of an "amateur" vs a "professional" without knowing which information they relied on to make such an evaluation? What kind of variables they used, how those variables are weighted and the relation between them in their model? Just because there is a lack of explicitly articulated methodology, doesn't mean there isn't a methodology utilized.

Have you considered the possibility that the scouts may have access to information that you don't? That some of the information might prove consequential in your own evaluations if you were made access to it? That maybe you would have vastly different opinions on players if you knew what the scouts knew?
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
16,122
9,694
Loads. Happens all the time. Pretty much part of the human condition to think you know better from time to time,

Right

But it sure resulted in a couple of years of questioning the competency of the entire organization.

And that's right there a big the difference

The internet warrior just keeps on warrioring and much like a blind squirrel gets it right now and again

The pro on the other hand makes a reputation/gets canned for those kinda deals.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,764
30,964
Right

But it sure resulted in a couple of years of questioning the competency of the entire organization.

And that's right there a big the difference

The internet warrior just keeps on warrioring and much like a blind squirrel gets it right now and again

The pro on the other hand makes a reputation/gets canned for those kinda deals.
So... Are you the blind squirrel that got it right on Tavares? Really not sure where you're going with this one, but you have fun with it.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
8,058
1,917
Why didnt we trade down here...No f***en excuses,WTF are we trying to do here
Would not have been there IF they had traded down.

what they tried and succeeded in doing was to draft the player they had ranked highest, when it became time to make their selection
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Icelevel

DaveMatthew

Bring in Peter
Apr 13, 2005
14,507
13,180
Ott
I use electricity dozens of times/ day, it doesn't make me a god damned electrician.

Not really the same thing.

You can't "interpret" the electrical code differently. There's a right way, and a wrong way. And you can be trained to do it the right way.

But one professional head scout might love Tyler Boucher. Another might hate Tyler Boucher. Who's to say who's right?
 

Samsquanch

Raging Bull Squatch
Nov 28, 2008
8,224
4,965
Sudbury
Loads. Happens all the time. Pretty much part of the human condition to think you know better from time to time,

And part of what real wisdom is, and the sign of a good character person, is being able to acknowledge their own limitations, and be cognizant of the fact that they dont really have a professional opinion (hockey in this case) - despite the fact that their human nature might be trying to convince them that they (their ego) knows better and should take a hard stance against something...

Its fine to disagree, but I would pump the brakes on getting triumphant about it myself. And why bother getting insulted that your opinion carries little to no weight in the eyes of most if you chose the route of "I think I know better" - it comes with the territory of being an anonymous, online nobody thats taking a hard stance on a hot take...

Lol think of what a typical doctor must go through on a daily basis, and how many people believe they know better. Some people with brilliant minds I might add, like say Steve Jobs for example....

Sure every so often a patient is very right, and the doctor is wrong...

But that doesnt mean we should all just start ignoring or overriding a doctors recommendations, or thinking that we realistically know better than them - even if you googled something that seems to contradict your doctors orders, or just because something worked for one person - the odds are not at all in your favour....
 
Last edited:

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
25,801
13,477
You have been hammering away at this same line of reasoning ever since the draft. I have seen you make similar arguments in the past but for whatever reason it has become very important for you to argue that "amateurs" can scout as good as "professionals". It just seems like you are really, really upset that the Sens drafted Boucher at 10th overall. That it has upset you so much that you feel the need to make it abundantly clear that you feel the competency of professional scouts should be questioned and that non-professionals are as capable, if not more than those actually employed by the NHL. When people on here argue that they like the pick or that they trust Mann and his staff you have argued that they are appealing to authority and that they are falling trap to a logical fallacy.

You are essentially arguing that the Boucher pick is a bad choice at 10, that Mann and his staff made a big mistake, that because of that their competency should be put into question, and that anyone who doesn't question the pick and the rationale behind it are being irrational and succumbing to a logical fallacy.

Would you even be making such a suggestion if the Senators drafted a player that you were high on? Would you be questioning the competency of scouts and stressing how amateurs could be just as, if not, more competent in that case? If the Sens took Chaz Lucius, who you have been high on n the past, would you still be making the same claims? What about Aleksi Heimosalmi, who you argued could be a darkhorse off the wall pick for the Sens at 10? If the Sens took Heimosalmi instead of Boucher would you still be doubting the competency of these scouts or would you be singing their praises?

Appeal to authority isn't just limited to credentialed persons, it can also be applied to the self as a form of rationalization, if one convinces themselves that they are in fact that authority. It is a way of replacing the authority to appeal to. Scouting is about making approximations. It is collecting evidence, identifying variables and coming up with some kind of model (most likely a heuristic) to make a projection of upside and guestsimating a probability of attaining it. How can we compare the competency of an "amateur" vs a "professional" without knowing which information they relied on to make such an evaluation? What kind of variables they used, how those variables are weighted and the relation between them in their model? Just because there is a lack of explicitly articulated methodology, doesn't mean there isn't a methodology utilized.

Have you considered the possibility that the scouts may have access to information that you don't? That some of the information might prove consequential in your own evaluations if you were made access to it? That maybe you would have vastly different opinions on players if you knew what the scouts knew?

You know you can differentiate between Mann and his staff making a mistake, like they do on occasion, and being incompetent overall.

They don't deserve absolute blind absolute trust after picks like Thomson and Bowers in the 1st round, two picks that are objectively looking very bad in comparison to other names drafted after them. They are capable of errors in judgement and projection just like anyone. I'm not perfect by any means either. I liked several other players more than Tkachuk and Pinto when they were picked and have happily eaten crow, but I'm going to call balls and strikes when I see them. I'm not going to pretend that Boucher was the best pick at #10 because my favorite team drafted him, but I hope I'm wrong and that ends up being the case.

Even if the scouting staff has made some questionable picks in the 1st round in the past, that doesn't mean they are incompetent overall. The Sens are arguably a top 5 drafting team in the league under Mann's tenure as head scout. There's been a lot more good than bad when it comes to his selections, and at no point have I suggested that Mann is incompetent and bad at drafting overall. That's a complete falsehood. He's proven to be excellent in identifying under the radar talent and I'm hopeful he's found gems in guys like Johansson and Latimer, who I haven't seen play. But when I have seen Boucher play as much as was possible this season and don't see a top 10 pick (like most people), I'm going to give my two cents even if people like you think I shouldn't.
 

Samsquanch

Raging Bull Squatch
Nov 28, 2008
8,224
4,965
Sudbury
But one professional head scout might love Tyler Boucher. Another might hate Tyler Boucher. Who's to say who's right?

Father time will tell us the answer, and transparent resumes speak for themselves when making predictions. Drafting prowess is not a big mystery like Schrodinger and his cat - or something that we cant figure out how to quantify or track.....

So at D-day +1 - when its literally impossible to say anything with any authority yet on whos right or wrong - if most people chose to bank on scouts like Trent Mann, a pro that is regarded as being at the top of his class for scouts, it should come as no surprise that people have confidence in his ability to go off of the board like hes done so many other times before and found success.
 

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
I think the other issue is that people like the idea that hockey (or whatever it is they are into) is more complex than it actually is as it makes it more interesting/impressive. Like, if hockey analysis and scouting could be effectively done by 'amateurs' it would somehow invalidate their hobby.

We've seen nerds to a certain extent break baseball, basketball, and now football. People who have never played or really been involved in the game are unencumbered by the traditional views of 'right' and 'wrong' and can often make the biggest break throughs. This is more easily seen in strategy, but can also be true of scouting.

In any event, there is an interesting discussion to be had on this subject, but no one seems to be meaningfully engaging you which is a shame.

100% Statisticians have become just as important as experienced ex players and coaches within all three of those sports. But some still think sports are like Rudy, or Hoosiers or A Field of Dreams. Those paradigms died at least 20 years ago. The Oakland A's had a lot to do with it in baseball. They even made a movie about it.

And nope, no meaningful engagement. Just ad hominem lashing out, like I wounded the sports-ego connection in their brain. But then, I wonder if any of them actually played any sports to the extent that they actually believed they could possibly make it to the big show. Not that they had a high chance of doing so. But just the belief that it was possible based on their performance at whatever level and knowledge of the game. I've known a few baseball scouts that were plucked from college or wherever who stopped playing after highschool. And hockey similarly.
 

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
I've watched 1000s of hours of hockey and played 1000s of hours of it as well.

There's no such thing as right or wrong when picking teenagers. Every so often there's a genuine stand out no brainer but after that, it's not easy.

But despite having played and watched 1000s of hours, i don't think that i have the knowledge of people that make a living in the game. Personally I find it presumptuous when internet warriors think their opinions are equally valid with those that make their living in the game - and to clarify i mean employed within the NHL structure, not scribing about the game. Might the internet warrior get something right over a professional opinion now and again? Sure. But on balance the knowledge of the game between these two communities isn't comparable

I find it equally presumptuous when internet warriors "appeal to authority" when they don't trust their own capacity and perception and think everyone must be like them.

No one is saying that most people on the internet can do the entire job of being a scout. We are specifically talking about reviewing specific prospects in a draft and trying to determine their value and worth towards various established organizations. What you are suggesting is like a bunch of people that made mac and cheese for dinner thinking they could walk into a a 5 star michelin restaurant to replace the chef. What we are actually saying is more like someone who has made lasagna so many times in their life that they can specifically make lasagna as well as any michelin star chef. Those are two very different claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agent Zub

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
So based on your theory someone who has never played competitive hockey has been exposed to as much as everyone that played but didnt make it to the NHL. Which is incredibly flawed. Playing in the CJHL, the OHL, post secondary, and pro etc still provides massive amounts of exposure to great coaching, systems, experiences like winning losing and competing etc. Being around people that have been around the game is also a very usefull tool and is invaluable information. Some experience is absolutely needed. Its incredibly evident on the boards alone. You can tell who has and who hasnt pretty quickly by reading their content.

Back to Boucher, really liking the pick love what he brings to the table. I think if he wasnt hurt this year and got more exposure this wouldnt be seen as a reach at all.

This is like the 4th time someone suggested something like this. First off, what is your definition of "competitive hockey"? Midget? High School? College or Juniors?

Next, and I don't know how many times I will actually have to say this, right now, as we breath there are scouts in ALL of the 4 major US sports, and even in world futbol, who never played the game beyond their childhood or highschool. These are actual working scouts, coaches, GMs and other management positions. So the problem is, while your suggestion sounds "reasonable", reality itself contradicts it and proves it wrong.

OF COURSE, what you are saying is also partially true. No one is contending that exposure to higher level coaching, systems experience and all that do not help. Nor are they suggesting that many people working in hockey and other major sports don't have that background, many certainly do. But not everyone or even close to everyone. And I gave numerous examples of this in my previous posts in the previous thread. Yet it's just like folks are ignoring everything I actually wrote or didn't read what I actually wrote, simply trashing it and perceiving it as an "emotional rant" when it is anything but that. I have almost ZERO emotion in regard to this subject, the Sens or frankly, Boucher.

"Some experience is absolutely needed. " YES. Which I specifically stated in my previous posts. But there is a difference between "SOME experience" and the level of experience many arguing have suggested. And the level that many seem to be arguing is way above the level of many working scouts, coaches, GM's and management within professional sports. If you think every hockey scout played at some high level, then you are mislead. It simply is not the case. And as I said various times, there is more than one road to a destination. There are numerous paths to becoming a scout, coach or GM in professional sports. And it's not just me pulling this out from my behind, because all we need to do is actually look through the profession and we will find all variety of people, with all variety of different experience that all ended in the same destination. So the entire premise of the "high level of playing experience" argument is bogus. Which pretty much means any argument you build on top of that bogus foundation will similarly collapse with the weight of reality.

"Its incredibly evident on the boards alone. You can tell who has and who hasnt pretty quickly by reading their content." No. Just no. NOW who is making fallacious judgement? You can tell all that hah? You just have to read their post and you know their history and experience? Talk about projection. I guess your EYE for this is superior to everyone else. I am sure sometimes when you think that is evident you are correct. But you have absolutely know way of knowing this the majority of the time. For you to think this is an assumption in itself. And personally, I would never make such an accusation or generalization because I don't know the experience and history of everyone posting. In fact, I don't know the history or experience of ANYONE posting. And I find it hard to believe you do either. Which means, that statement is literally an assumption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JungleBeat

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,259
49,890
This is like the 4th time someone suggested something like this. First off, what is your definition of "competitive hockey"? Midget? High School? College or Juniors?

Next, and I don't know how many times I will actually have to say this, right now, as we breath there are scouts in ALL of the 4 major US sports, and even in world futbol, who never played the game beyond their childhood or highschool. These are actual working scouts, coaches, GMs and other management positions. So the problem is, while your suggestion sounds "reasonable", reality itself contradicts it and proves it wrong.

OF COURSE, what you are saying is also partially true. No one is contending that exposure to higher level coaching, systems experience and all that do not help. Nor are they suggesting that many people working in hockey and other major sports don't have that background, many certainly do. But not everyone or even close to everyone. And I gave numerous examples of this in my previous posts in the previous thread. Yet it's just like folks are ignoring everything I actually wrote or didn't read what I actually wrote, simply trashing it and perceiving it as an "emotional rant" when it is anything but that. I have almost ZERO emotion in regard to this subject, the Sens or frankly, Boucher.

"Some experience is absolutely needed. " YES. Which I specifically stated in my previous posts. But there is a difference between "SOME experience" and the level of experience many arguing have suggested. And the level that many seem to be arguing is way above the level of many working scouts, coaches, GM's and management within professional sports. If you think every hockey scout played at some high level, then you are mislead. It simply is not the case. And as I said various times, there is more than one road to a destination. There are numerous paths to becoming a scout, coach or GM in professional sports. And it's not just me pulling this out from my behind, because all we need to do is actually look through the profession and we will find all variety of people, with all variety of different experience that all ended in the same destination. So the entire premise of the "high level of playing experience" argument is bogus. Which pretty much means any argument you build on top of that bogus foundation will similarly collapse with the weight of reality.

"Its incredibly evident on the boards alone. You can tell who has and who hasnt pretty quickly by reading their content." No. Just no. NOW who is making fallacious judgement? You can tell all that hah? You just have to read their post and you know their history and experience? Talk about projection. I guess your EYE for this is superior to everyone else. I am sure sometimes when you think that is evident you are correct. But you have absolutely know way of knowing this the majority of the time. For you to think this is an assumption in itself. And personally, I would never make such an accusation or generalization because I don't know the experience and history of everyone posting. In fact, I don't know the history or experience of ANYONE posting. And I find it hard to believe you do either. Which means, that statement is literally an assumption.

1. An Inquiry into the Understanding pleasant and useful.
Since it is the UNDERSTANDING that sets man above the rest of sensible beings, and gives him all the advantage and dominion which he has over them; it is certainly a subject, even for its nobleness, worth our labour to inquire into. The understanding, like the eye, whilst it makes us see and perceive all other things, takes no notice of itself; and it requires and art and pains to set it at a distance and make it its own object. But whatever be the difficulties that lie in the way of this inquiry; whatever it be that keeps us so much in the dark to ourselves; sure I am that all the light we can let in upon our minds, all the acquaintance we can make with our own understandings, will not only be very pleasant, but bring us great advantage, in directing our thoughts in the search of other things.
2. Design.
This, therefore, being my purpose—to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, together with the grounds and degrees of BELIEF, OPINION, and ASSENT;—I shall not at present meddle with the physical consideration of the mind; or trouble myself to examine wherein its essence consists; or by what motions of our spirits or alterations of our bodies we come to have any SENSATION by our organs, or any IDEAS in our understandings; and whether those ideas do in their formation, any or all of them, depend on matter or not. These are speculations which, however curious and entertaining, I shall decline, as lying out of my way in the design I am now upon. It shall suffice to my present purpose, to consider the discerning faculties of a man, as they are employed about the objects which they have to do with. And I shall imagine I have not wholly misemployed myself in the thoughts I shall have on this occasion, if, in this historical, plain method, I can give any account of the ways whereby our understandings come to attain those notions of things we have; and can set down any measures of the certainty of our knowledge; or the grounds of those persuasions which are to be found amongst men, so various, different, and wholly contradictory; and yet asserted somewhere or other with such assurance and confidence, that he that shall take a view of the opinions of mankind, observe their opposition, and at the same time consider the fondness and devotion wherewith they are embraced, the resolution and eagerness wherewith they are maintained, may perhaps have reason to suspect, that either there is no such thing as truth at all, or that mankind hath no sufficient means to attain a certain knowledge of it.
3. Method.
It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. In order whereunto I shall pursue this following method:— First, I shall inquire into the original of those ideas, notions, or whatever else you please to call them, which a man observes, and is conscious to himself he has in his mind; and the ways whereby the understanding comes to be furnished with them.
Secondly, I shall endeavour to show what knowledge the understanding hath by those ideas; and the certainty, evidence, and extent of it.
Thirdly, I shall make some inquiry into the nature and grounds of FAITH or OPINION: whereby I mean that assent which we give to any proposition as true, of whose truth yet we have no certain knowledge. And here we shall have occasion to examine the reasons and degrees of ASSENT.
4. Useful to know the Extent of our Comprehension.
If by this inquiry into the nature of the understanding, I can discover the powers thereof; how far they reach; to what things they are in any degree proportionate; and where they fail us, I suppose it may be of use to prevail with the busy mind of man to be more cautious in meddling with things exceeding its comprehension; to stop when it is at the utmost extent of its tether; and to sit down in a quiet ignorance of those things which, upon examination, are found to be beyond the reach of our capacities. We should not then perhaps be so forward, out of an affectation of an universal knowledge, to raise questions, and perplex ourselves and others with disputes about things to which our understandings are not suited; and of which we cannot frame in our minds any clear or distinct perceptions, or whereof (as it has perhaps too often happened) we have not any notions at all. If we can find out how far the understanding can extend its view; how far it has faculties to attain certainty; and in what cases it can only judge and guess, we may learn to content ourselves with what is attainable by us in this state.
5. Our Capacity suited to our State and Concerns.
For though the comprehension of our understandings comes exceeding short of the vast extent of things, yet we shall have cause enough to magnify the bountiful Author of our being, for that proportion and degree of knowledge he has bestowed on us, so far above all the rest of the inhabitants of this our mansion. Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says) [words in Greek], whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything. We shall not have much reason to complain of the narrowness of our minds, if we will but employ them about what may be of use to us; for of that they are very capable. And it will be an unpardonable, as well as childish peevishness, if we undervalue the advantages of our knowledge, and neglect to improve it to the ends for which it was given us, because there are some things that are set out of the reach of it. It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant, who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us shines bright enough for all our purposes. The discoveries we can make with this ought to satisfy us; and we shall then use our understandings right, when we entertain all objects in that way and proportion that they are suited to our faculties, and upon those grounds they are capable of being proposed to us; and not peremptorily or intemperately require demonstration, and demand certainty, where probability only is to be had, and which is sufficient to govern all our concernments. If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
6. Knowledge of our Capacity a Cure of Scepticism and Idleness.
When we know our own strength, we shall the better know what to undertake with hopes of success; and when we have well surveyed the POWERS of our own minds, and made some estimate what we may expect from them, we shall not be inclined either to sit still, and not set our thoughts on work at all, in despair of knowing anything; nor on the other side, question everything, and disclaim all knowledge, because some things are not to be understood. It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. It is well he knows that it is long enough to reach the bottom, at such places as are necessary to direct his voyage, and caution him against running upon shoals that may ruin him. Our business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our conduct. If we can find out those measures, whereby a rational creature, put in that state in which man is in this world, may and ought to govern his opinions, and actions depending thereon, we need not to be troubled that some other things escape our knowledge.
7. Occasion of this Essay.
This was that which gave the first rise to this Essay concerning the understanding. For I thought that the first step towards satisfying several inquiries the mind of man was very apt to run into, was, to take a survey of our own understandings, examine our own powers, and see to what things they were adapted. Till that was done I suspected we began at the wrong end, and in vain sought for satisfaction in a quiet and sure possession of truths that most concerned us, whilst we let loose our thoughts into the vast ocean of Being; as if all that boundless extent were the natural and undoubted possession of our understandings, wherein there was nothing exempt from its decisions, or that escaped its comprehension. Thus men, extending their inquiries beyond their capacities, and letting their thoughts wander into those depths where they can find no sure footing, it is no wonder that they raise questions and multiply disputes, which, never coming to any clear resolution, are proper only to continue and increase their doubts, and to confirm them at last in perfect scepticism. Whereas, were the capacities of our understandings well considered, the extent of our knowledge once discovered, and the horizon found which sets the bounds between the enlightened and dark parts of things; between what is and what is not comprehensible by us, men would perhaps with less scruple acquiesce in the avowed ignorance of the one, and employ their thoughts and discourse with more advantage and satisfaction in the other.
8. What Idea stands for.
Thus much I thought necessary to say concerning the occasion of this inquiry into human Understanding. But, before I proceed on to what I have thought on this subject, I must here in the entrance beg pardon of my reader for the frequent use of the word IDEA, which he will find in the following treatise. It being that term which, I think, serves best to stand for whatsoever is the OBJECT of the understanding when a man thinks, I have used it to express whatever is meant by PHANTASM, NOTION, SPECIES, or WHATEVER IT IS WHICH THE MIND CAN BE EMPLOYED ABOUT IN THINKING; and I could not avoid frequently using it. I presume it will be easily granted me, that there are such IDEAS in men’s minds: every one is conscious of them in himself; and men’s words and actions will satisfy him that they are in others.
Our first inquiry then shall be,—how they come into the mind.

There is more but I will wait for your continued drivel and apparent desire to break word count post records to try to make a point you are failing miserably at making. Sounds like you would be a hoot in the library , or in some pretty cool book clubs. What's with the long philosophical arguments. Are you trying to prove you are smart? If we say you are smart will you quit trying so hard to prove it with every post. I could care less if you think someone can fall out of bed one morning and be a genius at whatever. Its clear you want to believe you are expert enough to present a clever argument on just about any topic you really know nothing about. I'll post the next chapter when you reply , insulted .. and claim I did not refute your silly little arguments.
 

Sensinitis

Registered User
Aug 5, 2012
15,934
5,526
Walking in this thread and seeing guys sending each other a full thesis

upload_2021-7-29_22-14-29.gif
 

RAFI BOMB

Registered User
May 11, 2016
7,389
7,646
You know you can differentiate between Mann and his staff making a mistake, like they do on occasion, and being incompetent overall.

They don't deserve absolute blind absolute trust after picks like Thomson and Bowers in the 1st round, two picks that are objectively looking very bad in comparison to other names drafted after them. They are capable of errors in judgement and projection just like anyone. I'm not perfect by any means either. I liked several other players more than Tkachuk and Pinto when they were picked and have happily eaten crow, but I'm going to call balls and strikes when I see them. I'm not going to pretend that Boucher was the best pick at #10 because my favorite team drafted him, but I hope I'm wrong and that ends up being the case.

Even if the scouting staff has made some questionable picks in the 1st round in the past, that doesn't mean they are incompetent overall. The Sens are arguably a top 5 drafting team in the league under Mann's tenure as head scout. There's been a lot more good than bad when it comes to his selections, and at no point have I suggested that Mann is incompetent and bad at drafting overall. That's a complete falsehood. He's proven to be excellent in identifying under the radar talent and I'm hopeful he's found gems in guys like Johansson and Latimer, who I haven't seen play. But when I have seen Boucher play as much as was possible this season and don't see a top 10 pick (like most people), I'm going to give my two cents even if people like you think I shouldn't.
An understandable position to take. I appreciate you elaborating on your rationale and clearly articulating it. I may have misinterpreted what claim you were attempting to make. In part, I agree with the general position you appear to hold. I do not think we should have blind faith in scouts nor do I think we should perceive them as being beyond the limitations of any other person. They are fallible and capable to making poor assessments. Given the number of scouts employed in the league, there is likely a substantial variance in performance and by extension competence. It is possible that some non-professionals can make better evaluations than some professionals but in all likelihood those non-professionals would not be able to perform at that level on a consistent basis or they would end up being employed in that profession. Also any professionals who consistently performed comparable to a non professional, likely wouldn't be a professional very long.

With regards to Boucher, I think he is a solid selection at 10. I relied heavily on public rankings going into the draft to assess where he might go so my expectations were that he wasn't going to go that high. I trusted McKenzie's list the most so I was hopeful he would be there for our first 2nd round pick but thought there was a big risk he wasn't going to be available. On the Monday of the week of the draft I posted on here my speculation that the Sens could consider drafting Boucher at 10th overall. I looked at his production and projected it out over a full season and saw that it was comparable to Brady Tkachuk in his final season in the USDP/USHL. I thought the Sens would like Boucher as a player and I wondered what the Sens thought of him. I presented my position and I was met with a fair degree of skepticism (which should be expected given what we all knew at the time).

Once the draft took place I saw that McKenzie said we were going off the board with our pick and at that time I was fairly convinced it was Tyler Boucher. That turned out to be correct. I was excited when that happened because it lead me to believe that the Sens were very confident with his upside and that his upside was likely higher than what I had been lead to believe by public rankings and scouting reports. It is an assumption on my behalf but I have a fair degree of confidence in Mann and his staff. I think they have made good selections in the past (most notably Tkachuk and Pinto) but what gave me the added confidence was the 2020 draft. In the 2020 draft they had lots of options but still ended up with some great selections (Stützle and Sanderson early on, but more notably Greig, Kleven, Sokolov and Merilainen).It is my assumption that the Sens scouting staff had made meaningful improvements in their scouting abilities as a consequence of the rebuild and the picks leading up to that draft. Since that draft I have seen plenty of evidence that supports their decision making.

Coming into this draft I had a fair degree of confidence that they would make some very good drafting decisions. We are all aware of the players that were left on the board and the Sens decided to forgo them in order to take Boucher. There was also no rumors of the Sens attempting to trade up when Eklund, Clarke and Guenther were available in the 3 picks leading to ours. Unless I missed something on that then that tells me that they thought more highly of Boucher than all of Eklund, Clarke, Guenther, Sillinger, Coronato, Othmann and every other player taken after 10.

One way of looking at that is that they made a massive mistake and left plenty of talent on the table. Another way of looking at that is that Boucher must be a hell of a lot better than people think if the Sens had those options and decided that Boucher was their guy. Since the draft I have watched more footage of Boucher and from everything I have seen I am fully convinced that he is well deserving of a top ten pick and could quite possibly end up as the best forward from this draft. Now I don't know whether I am making accurate reads or falling into some kind of bias of valuing his traits because he is the player we drafted. I don't think any of us know that and we won't know until Boucher turns pro and we get to see what he actually becomes.

I do respect the hell out of the Sens for making such a decision. It took balls to go after such a player and to risk public ridicule. It demonstrates that they are confident in their decision and decided to trust in it rather than get swayed by public opinion. There were other teams that were apparently very high on Boucher as well so it is not like the Sens were the only team to see his potential but they still decided to take a big swing. I think it made the draft more exciting and I hope it works out.

I also think the Sens scouting staff are receiving a lot of undue criticism and I think that is largely because others are making a lot of assumptions about this draft. This wasn't a normal season and the lack of live viewings and games played makes almost every pick more risky than it normally would be. The public rankings shouldn't be trusted as such because they aren't as accurate a representation of players abilities and what scouts actually believe. Even McKenzie's list was misleading because in the past it would represent the rough consensus across the league, but that was based on all the players playing full seasons and be well scouted. In this draft prospects on average played around half the games they would in a normal draft year, if not less. We have seen in the past that some prospects have a strong start in their draft year but fade out as the season goes on, we have also seen late risers that end up going way higher than they were initially expected to go. Where would Jack Quinn had gone in the 2020 draft if that draft was subject to the same challenges? I remember him being considered closer to the 3rd round in early rankings and he ended up going 8th overall by the end of the season, even beating out other highly reputable prospects like Rossi, Perfetti and Lundell.

Maybe Boucher will end up as the best player in this draft. Maybe he would have been in consideration for first overall if it was a normal draft and he played the full season. We simply don't know that but these facts do suggest that we might want to re-evaluate what we thought of other players in this draft and whether we should be as confident in their upside as we might have been heading into the draft. Maybe they were far more risky than we previously thought and as a consequence maybe passing on them for Boucher is a more reasonable thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thinkwild

brakeyawself

Registered User
Oct 5, 2006
1,599
941
1. An Inquiry into the Understanding pleasant and useful.
Since it is the UNDERSTANDING that sets man above the rest of sensible beings, and gives him all the advantage and dominion which he has over them; it is certainly a subject, even for its nobleness, worth our labour to inquire into. The understanding, like the eye, whilst it makes us see and perceive all other things, takes no notice of itself; and it requires and art and pains to set it at a distance and make it its own object. But whatever be the difficulties that lie in the way of this inquiry; whatever it be that keeps us so much in the dark to ourselves; sure I am that all the light we can let in upon our minds, all the acquaintance we can make with our own understandings, will not only be very pleasant, but bring us great advantage, in directing our thoughts in the search of other things.
2. Design.
This, therefore, being my purpose—to inquire into the original, certainty, and extent of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, together with the grounds and degrees of BELIEF, OPINION, and ASSENT;—I shall not at present meddle with the physical consideration of the mind; or trouble myself to examine wherein its essence consists; or by what motions of our spirits or alterations of our bodies we come to have any SENSATION by our organs, or any IDEAS in our understandings; and whether those ideas do in their formation, any or all of them, depend on matter or not. These are speculations which, however curious and entertaining, I shall decline, as lying out of my way in the design I am now upon. It shall suffice to my present purpose, to consider the discerning faculties of a man, as they are employed about the objects which they have to do with. And I shall imagine I have not wholly misemployed myself in the thoughts I shall have on this occasion, if, in this historical, plain method, I can give any account of the ways whereby our understandings come to attain those notions of things we have; and can set down any measures of the certainty of our knowledge; or the grounds of those persuasions which are to be found amongst men, so various, different, and wholly contradictory; and yet asserted somewhere or other with such assurance and confidence, that he that shall take a view of the opinions of mankind, observe their opposition, and at the same time consider the fondness and devotion wherewith they are embraced, the resolution and eagerness wherewith they are maintained, may perhaps have reason to suspect, that either there is no such thing as truth at all, or that mankind hath no sufficient means to attain a certain knowledge of it.
3. Method.
It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. In order whereunto I shall pursue this following method:— First, I shall inquire into the original of those ideas, notions, or whatever else you please to call them, which a man observes, and is conscious to himself he has in his mind; and the ways whereby the understanding comes to be furnished with them.
Secondly, I shall endeavour to show what knowledge the understanding hath by those ideas; and the certainty, evidence, and extent of it.
Thirdly, I shall make some inquiry into the nature and grounds of FAITH or OPINION: whereby I mean that assent which we give to any proposition as true, of whose truth yet we have no certain knowledge. And here we shall have occasion to examine the reasons and degrees of ASSENT.
4. Useful to know the Extent of our Comprehension.
If by this inquiry into the nature of the understanding, I can discover the powers thereof; how far they reach; to what things they are in any degree proportionate; and where they fail us, I suppose it may be of use to prevail with the busy mind of man to be more cautious in meddling with things exceeding its comprehension; to stop when it is at the utmost extent of its tether; and to sit down in a quiet ignorance of those things which, upon examination, are found to be beyond the reach of our capacities. We should not then perhaps be so forward, out of an affectation of an universal knowledge, to raise questions, and perplex ourselves and others with disputes about things to which our understandings are not suited; and of which we cannot frame in our minds any clear or distinct perceptions, or whereof (as it has perhaps too often happened) we have not any notions at all. If we can find out how far the understanding can extend its view; how far it has faculties to attain certainty; and in what cases it can only judge and guess, we may learn to content ourselves with what is attainable by us in this state.
5. Our Capacity suited to our State and Concerns.
For though the comprehension of our understandings comes exceeding short of the vast extent of things, yet we shall have cause enough to magnify the bountiful Author of our being, for that proportion and degree of knowledge he has bestowed on us, so far above all the rest of the inhabitants of this our mansion. Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says) [words in Greek], whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything. We shall not have much reason to complain of the narrowness of our minds, if we will but employ them about what may be of use to us; for of that they are very capable. And it will be an unpardonable, as well as childish peevishness, if we undervalue the advantages of our knowledge, and neglect to improve it to the ends for which it was given us, because there are some things that are set out of the reach of it. It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant, who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us shines bright enough for all our purposes. The discoveries we can make with this ought to satisfy us; and we shall then use our understandings right, when we entertain all objects in that way and proportion that they are suited to our faculties, and upon those grounds they are capable of being proposed to us; and not peremptorily or intemperately require demonstration, and demand certainty, where probability only is to be had, and which is sufficient to govern all our concernments. If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.
6. Knowledge of our Capacity a Cure of Scepticism and Idleness.
When we know our own strength, we shall the better know what to undertake with hopes of success; and when we have well surveyed the POWERS of our own minds, and made some estimate what we may expect from them, we shall not be inclined either to sit still, and not set our thoughts on work at all, in despair of knowing anything; nor on the other side, question everything, and disclaim all knowledge, because some things are not to be understood. It is of great use to the sailor to know the length of his line, though he cannot with it fathom all the depths of the ocean. It is well he knows that it is long enough to reach the bottom, at such places as are necessary to direct his voyage, and caution him against running upon shoals that may ruin him. Our business here is not to know all things, but those which concern our conduct. If we can find out those measures, whereby a rational creature, put in that state in which man is in this world, may and ought to govern his opinions, and actions depending thereon, we need not to be troubled that some other things escape our knowledge.
7. Occasion of this Essay.
This was that which gave the first rise to this Essay concerning the understanding. For I thought that the first step towards satisfying several inquiries the mind of man was very apt to run into, was, to take a survey of our own understandings, examine our own powers, and see to what things they were adapted. Till that was done I suspected we began at the wrong end, and in vain sought for satisfaction in a quiet and sure possession of truths that most concerned us, whilst we let loose our thoughts into the vast ocean of Being; as if all that boundless extent were the natural and undoubted possession of our understandings, wherein there was nothing exempt from its decisions, or that escaped its comprehension. Thus men, extending their inquiries beyond their capacities, and letting their thoughts wander into those depths where they can find no sure footing, it is no wonder that they raise questions and multiply disputes, which, never coming to any clear resolution, are proper only to continue and increase their doubts, and to confirm them at last in perfect scepticism. Whereas, were the capacities of our understandings well considered, the extent of our knowledge once discovered, and the horizon found which sets the bounds between the enlightened and dark parts of things; between what is and what is not comprehensible by us, men would perhaps with less scruple acquiesce in the avowed ignorance of the one, and employ their thoughts and discourse with more advantage and satisfaction in the other.
8. What Idea stands for.
Thus much I thought necessary to say concerning the occasion of this inquiry into human Understanding. But, before I proceed on to what I have thought on this subject, I must here in the entrance beg pardon of my reader for the frequent use of the word IDEA, which he will find in the following treatise. It being that term which, I think, serves best to stand for whatsoever is the OBJECT of the understanding when a man thinks, I have used it to express whatever is meant by PHANTASM, NOTION, SPECIES, or WHATEVER IT IS WHICH THE MIND CAN BE EMPLOYED ABOUT IN THINKING; and I could not avoid frequently using it. I presume it will be easily granted me, that there are such IDEAS in men’s minds: every one is conscious of them in himself; and men’s words and actions will satisfy him that they are in others.
Our first inquiry then shall be,—how they come into the mind.

There is more but I will wait for your continued drivel and apparent desire to break word count post records to try to make a point you are failing miserably at making. Sounds like you would be a hoot in the library , or in some pretty cool book clubs. What's with the long philosophical arguments. Are you trying to prove you are smart? If we say you are smart will you quit trying so hard to prove it with every post. I could care less if you think someone can fall out of bed one morning and be a genius at whatever. Its clear you want to believe you are expert enough to present a clever argument on just about any topic you really know nothing about. I'll post the next chapter when you reply , insulted .. and claim I did not refute your silly little arguments.


To start, no, you did not "refute (my) silly little arguments." That might be the first correct thing you've said in your empty diatribes. You didn't come close to doing so. Nor did you actually provide a real argument beyond your own subjective presumptions. And it's actually fairly sad that you still believe you did. And nowhere, in anything I wrote did I say, suggest or even imply that I " think someone can fall out of bed one morning and be a genius at whatever." And if that is actually what you believe I said, then you either didn't read anything I wrote or misunderstood everything I wrote. And that about sums up the issue here. Your reading comprehension is either appalling or you didn't read at all. All you have done is make accusations of "drivel". A word that I am not sure you fully understand. And that word that does not accurately portray the substantial arguments I have put forth.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. So now you're copying and pasting John Locke? How original. Are you still struggling with overcoming the Cartesian theory of personal identity? Nothing new to say since the 18th century? I have to say, I am wholly disappointed. You have a lot of catching up to do in your struggle for identity and meaning. As Butler critiqued, " the relation of consciousness presupposes identity, and thus can not constitute it." You sure you don't want to catch up? Read some Kant, or Nietzsche, or perhaps Bachelard and his dialectic of division? Or perhaps McCabe and his articles of faith? or perhaps Derrida and his subjectum of being?

And you think I am the one trying to prove I am smart? You've hit new heights of projection. I'm not the one trying to take this to some epistemological wasteland. And you couldn't even copy and paste a piece from the last century? You're gonna run with Enlightenment ideals? I guess that kind of fits with your "Sons of Anarchy" motif. Your "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" faux humility and pretense for pragmatic sensibility. Yup, you are deeeeeeep. Deeeeeeeep like the oceans. Deeeeeeeep like the womb that births us and that which we one day hope to return. Deeeeeeep like like the universe, ever expanding, growing cold and distant a manifestation of death and renewal. Deeeeeep like the singularity, the explosive source of all that we are and that which in the end, claims us. Do you use this BS to pick up girls? Because I got to tell you, it's really not a good way to have a conversation, debate or even an argument.

Yawn.

This tangential expedition has run it's course. You're so lacking in reason, rational and argument that you have resorted to abstract plagiarism.

Please, put the clown mask down for a minute and listen to yourself. For your own sake. No one can do it for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad