2013 NHL Official Hockey Thread

[man77777]

There's no doubt Bruins fans admire Chara as a player and a person, which you say indicates..."zero morality".

Do you know what is a syllogism, Merlot ? An exemple of a kind of syllogism ? 1/ My mother loves flower 2/ All the gays love flower = 3/ So My mother is gay...

- Sayin : 1/ You say that you need zero morality to admire Chara 2/ Boston's fan admire Chara as a player and as a person = 3/ So you said that ALL the Bruin's fan have zero morality

is a kind of syllogism...


- Sayin 1/ You don't like Chara as a person 2/ Chara is a bruins' player = 3/ you're a Bruins hater

is also a stupid kind of syllogism


So yes Merlot, the facts show that the way you summurize other's posts can be dishonnest when you talk about the Bruins...

Gentle wrote the respect he has for the Bruins and you can check that my prediction for this series was 4-2 for the bruins. We just don't like Chara as a person, realy sorry... Stop being so paranoid plse..

 

[lgna69xxx]

Actually glad i jinxed the bruins, would love to see the hawks win it all..... now ur stalking me in a non free for all? Sorry Cowboy, I Love Women

Another Iggy prediction bites the dust...immediately.

 

[anon_vlad]

Do you know what is a syllogism, Merlot ? An exemple ? 1/ My mother loves flower 2/ All the gays love flower = 3/ So My mother is gay...

Your use of the word "syllogism" constitutes a malapropism.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

 

[Merlot]

Hello Gentlemen,

Do you know what is a syllogism, Merlot ?

SYLLOGISM = man77777 digging up a fallacious sophistry (phoney reasoning) to avoid responsibility.

Your use of the word "syllogism" constitutes a malapropism.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

MALAPRIPISM = A malapropism (also called a Dogberryism) is the use of an incorrect word in place of a word with a similar sound, resulting in a nonsensical, often humorous utterance.

As you can see by Anon's post you aren't fooling anyone. You said in direct reference to Chara: "except if you have zero morality, you can't admire such a coward player..."The name "Chara" and the word "player" points directly at the first and large majority group who admire him. Bruins fans. It's inescapable!

If you didn't just dig up some vocabulary you have enough intelligence to know what you meant even if you were too emotional to see it when you first wrote the line. Trying to concoct a faux connection instead of standing up for your writing and taking a step back only proves that ridiculous "Anglos" excuse was not an accident by an emotionally distraught sports fan, it was a habit of disconnection with facts.

Why dig a deeper nonsensical hole for yourself. If you had said the Pacioretty incident and hitting Crosby in the mouth after his devastating injury were brutal and showed a low side to Chara I might have agreed with you 65%. End of this silliness. Instead you try to single out Chara against every other brutal event of thousands in hockey, that alone being nuts, and make direct insinuations against fans...very sadly and embarrassingly.

Bruins want better start in Game 5

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...-start-game/jx6UuYPj5OSAaFAa28D1HL/story.html

Tyler Seguin’s Game 4 started well. At 5:18 of the first period, he forced Johnny Oduya to take an interference penalty.

Because of Seguin’s speed, the Bruins went on their first power play of the night. They could have grabbed a 1-0 lead with a goal and dumped the Blackhawks in an early ditch.

Instead, it was the other way around.

On the power play, Seguin tried to hold the left point. He knew Brandon Saad was challenging, but Seguin wasn’t strong enough on the puck. Saad picked the puck off Seguin’s blade and scurried away. At the other end, Michal Handzus scored the game’s first goal. The Blackhawks never trailed.

“I knew the guy was there,” Seguin said. “But I still almost got surprised by him. I’ve been very good at being hard on my stick. But he stripped me there. I couldn’t catch up with the play. It was just one that I’d like to have back.”

The misplay didn’t help the Bruins launch the start they wanted. Handzus’s shorthanded goal gave the Blackhawks early energy. The Bruins chased the game until overtime, when Brent Seabrook whistled a slap shot past Tuukka Rask.

It was the third time in four games the Blackhawks displayed more pep and efficiency at the start than the Bruins. The Bruins were better early only in Game 3, when they claimed a 2-0 win.

“If there’s one thing in this series so far, they’ve definitely had the better starts,” Bruins coach Claude Julien said. “That’s an area where we keep talking about having a better start. They’ve had the advantage on us in that department. We’re working on hopefully having some better starts. There’s a maximum of three games left. Hopefully, we get better starts in those games.”

Seguin couldn’t recover from Saad’s strip. Seguin had just one shot in 15:18 of ice time. He lost some of his shifts on the third line to Rich Peverley.

“I’m still working hard, but with that first power-play goal I gave up, I really got hard on myself there,” Seguin said. “You want to improve, but then they popped a couple more. You’ve just got to face the music and respond.”

Seguin had company. In retrospect, Julien noted that none of his players could say he submitted a great performance, especially in the neutral zone, an area critical to the Bruins’ success.

It is in center ice where the Bruins force the most mistakes when they’re on their game. The first forechecker steers the opposing puck carrier into the teeth of the defense. When a pass skitters away or an exchange goes sour, the Bruins are prompt to pounce on the puck. Once they gain control, they initiate their transition game with numbers.

In Game 4, the Bruins weren’t sharp in the neutral zone. They didn’t force enough turnovers. The Blackhawks had clean, speedy entries through center ice into the offensive zone. The backtracking Bruins had to chase the puck. It is not their preferred approach.

“I thought we gave them a lot of space,” Julien said. “It doesn’t mean they don’t have pace to their game. But it means we gave them too many options. The neutral zone for me, not just on the forecheck but on the counter, wasn’t very good. Our counterattack wasn’t as good as it could have been or should have been in regards to that.”

Chicago’s best line was its top unit of Bryan Bickell, Jonathan Toews, and Patrick Kane. It was the line that closed out Los Angeles in the Western Conference finals.

For the first three games of the Stanley Cup Final, Chicago coach Joel Quenneville was wary of pairing Toews and Kane. The Blackhawks were worried that Zdeno Chara and Dennis Seidenberg would neutralize the top-heavy lineup.

But the first line responded with its most dominant performance in Game 4. Toews and Kane scored their first goals of the series. Bickell was a heavy net-front presence.

Seidenberg was on the ice for four of Chicago’s six goals. In the second period, Seidenberg blocked a Michael Rozsival shot. But Seidenberg couldn’t sweep away the rebound. Moments later, Kane scored to give Chicago a 3-1 lead.

Later in the second, Seidenberg pinched up the ice and failed to seal off the attack. The Blackhawks had a two-on-one rush against Chara, and Marcus Kruger buried his second attempt.

Seidenberg was on the ice for Patrick Sharp’s third-period power-play goal. In overtime, Rask leaned to his left to peek around a Seidenberg screen. An instant later, Seabrook ripped his shot blocker side. Had Rask not been leaning left, he might have been positioned to stop the shot.

“The goal that we gave up, a lot of times guys were just not being in the right place where they should have been,” Julien said. “Instead of stopping in our positions, we did a lot of curling [Wednesday] night, which is usually a sign of our team struggling.”

If the Bruins fix their sputtering starts, tighten up the neutral zone, and improve their defensive-zone positioning, they should be in good shape for Game 5. Despite the 6-5 overtime setback in Game 4, the Bruins rallied from a pair of two-goal deficits. They scored two power-play goals. They targeted Corey Crawford’s withering glove, which promises to be a bull’s-eye in Game 6.

Crawford waved at all five goals.

“A few goals were on the glove side there,” Brad Marchand said. “But there was a ton of really nice opportunities we had there that he saved on the glove side as well. Just lucky shots.”

= 3/ Damn, Merlot so you said that all the bruins fan are stupid !!! Shammmme[/U]... lol

So now you engage in the hypocrisy of a real syllogism. Do you really want to put yourself so deeply into a state of silliness like the "Anglos" stupidity. You're getting yourself bagged and tagged. :noidea:
Cheers,

Merlot

 

[man77777]

You said in direct reference to Chara

No Anon, there is so many schools and forms of syllogism (aristolian, stoic, scolastic médiéval school one...), and by extension, the term has now a larger signification which is 2 premises leading to an unproved and inapropriated conclusion (that's what is written in my dictionnary to say it simply).

1/ You don't like Chara 2/ Chara is a bruin player = 3/ you're a bruins hater = is a way to arrive at a compromising conclusion(3/) using 2 premises that logically can't lead to it

1/ You say you need no morality to admire Chara 2/ the bruins fan love Chara personnality = 3/ you insult all te bruin's fan by sayin they all don't have any morality = is also a way to arrive at a compromising conclusion using 2 premises. The illogical fact is that all the bruins fan don't love CHara personnality at best 95% love him as a player and maybe 80% love him as a person which is something really different. The second reason why it is illogical is that there is a lot of people that like him and who are not Bruins' fan. So the conclusion is illogical.

If I wanted to do it the same way I would say 1/ You said the bruins fan love Chara personality 2/ You need to be totally stupid to love someone personality just because he plays in the team you support
= 3/ Damn, Merlot so you said that all the bruins fan are stupid !!! Shammmme... lol

It reminds me George Bush who used a lot, this kind of illogical reasonning, and it worked !

 

[anon_vlad]

there is so many schools and forms of syllogism (aristolian, stoic, scolastic médiéval school one...), and by extension, the term has now a larger signification which is 2 premises leading to an unproved and inapropriated conclusion (that's what is written in my dictionnary to say it simply).

In the Wikipedia article, syllogism does not refer to arguments leading to inappropriate conclusions, but rather to a sequence of statements (usually three) which lead to a correct conclusion provided that the premises are correct. In your examples, the premises are not always correct so the conclusions are not valid.

Perhaps, there is a difference in the way the word syllogism is defined in French and in English. There have been many misunderstandings between native French and English speakers as, for example, "demand(e)" has different meanings in the two languages.

 

[man77777]

Interessant discussion Anon, too bad Merlot jumped on it too fast as if you were his last chance rescuer...

- Here is the traduction of the Aristote's definition himself : Le syllogisme est un raisonnement où, certaines choses étant prouvées, une chose autre que celles qui ont été accordées se déduit des choses qui ont été accordées. = So the conclusion can't be prooved by the 2 premises

- Here is the definition of the Larousse : Raisonnement qui a la forme d'une implication dont l'antécédent est la conjonction de deux propositions appelées prémisses

So if we take as reference Aristote himself and Larousse dictionnary definitions', Merlot's reasonning were syllogism.


In anyway, these 2 Merlot's statements were illogical reasonning, as we all know :


1/ You don't like Chara 2/ Chara is a bruin player = 3/ you're a bruins hater

1/ You say you need no morality to admire Chara 2/ the bruins fan love Chara personnality = 3/ you insult all te bruin's fan by sayin they all don't have any morality


100% off topic in a sport thread, but it's always good to point illogical reasonning in a forum, no matter why they have been done...

 

[Gentle]

You guys make it way to complicated.

It's easy, the big ape is a 'sucker punch' player as it was demonstrated time and time again (not to mention is multiple cross check in the back of the neck), and he s*cks !

While Bergeron is THE Bruins player who by far is most valuable to his team and doesn't look like a cromagnon !

Take him away along a couple Bruins player and maybe even their coach but that's it !

All the others are great players !

I like Hawks way of playing more but Bruins are doing fine and it works too.
I just hope all the other teams don't start doing the same cuze it will start to be a bit low on goals.

They make me think of the New Jersey back with Lemaire's trap.
It was pretty lame game but it worked !

The good news is they were able to keep up with Hawks and still lose only by 1 in a 6-5 score.

Like I said many times, Bergeron and Rask really deserve to put their hands on this cup !
But, just because Chara, I'd prefer Hawks to win it as a team !

And it would make them 5, just 1 short of Bruins but 1 more than Rangers which would be nice for one of the original six !

This way it would be :
Canadiens 24
Leafs 13
Wings 11
Bruins 6
Hawks 5
Rangers 4

 

[joelcairo]

now ur stalking me in a non free for all? Sorry Cowboy, I Love Women

Who's stalking? I just pointed out yet another of your posts showing that you know squat about hockey and that you can't predict to save your life.

And you're correct about this not being a free for all thread, so why are you introducing horseshit like the final part of the post I quoted here? Try sticking to hockey and keep your childish crap and fantasies to yourself.

 

[lgna69xxx]

You got it CJ

Who's stalking? I just pointed out yet another of your posts showing that you know squat about hockey and that you can't predict to save your life.

And you're correct about this not being a free for all thread, so why are you introducing horseshit like the final part of the post I quoted here? Try sticking to hockey and keep your childish crap and fantasies to yourself.

 

[joelcairo]

Ig you seem to live a charmed life with the Mods.

1. In the post right above this, which I am not quoting, because it's against MERB rules, you quoted my post in its entirety, even though it was directly above yours. This is against MERB rules but that never seems to stop you. Why should it, since you never get called on it, even though others who do the same thing have been admonished, warned, or even suspended.

2. You are apparently responding to my post (some might call it stalking that you are doing) but as usual you HAVE no logical or intelligent response, so you just add to your post count with more empty and meaningless bullshit.

3. You are continuing your childish and clueless insults with "CJ", as you have explained your constant obsession with cowboys in the free for all thread and you have come up with what you (and you alone) seem to think is a witty nickname. Well, apart from the fact that it is again against MERB rules to insult other members or to corrupt their handles, you seem blissfully unaware that the only "cowboy" on this board - by definition - is your good friend Mr. Doc Holliday. Maybe you can ask Doc to explain to you where his handle comes from.

Now Ig, why not stop your juvenile attempts at humor? You just aren't very good at it (sort of like you're not very good at picking hockey winners). Also, why not try following the MERB rules? And finally, why not try presenting your arguments or engaging in debate by presenting facts, statistics, or logical points that make sense and address the relevant issues, rather than stooping to your usual kindergarten level insulting bullshit that has nothing to do with the points being discussed. And if you're not man enough to do all this, why not just refrain from posting and exposing your obvious limitations?

 

[lgna69xxx]

You got it CJ! (whats so wrong with agreeing with you) get over yourself and stop trying to stir the poopie pies.

Onto, HOCKEY!

Should be another classic tonight and who wins is anyones guess these days.... Go Hawks!

 

[joelcairo]

Unbelievable (well, not really in your case), but you did exactly the same thing again! I'd respond in kind, but I'm not as lucky with Mod 8 as you are.

We'll soon have a Stanley Cup winner for 2013 and whoever wins it'll be an Original 6, as has often been the case in the last half decade (Detroit, Chicago and Boston with one each so far in that span).

 

[Merlot]

Boyz,

Ig you seem to live a charmed life with the Mods.

So JC, he called you a "stalker" too. He does that every time someone disagrees with him. The board is full of stalkers to him.

Everyone sees the "charmed life" but the mods. It seems they don't want to. Even when he does the same offense it's the other guy who gets suspended...like he's married to a mod or something. Talk about "cowboy".

GAME 5:

Key game tonight. Who will earn the sudden elimination edge?

Three unexpected keys to Game 5 for Bruins, Blackhawks

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-p...-keys-game-5-bruins-blackhawks-161654213.html

Game 4 of the Stanley Cup Final was weird.

After watching these two clubs go head-to-head for three games, I think most of us thought we had this series figured out. Goals would continue to be tough to generate, both because space was an issue, what with Games 1-3 looking like they were being played in a one-bedroom apartment, and because the goaltenders were on top of their games.

But then Game 4 happened, and suddenly the Final was turned on its head. 11 goals, seriously? Who saw that coming?

The best thing about Game 4 -- apart from how exciting and random it was -- is that it gives us the opportunity to establish some truly unexpected keys to Game 5. Here are three for each club:

BRUINS

Slow it down

Who'd have thought we'd be talking about Boston's need to clamp down on this series, especially after they did quite well for themselves in this regard in the seven games leading up to it? Games 2 and 3, not to mention Games 1-4 versus the high-flying Pittsburgh Penguins, were vintage Boston. Game 5 was vintage Boston too, but in the other sense: it was like something out of the mid-1980s. Suddenly their defensive posture is a concern.

When the Blackhawks scored the overtime winner in Game 4, it didn't come as much of a surprise, largely because that entire game had played more to their strengths than Boston's. The Bruins don't want to get into a track-meet with the Blackhawks. They want to get into a game of mistakes, a game where chances are hard to come by and generally borne of defensive lapses. That's where they'll have the upper hand.

Win more faceoffs

The Bruins have won the faceoff battle in all four games of this series, but in Game 3, they won it decisively. They won 40 of 56 draws, good for a 71% win rate. In the other three games, they won 51%, 54%, and 51% of the draws, respectively.

It's no surprise, then, that the game where they controlled the puck off almost every draw is the lone game that didn't need extra time to decide a winner. Game 5 will go a lot better for them if they can win the faceoff battle more than just mathematically.

Don't let Corey Crawford get his groove back

To be fair, Corey Crawford's glove hand is nowhere near as bad as people are saying. Are we really supposed to believe that the Bruins just magically discovered that he's genuinely bad at a fundamental element of goaltending, and no one has ever noticed until now?

Hogwash. He's fine. Sure, all five goals beat him glove side, but the dude only has two sides. We're not talking extreme improbability here.

Still, he hasn't looked at his best for a few games now, and while the glove hand thing is seriously overplayed, that's the sort of crack analysis you leave yourself vulnerable to when you allow enough goals for people to begin noting patterns.

Crawford has been excellent in these playoffs, but after his second consecutive off-night, it's safe to say he hasn't been excellent in this Final. Keeping him off his game is a top for Boston. Crawford knows what they're saying about him; I'd keep going Gunner Stahl fancy just to mess with his head.

BLACKHAWKS

Keep attacking Zdeno Chara

In Game 4, the Blackhawks did something few teams do: they went right at Zdeno Chara. That's like flying your snowspeeder directly at an Imperial AT-AT Walker when everybody knows the best way to bring one down, as demonstrated at the Battle of Hoth, is by going around it. That's typically how most clubs deal with Chara too.

But Jonathan Toews boasted after Game 4 that the Blackhawks attacked Chara directly and aggressively, and it paid off: Chara was on the ice for five of Chicago's six goals. Now, Chara's basically always on the ice, so this stat isn't quite as damning as it sounds, but still. The plan is more of that.

The Bruins think it's a stupid idea. From CSNNE:

"Honestly, I don't know where they would get that scouting report from," said Milan Lucic during off-day availability at the team hotel in Chicago. “[Chara] definitely doesn't mind the physical play at all. Once again, I don't know where they would get that scouting report from."

Lucic’s reaction was pretty consistent with the other Bruins players two days after their Game 4 defeat on home ice. There was some curiosity as to whether it was more a strategy to distract Chara and the Bruins from their normally stifling defensive game, and was some kind of tactic to get under their skin with the three most important games of the season on tap.

Talking about it may have been something of a mind game, but it worked once. Patrick Sharp suggested it might have been a fluke, but let the hockey gods sort that out. Try it again.

Special teams scoring: more please

In Game 4, the Blackhawks flipped the script on the previous three games and produced offence on special teams. Since when do they do that?

Chicago scored twice during a man advantage. The first time it was during one of Boston's, as Michal Handzus scored the night's first goal shorthanded. The second time, it was, incredibly, on their own powerplay, when Sharp gave Chicago the lead midway through the third.

Both goals put Chicago ahead and forced Boston to open up in pursuit of a tie game. That's how Chicago wants the remainder of this series to be played; more offensive production on special teams increases the likelihood of that happening.

Don't let Tuukka Rask get his groove back

Rask was the difference-maker in Games 2 and 3, earning first star honours from us here at The Daddy and vaulting to the top of the pile of Conn Smythe candidates. But in Game 4, the scouting report changed from "don't get frustrated by Rask's brilliance" to "shoot at Rask". In one game, the Boston backstop surrendered as many goals as he had in the previous five games combined.

Now, suddenly, Chicago's job shifts from knocking him off his game to keeping him from finding it again. He cannot, under any circumstances, get his groove back in Game 5, especially not with the series returning to Boston for Game 6.

Go Bruins Go,

Merlot

 

[man77777]

As we talked about CHara, a Little Statistic : Chara was on the ice during 7 of the last 8 goals conceded by the Bruins in this finale !

 

[Gentle]

Hey Hey ! so far, it's looking good for Bergie !

The Conn Smythe would make a nice addition to his Clancy !

 

[Gentle]

Chara was on the ice during 7 of the last 8 goals conceded by the Bruins in this finale !

Yeah ! from up there he can see them zoom in the net pretty well apparently ! :smile:
BTW He was in a good position to see the last one too !

It's 2-0 Chicago now, but Bruins can come back in this one like they did so many times they were stressed to.

 

[man77777]

Bruins have already proved they deserved to be in finale. But only one team stays in the History. Finalist in sport are like the finalist in the spermatozoid competition, nobody remembers them...

It smells the 7th game (to show you the good predictor I am, I predicted Boston in 6 for this finale :lol

I'm worried for Bergeron..

 

[Gentle]

This one can still be tied.

One thing sure is both teams are really of the same strength.
Unlike some of last years finals they are both fun to watch !

Hey ! hey ! looks like Chara got his a$$ whooped in the locker room to finally stop watching the puck go by !

 

[Gentle]

Well coming back watching the game with the guys, I thought this one was really exciting !

Rask made incredible saves and Hawks were so fast it was superb hockey !

The real Hockey !

...not the BS one where a team only tries to win by starting fights.

Can't wait for next game !