*#$%@&’ A right Chief.

Wyshynski wouldn’t be so bad except he hates Detroit and loves the Swamp Things from Crime Capital USA.  He was happier when everyone was being bored to death and his joyless band of no-talent hacks got to mug their way to the Cup.

I call those times the Dark Ages - and at least The Greatest Captain Ever had the temerity to play the role of Charlemagne.

How’s that for heady?

Posted by HockeyJoe from NY on 08/05/08 at 11:13 AM ET

*Petrarch - not Charlemagne.  Silly me.

Posted by HockeyJoe from NY on 08/05/08 at 11:16 AM ET

Oh yes, “STFU and sit the F down.”  Almost the golden rule among FNGs when in the company of grumpy and hairy ass Chiefs.  I’ve had my share of withering looks and new a55holes being torn.  Great fun.  Thanks for the memories, Chief.

Good god!
Security word:  nuclear61

Posted by SYF from Las Vegas, NV on 08/05/08 at 11:25 AM ET

Esoteric?  Yes, but Gorilla Crouch’s Descartes-to-Maple-Laffs comparison was pretty damn funny.

Is there an organization that better fits Descartes’ assertion that merely thinking of something makes it so? Of course there isn’t. Jeff Finger being paid $3.5 is what will make him a great defenseman in Toronto, not the silly idea that his performance to date should determine his value to the Maple Leaf organization.

That’s gold.

The real problem is that it’s August, and there’s nothing much to write or talk about.

Posted by Incognetis from Delaware... Hi... I'm in... Delaware on 08/05/08 at 12:00 PM ET

Esoteric?  Yes, but Gorilla Crouch’s Descartes-to-Maple-Laffs comparison was pretty damn funny.

Hope I didn’t give the impression I was ragging on Dave.  Wasn’t my intent. My own ignorance of all things not beer, navy or red wing related is what I was poking fun at.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 08/05/08 at 12:05 PM ET

Before I clicked on the link I figured, “the Devils have GOT to be Niccolo Machiavelli” - and I was right.

Ye gods, I’m such a nerd. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 08/05/08 at 12:12 PM ET

Speaking of hockey writers, we need to draft one to write a book:
 
“The 2008-2009 Red Wings season side-by-side with Mike Babcock”

I think George Malik, Bruce MacLeod, or Kevin Allen could do it. 
Or my favorite:  Get Baroque to do it.

Posted by w2j2 on 08/05/08 at 12:19 PM ET

Off topic, but had to post this. It seems Denver won’t be outdone by Chine in trying to teach its citizens the basics of etiquette. You see, they apparently have a poo flinging problem.

Posted by Gabriel from San Diego, CA on 08/05/08 at 12:24 PM ET

Re: USA Hockey Magazine blogs article:

Nice to see that professionals don’t always proofread their articles - anyone else catch that they mis-spelled Abel to Yzerman? 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 08/05/08 at 12:24 PM ET

You see, they apparently have a poo flinging problem.

I didn’t know that Denver had so many monkeys!

I don’t now why parties have the conventions, anyway.  They aren’t choosing anyone, the nominee is already determined - all they do is make life a pain in the butt for the people who live and work in the town and just want to get around the streets without detouring for “security reasons.”

They should just have an internet virtual thing and save the money for something useful instead of stroking their own egos to the point of ...

Well, they could just do something better with all the money instead of tying up traffic for people who just need to get to work.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 08/05/08 at 12:32 PM ET

“The intent of this ordinance is to try to smear protesters and make them look as if they are somehow criminal or somehow going to engage in some kind of gross conduct,” said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the Re- create 68 Alliance.

Uh, actually, I think the intent is to prevent protesters from smearing anyone else.

BTW, wasn’t it a famous philosopher who asked, “If poo is flung at a political convention, but no one is there to smell it, did the poo actually get flung?”

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 08/05/08 at 01:22 PM ET

If there is an NHL franchise that can be said to use their a priori knowledge of what it is they are looking for in prospects and use a posteriori experience to determine when those prospects are ready to play for the big club it would probably be Detroit.

Umm…translation please?

Posted by rwingscup19 from Dallas on 08/05/08 at 02:37 PM ET

Umm…translation please?

Very roughly (because I don’t have time to look stuff up right now):

a priori = “before the fact”, generally used to apply to knowledge based on theory instead of observation

a posteriori = “after the fact”, which is usually used to denote knowledge based on experience

Meaning that Detroit knows, in the abstract, what they are looking for in a prospect (skill, willingness to work) instead of just going with whatever catches the organization’s eye that year - one year drafting for size, the next year drafting for quickness, the next year developing an infatuation with rangy defensemen - they have a consistent idea of what kind of prospect they think should fit into their system, and evaluate players based on that theoretical template, regardless of what is in “style” at the time.

The “a posteriori” part means that Detroit knows, from their prior experience, that players generally aren’t ready to make an impact right away in the NHL (especially at the range where they normally draft), and require some development time to learn how to play hockey at the NHL level, generally progressing through several steps before they become fully mature professional hockey players.  They know that development can’t be rushed, and each player matures at his own pace - but it really isn’t an instantaneous process for anybody.  That’s why they leave players in the minors until they are ready to play at the NHL level - they don’t think the NHL is a developmental league, and if a player still has a lot of learning to do, it is best if he does it at a lower level where he can get more experience in a wider variety of situations instead of throwing him right into the deep end of the pool and letting him flounder around on his own.

At least that’s what I’m guessing he means (from a quick reading) - if I’m completely off base, I hope he’ll correct me. 

Does that help a little bit, I hope?

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 08/05/08 at 04:27 PM ET

Thanks B, I don’t know what I would do without you.

Posted by rwingscup19 from Dallas on 08/05/08 at 04:31 PM ET

Umm…translation please?

Umm, lemme see…loosely…

Nice try, Gary. Ass. Were still around and looky here…another cup.

and what Baroque said, of course!

Posted by Rumbear from 19th Hole...latin section. on 08/05/08 at 05:38 PM ET

God. I’m starting a philosophy phd this september in the RIM Balsillie land of waterloo. The philosophy of hockey ought to be my fricken thesis. (a little cut and paste eh? jk) A fun little article, but a bit fast and loose (nietzsche is anything but a nihilist, Descartes does not hold a causal relationship between thought and existence, etc…). Most importantly, Tampa Bay ought to be Epicurus -> Hedonist indulgence by ownership, yet still metaphysical VOID between the pipes. 

Don’t worry Chief, 90% of philosophy is beer related in my experience. Goooood times.

Posted by underthechestnuttree from LaSalle, Ontario, Canada on 08/05/08 at 06:39 PM ET

Yeah Baroque nailed it.  The Red Wings want skilled players who will fit their system [described as puck possession] so the system is what guides everything they do.

But when they draft players they have to wait and see if they develop to the point where they can play in that system.

Kant is much more in-depth in terms of describing his view on how knowledge is gained but it kinda fit for a hockey blog trying to come up with content in the dog days of summer.

Posted by Dave on 08/05/08 at 06:43 PM ET

As for the definitions:

a priori JUST means that: a) a proposition (sentences, which are the only objects that hold truth/falsity values) is either true or justified INDEPENDENT of experience, which need not be ‘a theory’ (since theories can include data dependent on experience). Classical examples of a priori propositions include mathematical statements. 2+2=4 is true and justified independent of states of affairs in the world - one might say DESPITE the world.

However, Baroque, ‘what is in style at the time’ can be considered when dealing with a priori questions of drafting. What makes a proposition a priori true/justified is not how the content of the question was derived, but rather the content of the answer. So Detroit can determine ‘in form’ or ‘in ideal’ what player they want, a priori, based on the players they presently have (ie: external world) or trends in the league (external world). Sort of like chess: the question of what move to make is shaped by the present arrangement of game tokens (empirical) but the answer, when one knows the logical constraints of the board and each token, is derived a priori (arguably).

On the other hand, questions like ‘how tall is that door?’ require an answer that makes explicit use of sense data. Thus, such an answer is true / justified BECAUSE OF (contrasted with despite) the states of affairs in the world.

Personally, I am in favour of collapsing the a priori / a posteriori distinction. Particularly, I think the strongest examples fall under scrutiny. 2+2=4, I argue, ultimately DOES depend on the states of affairs in the world. Our concept of plurality (and thus enumeration, and operations on those numbers) depends on the world being empirically percieved by us to be an atomistic plurality (that is to say, several distinct objects rather than continuous singularity). Similar to collapsing the distinction between synthetic and analytical statements.

blahhhh How long before October???

Posted by underthechestnuttree from LaSalle, Ontario, Canada on 08/05/08 at 06:54 PM ET

I told you I didn’t have time to look anything up - I was going from the memories I could dredge out of my heat-addled brain!

I’m starting a philosophy phd this september in the RIM Balsillie land of waterloo.

Searched for the field with the fewest practical applications to the so-called “real world,” eh? 

(Just joking.  I think that’s pretty cool.  Good luck with that!)

2+2=4, I argue, ultimately DOES depend on the states of affairs in the world.

2 + 2 = 5, for unusually large values of 2.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 08/05/08 at 07:18 PM ET

@ Dave:

Glad I caught your meaning.  I’m always wary of putting words in the mouth of another, because I don’t want to misinterpret and put my own spin on it. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 08/05/08 at 07:20 PM ET

Searched for the field with the fewest practical applications to the so-called “real world,” eh? 

Haha cheers, and the fewer the better. Leave it to me to find a computer science and engineering oriented school and do philosophy there. But mind, I’ll end up selling blackberries I’m sure, if only for an in once Ballsillie gets a franchise to Hamilton

PS: 2+2 and also equal 5 if you’re Cliff Fletcher doing the math for Finger’s contract.

Posted by underthechestnuttree from LaSalle, Ontario, Canada on 08/05/08 at 07:35 PM ET

Philosophical leanings aside (couldn’t we have gone for comparing NHL teams you don’t like to the great works of literature that you spent your entire college career deliberately avoiding?  I earned a damn English degree without breaking open the Iliad, Odyssey, Moby Dick, and a few dozen other “standards,” booyah!)...

People want to know why bloggers hate Eklund, and here’s the reason why, per Dugdale’s article:

“My membership believes that right now there is not enough history to bring aboard bloggers,” Allen said. “They don’t really have any accountability. They can post anything and it doesn’t really matter, while those of us in the Association have accountability and have standards.”

Practicing a free form of journalism where anything goes, amateur bloggers are not required to uphold media ethics because they are not accountable to a higher authority, such as an editor or publisher.

While professional journalists are required to offer the same immediate form of media, they must still report factual and accurate news, and because professional blogs must uphold these standards, they hold a level of reliability over postings by amateur bloggers.

Some bloggers tend to post anything and everything, regardless of truth or accuracy, which can create problems because blogs that have been established as reliable must fight harder to be recognized among the established media.

I have no idea why Eklund is on their list at all.  He makes stuff up, perpetuates rumours, abides those who do (Strickland, ahem), and is the biggest reason that the NHL believes that bloggers have no accountability.  If his website is so damn popular, they argue, why won’t the rest of the “blogosphere” act like the National Enquirer?

I work for a very very small newspaper conglomerate’s website, and I can tell you for a fact that if I make s*** up, Snapshots is somebody else’s blog, fast.  I have an editor, and I have a sports department to deal with.  And why the hell would I go about making stuff up? 

And that’s totally ignoring the fact that, should one fabricate crap for no reason, one’s fellow bloggers and one’s readers let you know about the error of your ways, fast, and you lose some serious credibility in the process. 

Does it matter?  Nope.  I’m a blogger, and that’s, “Enough said” as far as the NHL’s concerned.

It’s not an easy road to navigate, and those who attempt to draft a list of “bloggers’ rights” tend to be accused (sometimes rightly) of elitism and attempts to generate castes of bloggers (as opposed to “classes,” many of the “bloggers’ bill of rights” documents tend to view the various strata of blogdom as iron-clad), so it is difficult to determine who’s who and what’s what…

But this part is really important:

“Personally, I believe that as long as a guy has proven himself to be a guy who dedicates his profession to [blogging], he deserves to be taken seriously,” Allen said.

As is this…

“I think [blogging] sort of changed how we approached coverage of events,” said Kevin Allen, president of the Professional Writer’s Association and USA Today’s hockey writer. “Instead of just reporting what happened in the news we are interpreting it quickly, and we have been forced to do it by the amateur bloggers.”

Even once you’ve established yourself as a blogger who, by sheer persistence and attempts to behave “professionally,” the honest truth is that bloggers are cheap, numerous, and push many beat writers out of their comfort zones, so we’re still seen as pains in the butt. 

It’s sheer persistence and being accountable for what you say, regardless of whether somebody is looking, that separates you from the pack, and that might start to happen over two or three years, so it’s no get-in-quick scheme by any means, either…but being a pain in the butt has something to be said for it, and I think Bill will attest to that

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 08/05/08 at 11:47 PM ET

You don’t fall into any of those negative slants against bloggers, George, and neither does Bruce MacLeod.  I look forward to the writings of the both of you as they are useful and that’s really important to me as a reader.

If the few bloggers such as the esteemed group running KK, continue with the professionalism already displayed and recognized, it’s only a matter of time before you guys get the recognition you deserve.  Right now, I kind of think of KK as a cult following and that’s a good thing.  We’re onto something awesome here.

Posted by SYF from Las Vegas, NV on 08/06/08 at 12:44 AM ET

If the few bloggers such as the esteemed group running KK, continue with the professionalism already displayed and recognized

I’m assuming that refers to everyone except Chief…and I mean that in the nicest way possible

Posted by rwingscup19 from Dallas on 08/06/08 at 09:17 AM ET

In my view, the great thing about blogging is the absolute freedom it grants the writer. I mean, giving publishing ability to the author allows for idyllic Freedom of the Press.

Thus, the author becomes answerable only to his readership. Those who desire truth and reliability will find the writers who adhere to those standards. Those who desire sensationalism and rumor will find their authors as well. The point is the reader decides his ethical standards by which to consume media, not a publisher or broadcasting standards body. 

Often, the mainstream media (which includes many websites) is a practice in authorized censorship. The internet can provide a great bastion for a free press. It is more important that a readership is educated in their media consumption than ethical standards created to censor for the reader what is published.

Posted by underthechestnuttree from LaSalle, Ontario, Canada on 08/06/08 at 10:01 AM ET

Caveat: What I mean by an ‘educated readership’ is the ability to identify the values and standards within a published work. The danger lies in if one desires truth and reliability and THINKS they are getting it when they are not, or if one desires sensationalism and lies and thinks they are getting it when they are not.

Posted by underthechestnuttree from LaSalle, Ontario, Canada on 08/06/08 at 10:04 AM ET

UTCNT—your take on the situation is pretty similar to the reason that I feel that bloggers will never “replace” journalists.  Most bloggers already understand that the objective types who file their daily notebooks and game recaps fill a much-needed niche, and what they do gives bloggers the ability to write about the topics that the mainstream media misses, to weigh in with subjective takes as to how “their” team is doing, and to write longer, more reflective stories that are designed to provoke a discussion with their readers.

That, and sometimes readers’ suggestions and questions end up inspiring a story or three, which is very, very different than the way a mainstream reporter usually works.

I’m never going to write up an objective recap or shrug my shoulders if somebody gets hurt, but I might be more prone to spending a few minutes asking a player what he was thinking when he set up the game-winning goal, or I might talk to a player whose performance went under the MSM radar, and because I have less restrictions on the length of my entries, I’m more likely to let him have his say than wrap a sentence or two into my take on the situation.

To me, that’s the biggest advantage of blogging—I don’t have to worry about ensuring that there’s space in the print edition for that half-page AT&T;ad and to accommodate the gigantic column that the headliner was slated to write as of three days ago, regardless of whether I’ve covered the best game in the history of hockey.  I can devote several paragraphs to just letting a player talk and generate his own context for his answers, so you get the full story as he saw it. 

I think that we need somebody at least moderately objective covering the game and filing those regular, structured reports, but it doesn’t hurt to have somebody filling in contextual blanks, either.  I don’t see why bloggers can’t compliment journalistic coverage.

Posted by George Malik from South Lyon, MI on 08/07/08 at 12:41 AM ET