Why is nobody mad at May?

[Guest micah]

Logically, a statement of this nature of prevention is true when it, in some consistent fashion (not some lame vague ass "some" which is an admission of lack of prevention if anything), actually prevents something.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you do not work in medicine or our legal system. Or hockey:)

[Guest Shoreline]

I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you do not work in medicine or our legal system. Or hockey:)

Since I'm sure you're in the majority of fighting slappies who are doctors-lawyers-hockey-players I'm sure you can provide some actual substance opposed to the BS you've currently batted a thousand on.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Shoreline

[Guest micah]

Since I'm sure you're in the majority of fighting slappies who are doctors-lawyers-hockey-players I'm sure you can provide some actual substance opposed to the BS you've currently batted a thousand on.

Nope, I'm an Industrial Engineer - and a noted international industry expert in non-contact precision measurement.

I mentioned lawyers and Doctors, as they are examples of people who understand that your line of thinking is wrong. Flame retardent suits prevents some burns to firefighters, enforcers prevent some cheap shots, bulletproof vests prevent some deaths from gunshot wounds. None work 100%, but only a fool would argue that they don't work because they are not 100% effective. Mike Babcock, Red Wings hockey expert, has noted that Brad May in the lineup reduces cheapshots and as such is an effective enforcer. I trust Mike Babcock on the matter more than I trust a foul-mouthed child from California. I hope you understand.

[Guest R2D2]

Nope, I'm an Industrial Engineer - and a noted international industry expert in non-contact precision measurement.

I mentioned lawyers and Doctors, as they are examples of people who understand that your line of thinking is wrong. Flame retardent suits prevents some burns to firefighters, enforcers prevent some cheap shots, bulletproof vests prevent some deaths from gunshot wounds. None work 100%, but only a fool would argue that they don't work because they are not 100% effective. Mike Babcock, Red Wings hockey expert, has noted that Brad May in the lineup reduces cheapshots and as such is an effective enforcer. I trust Mike Babcock on the matter more than I trust a foul-mouthed child from California. I hope you understand.

I believe this is considered the modern terminology the youngsters are using, which is p-owning Shoreline.

[Pucks 66]

Enforcing is such a vital and important art. So much so in fact, that it's disappearing from our sport.

I for one was pissed at May. I thought that type of situation was exactly why he was on the roster. He missed a chance to enforce, maybe he won't fail next time.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Nope, I'm an Industrial Engineer - and a noted international industry expert in non-contact precision measurement.

I mentioned lawyers and Doctors, as they are examples of people who understand that your line of thinking is wrong. Flame retardent suits prevents some burns to firefighters, enforcers prevent some cheap shots, bulletproof vests prevent some deaths from gunshot wounds. None work 100%, but only a fool would argue that they don't work because they are not 100% effective. Mike Babcock, Red Wings hockey expert, has noted that Brad May in the lineup reduces cheapshots and as such is an effective enforcer. I trust Mike Babcock on the matter more than I trust a foul-mouthed child from California. I hope you understand.

Correlation=/= causation.

Bulletproof vests work because of the technology involved. There are tests done to make sure they work.

Flame retarded suits work, because once again the technology allows them to work. They test them as well.

There is no such thing as an enforcer test because of the psychology involved and numerous grey areas. It is like saying we should use Freud's views of psychology when treating all patients who need psychological help because it may work sometimes.

They are not related. And your argument to the authority is kinda weak when the same authority contradicted himself a year ago. (look out I'm using debate-fu on you!)

Which is right? Last year or this year?

Edited January 20, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Guest micah]

Correlation=/= causation.

Bulletproof vests work because of the technology involved. There are tests done to make sure they work.

Flame retarded suits work, because once again the technology allows them to work. They test them as well.

There is no such thing as an enforcer test because of the psychology involved and numerous grey areas.

The argument to authority is warranted precisely because a test isn't reasonable in this case.

It is like saying we should use Freud's views of psychology when treating all patients who need psychological help because it may work sometimes.

Using Freud's views as opposed to *what*, exactly? As opposed to some other sort of treatment? as opposed to not treting the patient at all?

The enforcer question is clear - does the presence of an enforcer reduce cheapshots over the lack of an enforcer? The answer, acording to Mike Babcock, is yes. Is there a more effective option to reduce cheapshots? Not that I'm aware of.

They are not related. And your argument to the authority is kinda weak when the same authority contradicted himself a year ago. (look out I'm using debate-fu on you!)

Which is right? Last year or this year?

Great question. Last year we were a weaker team. Babs could have been bluffing, saying that our powerplay was sufficient protection against cheap stuff. This year, before signing Brad May, Babs noted that Brad May's presence in his test appearences with us reduced cheapshots over the games where he was not playing. Can you think of any plausable reasons that Babs would have stated such prior to signing May?

[Guest R2D2]

Correlation=/= causation.

Bulletproof vests work because of the technology involved. There are tests done to make sure they work.

Flame retarded suits work, because once again the technology allows them to work. They test them as well.

There is no such thing as an enforcer test because of the psychology involved and numerous grey areas. It is like saying we should use Freud's views of psychology when treating all patients who need psychological help because it may work sometimes.

They are not related. And your argument to the authority is kinda weak when the same authority contradicted himself a year ago. (look out I'm using debate-fu on you!)

Which is right? Last year or this year?

WASHINGTON (AP) The results of a new survey conducted by pollsters

suggest that, contrary to common scientific wisdom, correlation does in

fact imply causation. The highly reputable source, Gallup Polls, Inc.,

surveyed 1009 Americans during the month of October and asked them, "Do

you believe correlation implies causation?" An overwhelming 64% of

American's answered "YES", while only 38% replied "NO". Another 8% were

undecided. This result threatens to shake the foundations of both the

scientific and mainstream community.

[Guest Shoreline]

Nope, I'm an Industrial Engineer - and a noted international industry expert in non-contact precision measurement.

I mentioned lawyers and Doctors, as they are examples of people who understand that your line of thinking is wrong. Flame retardent suits prevents some burns to firefighters, enforcers prevent some cheap shots, bulletproof vests prevent some deaths from gunshot wounds. None work 100%, but only a fool would argue that they don't work because they are not 100% effective. Mike Babcock, Red Wings hockey expert, has noted that Brad May in the lineup reduces cheapshots and as such is an effective enforcer. I trust Mike Babcock on the matter more than I trust a foul-mouthed child from California. I hope you understand.

Who here has mentioned 100% in their argument? Just you, over and over again. You would think an "industrial engineer" would manage to use logic rather than rely on extremes to try and make a point. Can you engineer for me a straw to grasp at like you just did so "precisely"? I trust Mike Babcock too (have stated this in the past) and I certainly believe he knows more than the rest of us, which is why I was accepting of Brad May on the team despite thinking he's not very useful over other players, however, it's clear you only listen to Babcock because he says something you agree with and no other reason. I could even agree to disagree if you weren't so chicken s*** about it and hiding behind Babs -- lacking the ability to think for yourself and actually challenge things. Could you recite for me the Babs 3:16 scripture?

And R2D2 (that name might have been cool about, what, 30 years ago?), it's "pwning". New terminology to describe your retort is "fail" or "phail".

Edited January 21, 2010 by Shoreline

[uk_redwing 495]

Shoreline has managed to completely derail this thread

[Jesusberg 1,256]

First off, Aaron Downey was useless to this team -- that's why he never played, that's why he's no longer here. Why you would want to bring a far more useless player than May here I have no idea, but maybe that logic coincides with the ridiculous notion that beating someone's ass for being a pest and getting the team into penalty trouble is a viable solution. Secondly, yes, micah has a boner for May, and really this is proof in the pudding that enforcers don't prevent jack s***, but you suggesting that we should bring in Downey is really laughable. I can think of a good handful of grinders or skill players who would easily replace May but it is what it is, May has not been worthless, and only an idiot would think that a player jumping to fight someone being physical in a hockey game would somehow solve anything other than testing the opposing team's power play ability.

I was referring to the idea that if the Red Wings have an enforcer, I'd want him to be an effective one. And an enforcer going after a guy who's a pest seems just as viable to me as going after a guy who has just thrown a clean hit (which is happening league wide). I don't say that I agree with either, but to let Ott run his game untouched was just stupid, IMO. In terms of the personal insults, I'm guessing someone didn't love you enough as a child... since you seem to have a need to win arguments over the internet by calling people idiots. Crawl back into your hole.

[Guest micah]

Everyone please, go easy on Shoreline. He's just a kid. Yes, he says foolish things, yes, he has a big mouth, yes, he listens to Godawful progressive nerd music, yes, he's probably never touched a boob. Remember what being 13 was like? It sucked for all of us I bet. It's a phase and he'll most likely grow out of it. Don't be too hard on him. Be thankful that you're a less miserable person than he is. If not for people like him, it'd be easy for people like us to forget just how good we have it.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Nobody is mad at May because he's not playing great nor terrible. Hard to get mad at somebody in that state.

[Draperfan 104]

There is no way Ott is ever going to fight May.

We should be mad at Bertuzzi, it looked like Ott wanted to go with him, but nothing ever came of it. When is Bert going to scrap? He should have stepped up today, and gone for the Gordie Howe hat trick.

Bert doesnt scrap,thought all you people would know this by now.How many fights has he been in this season?.......0......unless the guys back is turned.

[ben_usmc 253]

I was referring to the idea that if the Red Wings have an enforcer, I'd want him to be an effective one. And an enforcer going after a guy who's a pest seems just as viable to me as going after a guy who has just thrown a clean hit (which is happening league wide). I don't say that I agree with either, but to let Ott run his game untouched was just stupid, IMO. In terms of the personal insults, I'm guessing someone didn't love you enough as a child... since you seem to have a need to win arguments over the internet by calling people idiots. Crawl back into your hole.

exactly, he was brought in for a job and he didn't do it.

[Guest micah]

exactly, he was brought in for a job and he didn't do it.

What should he have done? Please be very specific. I'm gonna forward your reply to Babs,in the interests of making this team better.

[Guest R2D2]

Everyone please, go easy on Shoreline. He's just a kid. Yes, he says foolish things, yes, he has a big mouth, yes, he listens to Godawful progressive nerd music, yes, he's probably never touched a boob. Remember what being 13 was like? It sucked for all of us I bet. It's a phase and he'll most likely grow out of it. Don't be too hard on him. Be thankful that you're a less miserable person than he is. If not for people like him, it'd be easy for people like us to forget just how good we have it.

Okay, thanks for explaining. I figured he was a kid; but my goodness, he's immature. I used to read this forums a lot before posting. Isn't he the one that posts the disgusting gif images if he's mad at someone?

Anyways, Shoreline, please try not to derail this thread as UKWing pointed out. The moral of the story is- May knows timing and if he were to have fought in the games he did, he could've easily taken an instigator against Ott, or put his team shorthanded because Ott is a master at doing a fake 'glove drop'.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

What's clear is the real draw of entertainment is 1. scoring and having superstars, and 2. winning. Those also coincide with the bottom line of a hockey game, which is winning.

How clear is number one really? Do you have credible links to back up that statement? Or are you just painting the NHL fan base with a wide brush? Maybe for the "new" NHL fans that Bettman has targeted who enjoy only scoring and the circus side show that is the shootout, but how about the fans he's alienated? I feel I am one of them. I prefer a hard fought 2-1 hockey game with plenty of great saves, checks, scoring chances, and emotion with the occasional donny brook over a 7-3 blowout with the occasional "sweet deke." But again that's just me, I'll take watching guys like Cleary, Helm, and Eaves bust there ass and play with their heart on their sleeve over watching the one dimensional Hudler's and Leino's of the world who may have a better chance of scoring with no other up side. To each is his own I guess, but I wouldn't go to the point of posting that you like the game for the same reasons as I.

Edited January 21, 2010 by ManLuv4Clears

[Guest Shoreline]

I see the poor trolls lost their mojo and tact about arguing, so we'll let them fap to themselves. Oh, and let's not discuss faps, let's stay on topic!

How clear is number one really? Do you have credible links to back up that statement? Or are you just painting the NHL fan base with a wide brush? Maybe for the "new" NHL fans that Bettman has targeted who enjoy only scoring and the circus side show that is the shootout, but how about the fans he's alienated? I feel I am one of them. I prefer a hard fought 2-1 hockey game with plenty of great saves, checks, scoring chances, and emotion with the occasional donny brook over a 7-3 blowout with the occasional "sweet deke." But again that's just me, I'll take watching guys like Cleary, Helm, and Eaves bust there ass and play with their heart on their sleeve over watching the one dimensional Hudler's and Leino's of the world who may have a better chance of scoring with no other up side. To each is his own I guess, but I wouldn't go to the point of posting that you like the game for the same reasons as I.

Nope on the first points, beyond pointing out the Devils for those seasons, their lack of scoring, completely boring trap system that focused just about entirely on defense and only on offense when it came to getting turnovers, and few real vocal and prominent superstars contributed highly to the fact that they couldn't put people in the seats. If you recall, back then they blamed the arena, until that changed and the same instance occurred.

I'm wondering where you thought this is what I preferred though, as I never even mentioned my own preference. Pittsburgh was a s***hole hockey market, even with Lemieux, in the last decade or so, til Crosby came. Same with the Caps and Ovechkin. I'll never get why people here underestimate so badly the power of marketing when it's used in every facet of public relations and it simply "works".

Trying to relate the post to Brad May, again, I'm not inherently against May joining the team, but trying to figure out what spot he's supposed to be filling and how it helps this team win. I saw and still see others who would do a FAR better job of picking up the roles that left during the offseason that were helping this team win than May, but something that idiots like micah will continue to overlook is that I have faith in Babs, even if I think he's making the wrong decision. That was before May played a game, and now in hindsight, have not seen enough to change my mind -- in fact, what has occurred this season has strengthened the notion that this team needs a more offensive oriented player who can put the puck in the net, and that's not May. More tailored to the OP, I don't get why people are mad at May and the fact that he's not deterring people from running at other players nor stopping them because he and people in his role simply don't. If it did, there would be quite a lot of consistency of having an enforcer to people not running others and everything slappies erroneously suggest he stops from occurring.

[Guest micah]

I don't get why people are mad at May and the fact that he's not deterring people from running at other players nor stopping them because he and people in his role simply don't.

"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

I just can't decide who's observations - shoreline's or Mike Babcock's - I should put more stock in. My own observations are in line with Babs, and also my investigations have revealed that Babs is coach of the Detroit Red Wings and shoreline is a troll on the internet. I think I'm gonna go with Babs...it was really close though.

[Guest R2D2]

I just can't decide who's observations - shoreline's or Mike Babcock's - I should put more stock in. My own observations are in line with Babs, and also my investigations have revealed that Babs is coach of the Detroit Red Wings and shoreline is a troll on the internet. I think I'm gonna go with Babs...it was really close though.

ManLuv4Clears summed it up perfectly and pretty much debunked the entire (non)point of Shoreline. Also, this is true- I'll take a top tier Coach's opinion over Shoreline's anyday.

Shoreline do you realize that Joe Louis Arena was more electric and alive in the 1980s with the Wings were the Dead Wings over 2008/09 when they went to the Stanley Cup Finals with LOTS OF POINTS AND GOALS as you say. That's the new breed of NHL fan- you're exactly (Shoreline) what Gary Bettman envisioned. I guess he's been successful in pushing out the old timer fans and bringing in the corporate giants to fill soccer moms into seats that cheer over the shootout.