ska-T Palmtown

Did anyone else's mom insist on buying the Ssips off-brand unless Hi-C was like half off? lol

The confusing anomaly for me is that in the end stretch last year the played borderline fantastic (OK, maybe not like, right at the borderline, but they could see it if they squinted) team defense. For the most part, they are getting back to near that level. I don't disagree with your general premise, and they certainly have improved steadily since Jan 1, but I am a bit concerned that it was there at the end of last year, then went up in smoke to start the year, now they are getting back to it? That part is odd to me.

The ESL chat bot is not that sophisticated. (I assume it is ESL based on all the small grammatical errors)

Fair point. Not being even remotely adjacent to the medical community, does this give medical professionals additional ways to help combat the stigma that getting checked out for a concussion makes you less dedicated to your sport or your team? I hope so, because that BS attitude, especially below pro-level, really needs to go away. (Not trying to imply that you have that attitude). @thewookie1 - I guess I see the fear from the other side - if an athlete is afraid of being thought of as a wimp or soft for getting checked out, then that needs to stop.

I took it as more that the older terms are ways for "tough guys" or guys who think others need to "toughen up" to down play the severity of concussions. Having watched poor Patty and then Timmy C (just from Buffalo) have their careers ruined by concussions, I am all in favor of anything we can do to change the culture around these injuries. Those terms imply you can "power thru" a concussion - and no you can't.

I was at the Wings @ Hawks game last night here in Chicago - man did Patty Kane get a long ovation ... it was good to see. There was a lot of star power in town for Chelios's number retirement. Personally, I skipped Cheapshot Chellie's ceremony, it was two hours before puck drop.

Great explanation, I was most of the way there with you before and I am sitting shotgun now. To add my own observation ... the stat says Tage has scored one more goal this year than expected based on his chances - when you put that next to his 16 goals, that means the fancy AI whatever at MoneyPuck (anyone else think the "P" looks like an "F" sometimes?), they only think he should have scored ~15 ... so, yes - the "above expected", like most stats (fancy or plain), cannot really be taken by itself. JJ being +4.4 and having only 19 is not actually all that great, either. Contrast that to Matthews: +15.6, somehow actually does not tell the whole story of how great AM is at scoring this year. 🤮 <-- obligatory after having sullied myself talking goodly about the Loaves.

Isn't sorta the opposite? Maybe I am wrong, but aren't goals expected based on the quality and quantity of chances? So, Benny has had tons of good chances (I think we can all remember quite few) and has not converted (luck, bad shooter, whatevs), some for Cozzy. Tage, on the other hand, it seems like he is scoring when he should - which means he is not getting very many good chances to score. Apologies in advance if I am making up the meaning of the fancy stats in my head and derailing the whole thing.

Do the troll twins have a bedtime or do they just not like when the Sabres win?

Whenever someone uses "obtuse" I think of that scene in Shawshank when Andy says it to the warden and gets locked up in solitary, lol. "Obtuse ... is it deliberate?"

Decent point - but if they came out and said "we are not gonna do the stick salute because it is silly and when we looked into it, there is no real basis for the tradition" - that would be fine. But, stopping it as a way to "punish" the fans for expression their displeasure at an oft times subpar product is childish. To be clear - I am very meh on the whole thing; salute, don't salute ... just win, baby!

My impression of the discussion isn't so much that those that are complaining are doing so because they so desperately need to see the stick salute; but rather the Sabres' reason for stopping it is childish. I forget who mentioned it up-thread, but I also recall that it was a PR move by the league after the lockout. As for the players. who do they expect the fans to yell to get fired? The chant would be incredibly long and hard to coordinate if the fans listed out all the underperforming players on any given night, lol.

ooof - could not even get the puck into the zone on that last bit. gross.

Doesn't OP's contract kick in next year? So, while the contract was handed out too early, we certainly can't say he has not earned the $7M next season any more than we can say he has earned it.

The only problem is games like this trigger my inner reptile brain or whatever to think "this is it. this is the game that starts the run." When every other ounce of my person knows this is just not the case ...

I am far from a professional athlete, but it blows my mind how they can have THIS MUCH JUMP in their step in one game ... and you know, then play the way they do in all the others. Makes no sense.

At least it wasn't just endlessly looking for a Tage one-timer?

VO on the bench, eh?

I am too lazy to look it up, but I would make some sort of friendly wager than less than 20% of 1OA picks spend any significant time in "the A" (lol, in the A). Are there any good 1OA picks that spent any time in the AHL?

Did anyone tell them the AS break is over?

Fair point and a reasonable explanation, even if I overall disagree. I think we have reached a logical stopping point for our discussion. Although I did disagree, I am always interested in what other people think. There is a bit of hyperbole in your response and I assume you know that. The correct process, in my mind, is to accept what they are saying as "their truth" and then see if all the facts end up bearing that out. I get that there are subtleties and nuances that are just too hard to type out (not being sarcastic), but I did not think people saying "I don't believe what she is saying is the whole truth" (I took some liberties there to avoid any absolutes) is the same as saying she is telling her truth and you will see what additional facts may say. Some will say that is just semantics. Maybe it is. But, in my mind those are important distinctions. I found it odd that some people defaulted to "well, there is no way that could be the true story" to me, that indicates an implicit bias against the person making the claim. That said, the "that is not how it played out" camp could be right. It is a pretty well known fact that human memories are not infallible and our influenced by the lived experiences of the person doing the remembering. They are not lying necessarily, but remembering it differently. Again, I just think to assume that right from the start is unfair to the person making the complaint.

You may have said exaggeration earlier and I suppose there might be multiple ways to interpret this, but you said: So, yes - you said "don't believe actually happened". I stand by my statement that not believing women when they come forward to report abuse (of any kind) is a problem.

So, your actual defense is that you don't believe the woman who is writing about her experience at all? That is actually worse. No, you are absolutely right ... believing a person's story is the worst thing we can do. The combined IQ-lowering effect of these statements is staggering. I will say I am not accusing either of you of this directly, but these types of attitudes are exactly why women are afraid to come forward with claims of abuse - because they are afraid no one will believe them. Do better.

"she must have done something to deserve [X,Y,Z}" Boo, I say to you! Boo. That is hot garbage.

And yet, from the article - she was not. It is THAT simple.