Awesome Downey Interview

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

The hungrier team does usually win in the NHL. So yes, with that example correlation = causation.

You can't win on skill alone.

QFT

The Wings' are arguably the most talented team year in and year out, but have been beaten more times than not by teams in the past who want it more. Will this team turn up the intensity and hunger? We shall see.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

It's a statistical phrase stating that just because there is a correlation between two things one is not necessarily caused by or the result of the other.

Thanks for googling that for me.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Thanks for googling that for me.

Don't put "Huh? " if you don't want someone to tell you what he meant.

By your post you either:

1) Didn't understand what he meant by correlation=causation

or

2) You were just being a jerk (acting as if what he said was unintelligible).

You can disagree with his contention and argue that correlation does not equal causation (or why it doesn't apply in this situation) but by your response you acted as if you didn't understand accomplishing the goal of dodging his point (or at least not being able to argue it) and trying to be demeaning in the process. Then you are condescending again when someone takes you at face value (that you really didn't understand) and explains what he meant. Oh and the "" was a nice exclamation point on being a jerk.

[Frozen-Man 144]

The hungrier team does usually win in the NHL. So yes, with that example correlation = causation.

You can't win on skill alone.

I don't think that his point was in regards to the hunger. It has been pretty much established all around that the team that is fighting just to make the playoffs (with 2 more games to go in the season) was going to be much more hungry that the team basically locked into the second seeding. His point (I think) was in regards to the other part of the statement:

Yes, we looked 'pretty' with our passing, scoring, but did it work? No, the hungrier blue collar team prevailed in the shootout.

It think the correlation=causation statement was in response to the insinuation that looking "'pretty' with our passing, scoring" was the reason that we lost rather than the desperation of the team we were playing. Furthermore, the hungerier team could not even win during the actual game and won by being better i.e. "prettier"/skillful in the shootout (or having a goalie who made better stops) than the fact that they were hungrier in the shootout. Pav or Hank did not try their absolute hardest in the shoot out - that's just the way it goes sometimes in a shootout.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

I don't think that his point was in regards to the hunger. It has been pretty much established all around that the team that is fighting just to make the playoffs (with 2 more games to go in the season) was going to be much more hungry that the team basically locked into the second seeding. His point (I think) was in regards to the other part of the statement:

It think the correlation=causation statement was in response to the insinuation that looking "'pretty' with our passing, scoring" was the reason that we lost rather than the desperation of the team we were playing. Furthermore, the hungerier team could not even win during the actual game and won by being better i.e. "prettier"/skillful in the shootout (or having a goalie who made better stops) than the fact that they were hungrier in the shootout. Pav or Hank did not try their absolute hardest in the shoot out - that's just the way it goes sometimes in a shootout.

Literally LOL. Only from a computer would you see grown men discussing the correlation=causation theory regarding hockey. Can you imagine this in at Cobo Joe's before a game? Goodness, some things just weren't meant for sports. lol

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Literally LOL. Only from a computer would you see grown men discussing the correlation=causation theory regarding hockey. Can you imagine this in at Cobo Joe's before a game? Goodness, some things just weren't meant for sports. lol

You can also use the Shelter Behavior Program to analyze the effectiveness of the slapshot versus wrist shot...

C'mon guys, I know we're all Mensa members and all, but lets not get too articulate with our hockey discussions. Jeesh, we've got Ken Holland reading the forum going 'wtf are they talking about!?'

[egroen 384]

Ken Holland was a goalie, how smart can he possibly be?

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Ken Holland was a goalie, how smart can he possibly be?

That explains the softness!

[Doc Holiday 0]

Huh?

How is it funny that I'm saying you are using a logical fallacy?

Faulty logic isn't something I agree with just because it is a hockey forum.

Also, if we are at the bar and you say "man our pretty play didn't work against those blue collar guys from Nashville" to argue that it was the reason Detroit lost, of course I'm still going to say "just because they play a "pretty" style doesn't mean that it was the reason they lost last night."

Edited April 10, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[uk_redwing 495]

This thread has officially failed.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

This thread has officially failed.

The lot of you are bad, and should feel bad. All I wanted to do was share this nice article about this nice man with you nice folks, and instead, I have brought ruination upon our world.

[Doc Holiday 0]

The lot of you are bad, and should feel bad. All I wanted to do was share this nice article about this nice man with you nice folks, and instead, I have brought ruination upon our world.

You should have seen it coming.

"Hey look! An interview about Downey!"

"We should dress him"

"No we shouldn't"

"This team is too soft"

"Enforcers are goons"

"You are a goon"

"Downey can't play"

"Franzen should be traded"

"The Red Wings are lazy and they suck!"

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

You should have seen it coming.

"Hey look! An interview about Downey!"

"We should dress him"

"No we shouldn't"

"This team is too soft"

"Enforcers are goons"

"You are a goon"

"Downey can't play"

"Franzen should be traded"

"The Red Wings are lazy and they suck!"

Best One

[Guest micah]

For someone who claims a lot of history watching hockey, you sure are ignorant of a lot of hockey outside of the past few years with the Wings.

Remember how unmotivated the 2003 team looked during the regular season and even in the playoffs? How was that for a skilled team? How about those Colorado teams? Did Pittsburgh in the early 90s have comparable skill? How about the Oilers and Islanders teams in the 80s? Montreal in the 70s or perhaps even Detroit in the 50s?

Not even the greatest team ever assembled is going to win all 82 games in the NHL, and this year's Wings' team is not even close to that.... yet that seems to be what you are expecting out of Lidstrom (who is leading this team to a better year than Yzerman did in '03, '99 and '98 -- yet you seem to never berate Yzerman as a horrible captain, why is that?). Of course the team looks unmotivated at times! What team does not over a season, especially after winning a Cup?

I'll go ahead and repeat this because it seems to not have made an impression at all with you.

When Yzerman retired and Shanahan left, many predicted the end of the Wings winning ways. Lidstrom followed that up immediately by dragging an injured team on his back further into the playoffs than they had been since winning in '02. Lidstrom was averaging over 30 minutes a game (next closest were Zetterberg and Markov with 22 minutes), led the entire team in scoring averaging a point per game, in what was literally the single best post-season performance by a defenseman since Chris Chelios' legendary run with Chicago in 1992. How about that for a captain?

And then he followed it up with a Stanley Cup, becoming not only the first european Conn Smythe winner ever, but now the first European captain to win a Cup ever. This year, despite a Stanley Cup hangover and the worst performing goalie in the league, he has captained this team to a comfortable 2nd place position for the playoffs. Lidstrom has done nothing but exceed expectations since becoming captain.

Here's my eloquent counterpoint:

So what?

That's it. So what? Tell me, if Nick Lidstrom is indeed a great Captain and his Captaincy is in fact part of the reason for the wings success this year, please predict how many less games the Wings would have won so far this year with a Captain like Datsyuk. How about Zetterberg? Franzen? Chelios? Sammy? Please answer. I'm really curious as to how many wins you atrribute to the motivation provioded by Captain Lidstrom.

I never say a thing negative about the Captaincy of Steve Yzerman because, even when he was young and the Red Wings were not winning, he was being singled out by players, both on the Wings (who more or less have to be positive about their Captain in front of the press) and opposing players. I don't know that I've heard any non-Wings call Lidstrom a great leader. A great Captain can be on a winning hockey team or a losing hockey team. To state that a Captain is a good Captain because his team is succesful is the exact same informal logical falacy that E.S.A.D. is being accused of.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Here's my eloquent counterpoint:

So what?

That's it. So what? Tell me, if Nick Lidstrom is indeed a great Captain and his Captaincy is in fact part of the reason for the wings success this year, please predict how many less games the Wings would have won so far this year with a Captain like Datsyuk. How about Zetterberg? Franzen? Chelios? Sammy? Please answer. I'm really curious as to how many wins you atrribute to the motivation provioded by Captain Lidstrom.

I never say a thing negative about the Captaincy of Steve Yzerman because, even when he was young and the Red Wings were not winning, he was being singled out by players, both on the Wings (who more or less have to be positive about their Captain in front of the press) and opposing players. I don't know that I've heard any non-Wings call Lidstrom a great leader. A great Captain can be on a winning hockey team or a losing hockey team. To state that a Captain is a good Captain because his team is succesful is the exact same informal logical falacy that E.S.A.D. is being accused of.

Scott Niedermayer: "It's tough to see anyone better, that's for sure. I don't know what more you can say. He has been recognized a number of times for good reason, because he's a very, very good defenseman. He's a smart player, has great skills, and is a good leader. He is everything that you need to be to be in his situation."

Mark Messier won six Stanley Cups and remains the only man to captain two different teams to the Stanley Cup - the Edmonton Oilers (1989-90) and the New York Rangers (1993-94). As Canadian as they come, Messier doesn't buy into the antiquated notion that Europeans can't lead.

"He is the prototypical leader by example," Messier said of Lidstrom. "I don't know Nick well enough to know what he does behind the scenes in the dressing room, but if you talk about a consistent leader, he's the same guy game in and game out, he's consistent in his personality so that when the guys look at him, he's always going to be the same guy.

"He had some tough shoes to fill with Yzerman leaving there and he stepped in and they haven't missed a beat."

There's a start for you.

[Guest micah]

Scott Niedermayer: "It's tough to see anyone better, that's for sure. I don't know what more you can say. He has been recognized a number of times for good reason, because he's a very, very good defenseman. He's a smart player, has great skills, and is a good leader. He is everything that you need to be to be in his situation."

Mark Messier won six Stanley Cups and remains the only man to captain two different teams to the Stanley Cup - the Edmonton Oilers (1989-90) and the New York Rangers (1993-94). As Canadian as they come, Messier doesn't buy into the antiquated notion that Europeans can't lead.

"He is the prototypical leader by example," Messier said of Lidstrom. "I don't know Nick well enough to know what he does behind the scenes in the dressing room, but if you talk about a consistent leader, he's the same guy game in and game out, he's consistent in his personality so that when the guys look at him, he's always going to be the same guy.

"He had some tough shoes to fill with Yzerman leaving there and he stepped in and they haven't missed a beat."

There's a start for you.

Two people? Note that one said he is a "very, very good defenseman", "smart", with "great skills", but is merely a "good" leader. Maybe the Wings couldn't find a great leader, none in the system? Sucks. I wonder how good we'd be with a great Captain?

How many of this year's wins do you attribute to the Captaincy of Lidstrom?

[Doc Holiday 0]

Two people? Note that one said he is a "very, very good defenseman", "smart", with "great skills", but is merely a "good" leader. Maybe the Wings couldn't find a great leader, none in the system? Sucks. I wonder how good we'd be with a great Captain?

How many of this year's wins do you attribute to the Captaincy of Lidstrom?

Two people, from a five minute google search. One of whom is Mark ******* Messier, the other Scott Niedermayer.

Honestly, if you could give me one legitimate reason on how Lidstrom needs to improve as a captain, I'm all ears. Otherwise, you have nothing to say about his leadership. He may be quiet, not hit, and not be the fire wagon you want him to be, but dammit he knows how to lead, and lead by example.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[egroen 384]

Here's my eloquent counterpoint:

So what?

That's it. So what? Tell me, if Nick Lidstrom is indeed a great Captain and his Captaincy is in fact part of the reason for the wings success this year, please predict how many less games the Wings would have won so far this year with a Captain like Datsyuk. How about Zetterberg? Franzen? Chelios? Sammy? Please answer. I'm really curious as to how many wins you atrribute to the motivation provioded by Captain Lidstrom.

I never say a thing negative about the Captaincy of Steve Yzerman because, even when he was young and the Red Wings were not winning, he was being singled out by players, both on the Wings (who more or less have to be positive about their Captain in front of the press) and opposing players. I don't know that I've heard any non-Wings call Lidstrom a great leader. A great Captain can be on a winning hockey team or a losing hockey team. To state that a Captain is a good Captain because his team is succesful is the exact same informal logical falacy that E.S.A.D. is being accused of.

Your ignorance of the hockey world once again comes shining through. Here is an ESPN NHL Players' Poll from this year asking "Who is the Best Leader in the NHL?"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?p...809playersurvey

The players voted Iginla #1 w/ 22% and Lidstrom #2 w/ 17%.

Huh... imagine that!

Check out any fans' poll on who is the best captain in the NHL -- similar results w/ Lidstrom always in the top 3.

Edited April 11, 2009 by egroen

[Guest micah]

Your ignorance of the hockey world once again comes shining through. Here is an ESPN NHL Players' Poll from this year asking "Who is the Best Leader in the NHL?"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?p...809playersurvey

The players voted Iginla #1 w/ 22% and Lidstrom #2 w/ 17%.

Huh... imagine that!

Check out any fans' poll on who is the best captain in the NHL -- similar results w/ Lidstrom always in the top 3.

Guess what - the Wings are one of the most popular teams, probably the most or 2nd most popuylar among fans. Captain Sammy would have probably done very well in fan voting too.

As far as the players' oppinions, I stand humbled and corrected. Note that I said "I don't know that I've heard any non-Wings call Lidstrom a great leader." Now I have. thanks.

Why do you guys duck all my questions?

I'll repeat it 'cause you probably missed it. Twice. Tell me, if Nick Lidstrom is indeed a great Captain and his Captaincy is in fact part of the reason for the wings success this year, please predict how many less games the Wings would have won so far this year with a Captain like Datsyuk. How about Zetterberg? Franzen? Chelios? Sammy? Please answer. I'm really curious as to how many wins you atrribute to the motivation provioded by Captain Lidstrom.

Also, I stand by my statements that I think Lidstrom would be a better leader if instead of quietly playing his best when his team looks half-asleep, he does something to light a frickin' fire under their asses. Make some noise, call out some star player who isn't earning his cheque that day - whaty could it possibly hurt? I'm not saying he should stop "leading by example", but I don't think it would hurt anything to put a few more tricks up his sleeve. Go out and throw your body around when we're down 4-0. Make some noise.

[egroen 384]

Your questions are arbitrary, subjective and utterly asinine... but I'll give it a whirl.

8, 6, 10, 8, 30