I have experience playing the game, a Ph.D. in biology, and have been a fan for over two decades... and I still have no idea what this means.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn once and I don't even know.
I have experience playing the game, a Ph.D. in biology, and have been a fan for over two decades... and I still have no idea what this means.
well it seems most of you take offence to my opinion and honestly, I already answered some of your most concerns as well throughout my posts. So I will try not to say anything on this subject and save me a hassle of replaying to everyone of you.
Let's see how it plays out shall we?
I don't think it's a fallacious appeal to authority. Typically, the point of the fallacy of appealing to authority is that their authority is the premise. Here, I think you'll find that I have my own.It's flawed because it's an appeal to authority instead of looking at the argument itself. And a rather bad authority at that. It's not like he's a doctor or something that requires specialized knowledge. It's not like being a pro-athlete. Pretty much anyone with decent writing ability and a passion for the sport can do it. Sports interviews are a joke. "So, do you think it really helps to have >key player< back from injury?" "What do you have to do better in the next period?" "How do you like >new guy<?"
And the idea that if you're not doing something professionally, you must automatically be worse at it than someone who does, is flawed. It's not a conclusion that makes sense. Again, especially in a field like sports journalism. People take different jobs for different reasons. If someone takes another job because it pays better, or because they like it more, it doesn't mean they then suck at everything else. People can be talented in more than 1 thing. I personally make no judgment on RWN's "sports writing" ability because I haven't seen any.
For starters, and RWN mentioned it, I cringed as Malik described Tatar as "speedy" who burned by Cleary. I mean... yeah... Cleary is slow. I mean, is that supposed to be insightful? His content is filled with fluff and extremely subjective opinions that aren't really informative or useful.
Just as a completely unrelated question. Have you ever question a professional's ability in their field of work of which you are not also a professional?
I think it's a really bad way of saying that Tatar has a number of different types of shots.I have experience playing the game, a Ph.D. in biology, and have been a fan for over two decades... and I still have no idea what this means.
I think it's a really bad way of saying that Tatar has a number of different types of shots.
So wrist, slap, backhand, etc. are all "species" according to which his shot is "multi-species."
Yeah. I said it was bad.
What makes you think your analysis of Malik has merit? Where's your credibility? Malik gets paid to write and talk hockey. Hell, he even gets to show up to press events and interview the big names.
What is it that you do again in the hockey world? Why should we believe you over him? From my standpoint, you've proven nothing. You've been spouting off about how bad he is for a while now, but he's still paid and you're still an anonymous message board poster...
I think Malik won that one.
I think your criticism of Malik is almost as bad as his. What, he used the wrong word? Is that all? Granted, you haven't made any proclamations on as grand a scale as RWN has, but mind you that RWN's condemnations largely come as a consequence of Malik being an average writer with a lean toward the flowery. From that, he tries to argue that Malik is not to be trusted. That is, Malik is a poor blogger and factually unreliable because... he makes bad stylistic choices? That doesn't make a lot of sense..
But... how can you do that? They're paid to do that and you're not? What's your credibility?As for your question, I certainly have. It's commonplace in my field for us to go around mopping up all sorts of errors made by professionals in other fields, and they're usually ones of the intellectual variety.
What's the flaw? It's simple. If you're going to challenge someone's credibility, we need to know why we should believe you. That is, you need to have some credibility of your own in order to do it.
What makes it a tougher case is that Malik has some level of instant credibility in that he is a professional, and has been for years.
If RWN is superior to Malik in such an obvious way, why hasn't KK or another such site picked up his blog? What's he going to say to that? Is he going to grace us with the time-honored "I have better things to do" retort?
Mind you, it's also one thing to say "I think X is wrong about this" and quite another to say "I think X is wrong about basically everything ever." The second is a very strong claim, and you need to show why you're qualified to completely judge somebody like that.
Johan Franzen: Watching Franzen practice reminds me that for all the offensive **** we give him, he is in fact a pretty good defensive forward, and when he's engaged, and again, when he is willing to GIVE the puck and then GO somewhere, he's tremendously effective. He's starting to understand that Weiss and Alfredsson need to carry the puck and carry the mail here. Even just starting to figure that out is huge.
How in the **** does George Malik have ANY idea what FRANZEN is "STARTING TO UNDERSTAND"He's starting to understand that Weiss and Alfredsson need to carry the puck and carry the mail here. Even just starting to figure that out is huge.
Stephen Weiss: He just works hard, REALLY hard. The difference between Valtteri Filppula and Stephen Weiss involves work ethic. Filppula may be more skilled, but Weiss works like he's Drew Frickin' Miller, not like he's the already-baptized second-line center. He's been soaking in the detail work during his training camp experience and he uses his short stick to his advantage in terms of both knocking down pucks and sweeping pucks into offensive positions.
How in the hell does Malik know that?He's been soaking in the detail work during his training camp experience
Drew Miller: The hockey gods gave Drew Miller battle drills today and drills in which he could out-hustle his opponent, and by dammit, he out-battled, out-willed, out-hustled, out-worked and out-executed. He knows these systems like the back of his hand, but it doesn't mean he's going to do anything less than work his ass off to re-learn them. There is no half-assing it in Drew Miller's vocabulary.
How does Malik know this?He knows these systems like the back of his hand,
There is no half-assing it in Drew Miller's vocabulary.
Patrick Eaves: Fast, diligent, and perhaps for the first time in his career, hesitant, because he seems to know that he's an endangered species.
No, I am paid to do that.But... how can you do that? They're paid to do that and you're not? What's your credibility?
I still remember when you tried to say that Malik couldn't properly judge McNulty's speed. Which would had to have meant that he couldn't judge the forward motion of about... anything. He'd have to be practically blind. That is how hard you push the "Malik is incompetent!" line—to absurdity.We all have disagreements about what we see when we watch games.
But most of us don't resort to making up BS about what's going through a player's head.
I still remember when you tried to say that Malik couldn't properly judge McNulty's speed. Which would had to have meant that he couldn't judge the forward motion of about... anything. He'd have to be practically blind. That is how hard you push the "Malik is incompetent!" line—to absurdity.
That was like two weeks ago.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn once and I don't even know.
I think you take what he says (and about all of those quotes) as though he's speaking literally, when he's plainly not. Some of them come across as giving him a hard time for no apparent reason.By the way, way to IGNORE the chief criticism of Malik. --- He tries to convey information he can't possibly have.
He has these fanciful ideas about players and conveys them as if they were true.
Found it for you, Guru
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=69251995&postcount=125
I took issue with the assertion that McNulty looked like 'freakin' athanasiou' out there.
And I stand by that.
Implying that McNulty skates as fast as Athanasiou is misleading -- at best.
Once again, you're proving my point for me.
But, here we are again. This one is a bit sloppy on Malik's part, so I'll cut you some slack, but it's the difference in the uses of "like." You can use it to mean "the same as," but you can also use it to mean "roughly similar to." And we should note that Malik goes on to say that it doesn't happen very often.#74 Marc McNulty: Baby-faced defenseman, overpowered easily, bumped around, holds his own, has a good shot and passes well, and then you find out that this 6’6†kid who may way 175 pounds has wheels like frickin’ Athanasiou at times. It’s just remarkable, because it doesn’t happen too often
I think you take what he says (and about all of those quotes) as though he's speaking literally, when he's plainly not. Some of them come across as giving him a hard time for no apparent reason.
Example: he knew the drills like the back of his hand.
When anybody uses that, of course they cannot literally know the contents of the other person's mind. But we make that same judgment in our daily lives on a regular basis, and it's perfectly rational to make.
or
"He's been soaking in the detail work during his training camp experience"
Again, this is a thing that we can easily say about another person. When can we say that? Usually when somebody appears to be watching very closely and asking lots of questions. We can say "Oh, that guy is paying close attention to the details." It's perfectly reasonable to do so.
My question then is: why skewer the guy over that stuff? It's awkward language, but it doesn't convey any sort of falsehood like you make it seem.
I think the proper thing to do is to recognize that Malik is not a precise writer, and at no point will you be getting a particularly clear account of how things are.
This board is by far the best source for Red Wings news and opinions that aren't complete BS.