The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the more outlandish claim.

Dopple and Spatso claim: That Karlsson effectively shut down Ovechkin, stopping him at the blueline several times, taking the puck away from him several times and forcing all or most of his shots to the perimeter.

Schenn-sational claim: Karlsson may have had an impact in warding off Ovechkin, but Ovechkin's lack of success can be more accurately attributed to his cold play of late than to the specific play of Karlsson.

Prock claim: That Ovechkin did not particularly shut down Ovechkin, that Ovechkin still had many shots on net, and did not give the puck away.

Now, my view is this: Dopple and Spatso's claim is the most spectacular, so more backing than from just eye witness is required, especially when it appears that the stats seem to represent Prock's version of the events. In corollary, Prock and Schenn-sational could bolster their arguments by watching the game, and gaining access to the sole piece of evidence that Dopple and Spatso are going off of. Though it should be noted Schenn-sational has a pretty benign argument compared to the others on the sides of the "this happened-this didn't happen" argument.

In my humble opinion, eye witness testimony is at least as fallible as professionally collected, uninterpreted data, especially when the witness has a strong emotional investment in what they are seeing.
- Morris

Yeah, uh, Ottawa did not draft Filatov. Ottawa gave up a measley 3rd rounder for him and it is still too early to write him off completely (although admittedly it does not look good).

In Ottawa's position, I make the deal they every time, regardless. It was a risk with high upside. There is still high upside.
- GoneFullRetard

Te only reason Ottawa is mentioned is to show how bad he's been, that he can't make that roster, while Schenn can crack a pretty good d-corps on the Leafs, no problem.

No the judgment is very clear. His Honor Morris has clearly ruled that you are morally obligated to watch the Washington/Ottawa game from last Saturday.
- spatso

Is that really what you took from that post?

Is that really what you took from that post?
- Schenn-Sational!

Sens goggles.

Is that really what you took from that post?
- Schenn-Sational!

Lighten up, it was said in jest. Nothing was intended other than recognizing the very clever effort put forward by Morris.

Sens goggles.
- prock

Double dose of lighten up pills required. There are times where you need to take yourself a little less seriously. It is just hockey talk.

Double dose of lighten up pills required. There are times where you need to take yourself a little less seriously. It is just hockey talk.
- spatso

Aww Muffin. Your feelings hurt?

Lighten up, it was said in jest. Nothing was intended other than recognizing the very clever effort put forward by Morris.
- spatso

I had to ask to make sure

- GoneFullRetard

Note that the piece of evidence is their eye-witness account of the game, not the (and here comes a hipster four dollar word) ontological facts of what occurred in the game. The mere fact that NHL stat-keepers say one thing and two fans watching the game say another is a good indication that games can be interpreted in many different ways.

But I misspoke if I implied that watching the game didn't include listening to the in-game commentary, which dopplegagner and spatso also referenced.

Note that the piece of evidence is their eye-witness account of the game, not the (and here comes a hipster four dollar word) ontological facts of what occurred in the game. The mere fact that NHL stat-keepers say one thing and two fans watching the game say another is a good indication that games can be interpreted in many different ways.

But I misspoke if I implied that watching the game didn't include listening to the in-game commentary, which dopplegagner and spatso also referenced.
- Morris

Boooya, I win again.

Note that the piece of evidence is their eye-witness account of the game, not the (and here comes a hipster four dollar word) ontological facts of what occurred in the game. The mere fact that NHL stat-keepers say one thing and two fans watching the game say another is a good indication that games can be interpreted in many different ways.

But I misspoke if I implied that watching the game didn't include listening to the in-game commentary, which dopplegagner and spatso also referenced.
- Morris

I don't listen to the post game commentary, or even the between periods commentary.

I PVR the Senator games, and skip the pre game BS and fast forward through the between Periods BS and once the game is done, I stop the recording and erase it.

I never once "referenced" the "in game commentary" and only commented on what I saw with my own two eyes.

I did notice that during the game, they showed slow motion replays of Karlsson every time he stripped OV of the puck (when on the attack) and turned the play into a counter attack going the other way.

If you had watched the game you would know what I'm talking about................but you don't because you didn't.

I don't listen to the post game commentary, or even the between periods commentary.

I PVR the Senator games, and skip the pre game BS and fast forward through the between Periods BS and once the game is done, I stop the recording and erase it.

I never once "referenced" the "in game commentary" and only commented on what I saw with my own two eyes.

I did notice that during the game, they showed slow motion replays of Karlsson every time he stripped OV of the puck (when on the attack) and turned the play into a counter attack going the other way.

If you had watched the game you would know what I'm talking about................but you don't because you didn't.
- Doppleganger

You need to inform the NHL that they are not watching the games properly, and their stats are wrong.


http://www.nhl.com/ice/feedback.htm

When you have corrected the NHL feel free to get back to us.

I don't listen to the post game commentary, or even the between periods commentary.

I PVR the Senator games, and skip the pre game BS and fast forward through the between Periods BS and once the game is done, I stop the recording and erase it.

I never once "referenced" the "in game commentary" and only commented on what I saw with my own two eyes.

I did notice that during the game, they showed slow motion replays of Karlsson every time he stripped OV of the puck (when on the attack) and turned the play into a counter attack going the other way.

If you had watched the game you would know what I'm talking about................but you don't because you didn't.
- Doppleganger

My mistake...Spatso referenced the in-game commentary, you didn't. Thank you for clarifying.

By the way, I'm familiar with the concept of slow-motion replays, even though I didn't watch this particular hockey game. A little less condescension would go a long way.

Do you not find it peculiar that professional stat-keeping has provided a completely different account of the game from you? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there is no scenario in which you are right and the stats aren't gravely wrong. Wouldn't you agree?

My mistake...Spatso referenced the in-game commentary, you didn't. Thank you for clarifying.

By the way, I'm familiar with the concept of slow-motion replays, even though I didn't watch this particular hockey game. A little less condescension would go a long way.

Do you not find it peculiar that professional stat-keeping has provided a completely different account of the game from you? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there is no scenario in which you are right and the stats aren't gravely wrong. Wouldn't you agree?
- Morris

You can waste all the time you want trying to tell me that what I saw, with my own two eyes, during the Caps vs Sens game, did not happen and could not have because the "stats" don't show it.

I am telling you what I saw during the game, and when they replayed highlights between whistles and face offs.

All you have is the stats, and you cannot convince that I did not see.

A focused eye witness to any event is much more likely to be accurate than reading what a stats keeper recorded, Wouldn't you agree?

You can waste all the time you want trying to tell me that what I saw, with my own two eyes, during the Caps vs Sens game, did not happen and could not have because the "stats" don't show it.

I am telling you what I saw during the game, and when they replayed highlights between whistles and face offs.

All you have is the stats, and you cannot convince that I did not see.

A focused eye witness to any event is much more likely to be accurate than reading what a stats keeper recorded, Wouldn't you agree?
- Doppleganger

Kadri played 6 games on the first line. Then the rest on the third line.

You can't convince me of anything else.

You can waste all the time you want trying to tell me that what I saw, with my own two eyes, during the Caps vs Sens game, did not happen and could not have because the "stats" don't show it.

I am telling you what I saw during the game, and when they replayed highlights between whistles and face offs.

All you have is the stats, and you cannot convince that I did not see.

A focused eye witness to any event is much more likely to be accurate than reading what a stats keeper recorded, Wouldn't you agree?
- Doppleganger

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or tell you what you saw, or tell you what's right.

It may be the case that statistics aren't as good as an eye witness account if they are arguing essentially the same thing. For example, I would rather have a person who had stood next to my kitchen window at 4:23 on Wednesday and observed whether it was open or not tell me whether it was in fact open than pages and pages of statistics about when kitchen windows are often open on wednesdays between the hours of 4 and 5.

But if the statistical evidence is directly opposite and completely incompatible with the eye witness account, then I must conclude that there is something fishy going on. I'm inclined not to say as a rule that the stats are completely incorrect when they don't jive with an eye witness account. Is that what you're inclined to say?

It's not that you're wrong, it's just that I am amazed that you don't find anything odd with the fact that the stats say something completely different from what you've recounted, and further you aren't prepared to say that the official NHL stats are incorrect. That is the part of your argument I find to be untenable. If you were to say, "based on my account of the game, I must assert that the NHL stats are completely wrong about this game" then that's A-OK, and I respect that.

I don't understand how you are not behooved with every fibre of your body to say so on your own volition. Something you saw with you own two eyes is seemingly being disputed using specious statistical evidence. Doesn't that offend you? don't you want to speak out about how terrible and incorrect that source is, instead of telling me that I'm trying to convince you of something I'm not?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or tell you what you saw, or tell you what's right.

It may be the case that statistics aren't as good as an eye witness account if they are arguing essentially the same thing. For example, I would rather have a person who had stood next to my kitchen window at 4:23 on Wednesday and observed whether it was open or not tell me whether it was in fact open than pages and pages of statistics about when kitchen windows are often open on wednesdays between the hours of 4 and 5.

But if the statistical evidence is directly opposite and completely incompatible with the eye witness account, then I must conclude that there is something fishy going on. I'm inclined not to say as a rule that the stats are completely incorrect when they don't jive with an eye witness account. Is that what you're inclined to say?

It's not that you're wrong, it's just that I am amazed that you don't find anything odd with the fact that the stats say something completely different from what you've recounted, and further you aren't prepared to say that the official NHL stats are incorrect. That is the part of your argument I find to be untenable. If you were to say, "based on my account of the game, I must assert that the NHL stats are completely wrong about this game" then that's A-OK, and I respect that.

I don't understand how you are not behooved with every fibre of your body to say so on your own volition. Something you saw with you own two eyes is seemingly being disputed using specious statistical evidence. Doesn't that offend you? don't you want to speak out about how terrible and incorrect that source is, instead of telling me that I'm trying to convince you of something I'm not?
- Morris

Actually, I had not thought much about the statistical profile. i have heard that most of the statistical keepers are local people and they often reflect a conditioned bias in the way they watch a game. For example "hits" is a notorious category where player X may record double the hits for a home game as he does for a road game. It has a lot to do with the way the record keeper perceives the contact.

In the Washington game it was stunningly clear that Karlsson repeatedly stripped Ovechkin of the puck. It was not a case of his knocking it into the corner. He took possession of the puck and started skating in the opposite direction. Perhaps the local record keeper did not see Ovechkin turn the puck over.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or tell you what you saw, or tell you what's right.

It may be the case that statistics aren't as good as an eye witness account if they are arguing essentially the same thing. For example, I would rather have a person who had stood next to my kitchen window at 4:23 on Wednesday and observed whether it was open or not tell me whether it was in fact open than pages and pages of statistics about when kitchen windows are often open on wednesdays between the hours of 4 and 5.

But if the statistical evidence is directly opposite and completely incompatible with the eye witness account, then I must conclude that there is something fishy going on. I'm inclined not to say as a rule that the stats are completely incorrect when they don't jive with an eye witness account. Is that what you're inclined to say?




It's not that you're wrong, it's just that I am amazed that you don't find anything odd with the fact that the stats say something completely different from what you've recounted, and further you aren't prepared to say that the official NHL stats are incorrect. That is the part of your argument I find to be untenable. If you were to say, "based on my account of the game, I must assert that the NHL stats are completely wrong about this game" then that's A-OK, and I respect that.

I don't understand how you are not behooved with every fibre of your body to say so on your own volition. Something you saw with you own two eyes is seemingly being disputed using specious statistical evidence. Doesn't that offend you? don't you want to speak out about how terrible and incorrect that source is, instead of telling me that I'm trying to convince you of something I'm not?
- Morris

Actually, I had not thought much about the statistical profile. i have heard that most of the statistical keepers are local people and they often reflect a conditioned bias in the way they watch a game. For example "hits" is a notorious category where player X may record double the hits for a home game as he does for a road game. It has a lot to do with the way the record keeper perceives the contact.

In the Washington game it was stunningly clear that Karlsson repeatedly stripped Ovechkin of the puck. It was not a case of his knocking it into the corner. He took possession of the puck and started skating in the opposite direction. Perhaps the local record keeper did not see Ovechkin turn the puck over.
- spatso

because what you described is not a turnover.

Kadri played 6 games on the first line. Then the rest on the third line.

You can't convince me of anything else.
- prock

dopple watched all 17 games with his own eyes and knows what happened.

I am not sure why you feel we are "knocking the young guys". Rather, I'm looking at claims that Sens fans are making, and logically looking at whether this may be their bias showing.

So far, we have seen Sens fans claim that Karlsson wouldn't let Ovechkin past the blueline. He had 7 shots on net, a season high. His three shots on net with Karlsson on the ice alone would have been a season high. Next, they claimed those were from the outside. 6 of 7 were not. Next they claimed Karlsson repeatedly stripped Ovechkin of the puck. He was credited with 2 takeaways, one when Ovechkin was on the bench.

We're just logically looking at what Sens fans are saying, and noticing that the NHL seems to see things very differently.
- prock

karlsson > pronger since ovie scored tonight.

Edit: 2 now. twice as good.

I find it comical that this thread, originally about Luke Schenn and the Leafs, has now become cannon fodder for the topic of Karlson and the Sens.

Someone, somewhere, went off on a tangent, and took everyone with them.

dopple watched all 17 games with his own eyes and knows what happened.
- sens rock

never claimed that, refereed to columnist who did. Nice try at trolling though.

I find it comical that this thread, originally about Luke Schenn and the Leafs, has now become cannon fodder for the topic of Karlson and the Sens.

Someone, somewhere, went off on a tangent, and took everyone with them.
- stuartchan

I think it started around Wednesday @ 1:58 PM ET.

never claimed that, refereed to columnist who did. Nice try at trolling though.
- Doppleganger

No, you've claimed that it's true.

No it was right, go to the Stats and add up his TOI over the 17 games, and it works out to an average of 16 minutes and 50 seconds per game. ( all times posted in another thread posting, and won't do it again just for you).

If a top six player is not averaging (about) 17 minutes a game, then who is?

Sorry that you're proven wrong.
- Doppleganger

At that point, it becomes your claim as well.

Nice try though.