Of Nonis, Babcock & who the heck is going to be running this asylum on draft day

[Kin]

Okay, so now the Raptors are doing well and the Leafs still aren't.  Still have the same owners.  What's the differentiation?

There's evidence that the Raptors, at least for the past few seasons, are competently run by owners that are largely hands-off. That said, right now the Raptors are basically where the Leafs were during the Quinn era. Nobody views them as a serious contender and there are deep questions about what they're going to be able to do to take that next step. So there's not as much of a difference as you think. 

I feel a great many things in sports come down to luck.  It was great management that recognized that Kobe was a special player.  It was somewhat lucky that the team they traded with didn't see the same thing in him....

Which is great and everything but even in the NBA, where one player will comparatively have a greater impact than in other sports, what made the Lakers great was never just "they had Kobe". The teams that won the Lakers their titles won because they convinced Shaq to come play there. Which, then, is a big part why the Lakers were able to get Kobe because they had a near all-star level Centre in Vlade Divac they could offer Charlotte for their pick. It all stems from good Management. Is there a degree of randomness, sure. But competent management overcomes "luck".

All competent management did was increase the chances that the team was going to win.  No one could have predicted that the Boston Red Sox were going to win the pennant in 2004 definitely not after they went down 3-0.  Everything just fell in to place for them.  Look at the Cubs when Steve Bartman touched the ball.  Whole thing fell apart because of a fan interaction.  Yes that fan interaction had an actual effect on the game, but how is that any different if a fan says something particular to a player before a game that has an effect on his play?

Well, I don't agree that the Cubs fell apart because of Steve Bartman but even so one is tangible, a physical action that has direct consequences, and one is a supposition of a concept? It's the same way, for instance, that an airplane is different from jealousy.

And "all competent management did is increases the chances of winning"? That's...kind of the point of sports, right? That's like saying "All Wayne Gretzky did is increase the chances of his team winning".

Not every competently managed team wins a championship.  There are always other factors that go in to it, and one of them is, for lack of a better term, luck.  We don't know why things happen the way they happen.  We are dealing with decisions that are made in the blink of an eye and often the players themselves can't even explain why they do the things they do sometimes.  If you aren't feeling good about yourself I believe it  makes it harder to perform.

Not every competently managed team wins a championship, no, but I think you'd be hardpressed to find an incompetently managed one that did win. So, yeah, it's still central to what separates winning and losing.   

Larry Murphy was booed every time he touched the puck by the home fans in Toronto.  I have no proof what that did to him, you are correct.  I have never interviewed him, or psychoanalyzed him.  I am going on assumption that it could not have been a pleasant experience for him and therefore affected his game.

Except your hypothesis fails on the actual evidence we have. Murphy played well. Even in Toronto. So did McCabe post-contract. You're saying the booing might result in bad play when it's pretty evidence that the booing actually did result in good play.

Good young players develop in Toronto at comparable rates to other places. Great young players develop in other media markets where there's lots of pressure. The idea that the relative pressure of a media market affects the ability of young players to develop doesn't really have much going for it by way of facts and if it were true, you'd think that would exist. I mean, you say you have no proof what the booing did to Murphy but...shouldn't you? Shouldn't you be able to point to what actually happened with his numbers or something that showed an impact? You said McCabe signed his contract and fell off but McCabe signed his contract and had a 15 goal, 57 point season. He was very good before he got hurt the next year.

I mean, look at your Kwame Brown example. Kwame Brown may have had the potential to be a great player(but draft busts happen all the time in every sport even without Michael Jordan being a lunatic) but if it got sapped out of him it wasn't by fans it was by Jordan who was, again, incompetent as an owner. Brown is an example of what can happen to player on a team with terrible management, not media pressure.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Mirtle used the Shanaplan name in todays paper, send him an email Busta!
As far as nicknames go, I will disist if it making you and others unhappy.  Just trying to have fun as always.

Well, in Mirtle's article, "Shanaplan" is used in quotation marks in the title, to cheekily refer to a person's plan, not a person.  I'd add that newspaper articles are commonly written by editors and not the writers, although who knows in this case.  Regardless, that's the single use of that word in the article.

Of course you can write what you want, and if nicknames like that amuse you, then go ahead and use them.  But be aware they likely don't amuse anybody else.  Like a bad pun or a mediocre knock-knock joke, a dumb nickname is tolerable once and is increasingly irritating the more it's repeated.  And you've repeated it a lot.  I'm not saying this to make you feel bad or anything, just to suggest that if you're going to take the time to express your thoughts and opinions here, I think it's worth your while not to express yourself in a way that clearly gets under people's skin for no real benefit.

 

[Highlander]

Ok HS I'll take it on the chin and cry in my scotch. I will try to amuse in other ways.
Hopefully with the changes to come and the youngsters that will be playing any nicknames will be totally endearing to all, as they will be playing with heart as Shanahan will not have it any other way.

 

[rdowdall]

Well, I don't agree that the Cubs fell apart because of Steve Bartman but even so one is tangible, a physical action that has direct consequences, and one is a supposition of a concept? It's the same way, for instance, that an airplane is different from jealousy.

Well no it's more like an airplane losing a wing due to wind shear is different than an airplane losing a wing to a person failing to recognize that some of the screws are loose.

And "all competent management did is increases the chances of winning"? That's...kind of the point of sports, right? That's like saying "All Wayne Gretzky did is increase the chances of his team winning".

Yes but that's because you keep bringing this off topic.  I am not arguing that competent management isn't needed.  It was said that young players don't need to be protected from losing.  And while I agree that the losing in of itself probably won't be detrimental to a players development, the losing environment in Toronto could be.  That's not to say that a competent management team won't recognize that and do what's best for that young player.  That's why players get sent back to junior.  Because they aren't ready.  The "aren't ready" thing can be mentally, or physically.  So if the Leafs have some young players that "aren't ready" it's best they send them back and fill the spots with scrubs that they sign in the offseason, and not flip over the whole roster that the Leafs have.  If they keep the young player up because they feel they can handle it, it's probably in the teams best interest to set the proper expectation for player.  If the Leafs draft McDavid, and he comes in and gets 30 points in his first season, how do you think this city is going to react?  Not well.  It's on the team to protect McDavid from that scenario.  But the scenario is still caused by the fans and the media's reaction. 

Not every competently managed team wins a championship, no, but I think you'd be hardpressed to find an incompetently managed one that did win. So, yeah, it's still central to what separates winning and losing.   

And the competent management teams recognize when their players are ready to handle the situations that they are going to be put in to and don't place them in to those situations until then.  Those situations are comprised by a bunch factors, two of which are media and fan pressure, and media and fan pressure is probably higher in Toronto than in most cities.  I'm not arguing with you about competent versus incompetent management.  You keep distracting me by waving your left hand. 

Not every Except your hypothesis fails on the actual evidence we have. Murphy played well. Even in Toronto. So did McCabe post-contract. You're saying the booing might result in bad play when it's pretty evidence that the booing actually did result in good play.

Good young players develop in Toronto at comparable rates to other places. Great young players develop in other media markets where there's lots of pressure. The idea that the relative pressure of a media market affects the ability of young players to develop doesn't really have much going for it by way of facts and if it were true, you'd think that would exist. I mean, you say you have no proof what the booing did to Murphy but...shouldn't you? Shouldn't you be able to point to what actually happened with his numbers or something that showed an impact? You said McCabe signed his contract and fell off but McCabe signed his contract and had a 15 goal, 57 point season. He was very good before he got hurt the next year.

I mean, look at your Kwame Brown example. Kwame Brown may have had the potential to be a great player(but draft busts happen all the time in every sport even without Michael Jordan being a lunatic) but if it got sapped out of him it wasn't by fans it was by Jordan who was, again, incompetent as an owner. Brown is an example of what can happen to player on a team with terrible management, not media pressure.

And I said that.  I said that it was Jordan and not the fans.  I was merely using it as an example of how a player lost his confidence due to another person.  We can't accurately measure this because there is no control group.  We can't go back and take Kwame Brown and have Jordan not yell at him, so you don't know if he would have been the same player.  We can't go back and see what would have happened in the Larry Murphy case.  His points per game started to declined in his second season with the Leafs, and he never really recovered after that.

I don't buy that fan and media pressure isn't a real thing.  I am not saying that it can totally prevent a team from ever winning, but I am saying that it could be a detriment if not handled properly.  If it wasn't then why would Horton go to Columbus so that he wasn't under the microscope in Boston?  Why would Spezza say that he didn't want to go to another Canadian team because he didn't want to be in another fishbowl.  I don't think there is a bigger fishbowl than Toronto.  Again, I am not saying that a player can't overcome it either.  Sundin did,  Gilmour did, Clark did.  Some players it will be water off a ducks back.  Others will need to learn how to deal with it, and it's important not to rush those players.  So if you have a choice between rushing that player in to a losing situation that will possibly deter their development or filling their spot with a scrub, or not trading Lupul, I'd go with the scrub or not trade Lupul.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Mirtle used the Shanaplan name in todays paper, send him an email Busta!
As far as nicknames go, I will disist if it making you and others unhappy.  Just trying to have fun as always.

Don't sweat it bud, it's amusing if used sparingly, just restrict yourself to one or so cheesy nickname a day.

 

[Kin]

If they keep the young player up because they feel they can handle it, it's probably in the teams best interest to set the proper expectation for player.  If the Leafs draft McDavid, and he comes in and gets 30 points in his first season, how do you think this city is going to react?  Not well.  It's on the team to protect McDavid from that scenario.  But the scenario is still caused by the fans and the media's reaction.

Not really. Considering the hype that's surrounding McDavid already there's really not much that could be done to temper expectations regardless of where he goes. 

But as you say, there's no double-blind here. You're saying that if McDavid scores 30 points in his first year and the city reacts poorly then it would impact his future development. I'm saying that's unfounded at best, nonsense at worst. 

And I said that.  I said that it was Jordan and not the fans.  I was merely using it as an example of how a player lost his confidence do to another person.  We can't accurately measure this because there is no double blind.  We can't go back and take Kwame Brown and have Jordan not yell at him, so you don't know if he would have been the same player.  We can't go back and see what would have happened in the Larry Murphy case.  His points per game started to declined in his second season with the Leafs, and he never really recovered after that.

Larry Murphy was 35 in his second year here and his points per game had declined the past three seasons as well. The league entered a period where goal scoring dropped everywhere. There's more than enough there to not look at it and go "Media pressure!".

I don't buy that fan and media pressure isn't a real thing.  I am not saying that it can totally prevent a team from ever winning, but I am saying that it could be a detriment if not handled properly.  If it wasn't then why would Horton go to Columbus so that he wasn't under the microscope in Boston?  Why would Spezza say that he didn't want to go to another Canadian team because he didn't want to be in another fishbowl.  I don't think there is a bigger fishbowl than Toronto.  Again, I am not saying that a player can't overcome it either.  Sundin did,  Gilmour did, Clark did.  Some players it will be waters off a ducks back.  Others will need to learn how to deal with it, and it's important not to rush those players.  So if you have a choice between rushing that player in to a losing situation that will possibly deter their development or filling their spot with a scrub, or not trading Lupul, I'd go with the scrub or not trade Lupul.

Just like you're saying you're not debating whether or not a team needs competent management, I'm not debating whether the concept of "pressure" exists. I agree it does. What I don't agree with is the idea that the fan and media pressure you're talking about has a significant impact on the development of players outside of the nods to it made by incompetent management.

That's what I'm saying. That so long as the team has competent management then the pressure is immaterial to the fundamental question at hand of developing players and that the examples you're giving of instances where poor play was caused by media pressure I'm saying are instances where media pressure was caused by idiots in management and didn't really have an effect on anyone's game. I mean, look at your latest examples. Nathan Horton may very well have preferred the low intensity environment of Florida to Boston, but did he play worse in Boston? Jason Spezza didn't like the "fishbowl" of a Canadian market? So, what, would he have scored 150 points a year if he'd come up in Anaheim as opposed to the measly 80 or so he did in Ottawa? When he left the Canadian fishbowl for Dallas did his scoring go up? Again, evidence pressure exists. Not evidence that it negatively affects anyone's game.

People are quick to look for the easiest possible reasons as to why something happened. If a high draft pick comes into the league at 18 and fails, it's because he was "rushed" ignoring all of the times a high draft pick came into the league at a leisurely pace and failed just as much. If a young player in a high pressure environment struggles, it's the media, despite the fact that players struggle in Phoenix and Anaheim too.

Most professional athletes are deeply, intensely motivated. Just by virtue of making it to the pro ranks they've had to have been the elite of the elite and work harder than just about anyone else to get there. They all know that there's massive rewards for success and a sharp and sudden fall from grace for failure. Even getting to one good RFA contract could set them and their family up for life.

So you'll excuse me if I question how much their success and failure is determined by mean columnists and Joe from Scarborough who thinks Kaberle should be tried on the wing.

 

[rdowdall]

Not really. Considering the hype that's surrounding McDavid already there's really not much that could be done to temper expectations regardless of where he goes. 

But as you say, there's no double-blind here. You're saying that if McDavid scores 30 points in his first year and the city reacts poorly then it would impact his future development. I'm saying that's unfounded at best, nonsense at worst. 

Well we could throw out Joe Thorton to support your theory and then Alexandre Daigle to support mine.  The question then becomes if you consider the Bruins and Senators at the time of their drafting to be competent management teams or not.

Or we could switch to another sport, like the NFL, and I could throw out Ryan Leaf and you could throw out Troy Aikman.  Again it comes down to whether you deem the Chargers and Cowboys competent at those times.

Failing to live up to expectations is a real thing.  The expectations are put on the players by the fans and the media.  If McDavid fails to live up to expectations and never rebounds, we will never know for sure why it is that he didn't rebound, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that it's because he couldn't handle being a saviour.  Competent teams sometimes make mistakes too.

Larry Murphy was 35 in his second year here and his points per game had declined the past three seasons as well. The league entered a period where goal scoring dropped everywhere. There's more than enough there to not look at it and go "Media pressure!".

Your right.  Larry Murphy is a bad example.  I just couldn't handle the pressure of having an online discussion with you and I made a mistake.  There are so many eyes watching.

Just like you're saying you're not debating whether or not a team needs competent management, I'm not debating whether the concept of "pressure" exists. I agree it does. What I don't agree with is the idea that the fan and media pressure you're talking about has a significant impact on the development of players outside of the nods to it made by incompetent management.

Well I don't think competent management comes out and airs their mistakes and says "Yep we rushed that kid, he couldn't handle the pressure of the big leagues.  Our bad."  Usually a competent team is forgiven their mistakes as an oops and people move on.  Yes, sometimes when a player doesn't make it, it's because they just weren't good enough and people overvalued a skill that the prospect showed, say like Chad Kilger.  He grew 5 inches between 16 and 17 and started to dominate his age group.  When he made it to the NHL, he wasn't able to dominate in the big leagues.  Others don't make it because of some other issue, not related to skill, say like Bryan Forgarty.  As Sundin once said "He was more talented on the ice drunk than any of us were sober."  He didn't make it because he had addiction issues.  Why did he have the addiction issues? Nobody can really answer that other than him.   

That's what I'm saying. That so long as the team has competent management then the pressure is immaterial to the fundamental question at hand of developing players and that the examples you're giving of instances where poor play was caused by media pressure I'm saying are instances where media pressure was caused by idiots in management and didn't really have an effect on anyone's game.

People are quick to look for the easiest possible reasons as to why something happened. If a high draft pick comes into the league at 18 and fails, it's because he was "rushed" ignoring all of the times a high draft pick came into the league at a leisurely pace and failed just as much. If a young player in a high pressure environment struggles, it's the media, despite the fact that players struggle in Phoenix and Anaheim too.

Most professional athletes are deeply, intensely motivated. Just by virtue of making it to the pro ranks they've had to have been the elite of the elite and work harder than just about anyone else to get there. They all know that there's massive rewards for success and a sharp and sudden fall from grace for failure. Even getting to one good RFA contract could set them and their family up for life.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that all players are autonomous robots either.  People can and do crack under pressure, whether you are an athlete or not.  While I agree that everyone likes to paint all prospect problems with the same brush, and that really there is a myriad of reasons why prospects can and do fail, I do think that one of those reasons could be "can't handle the pressure from fans and media as an 18 or 19 year old."  And just because they can't handle it at 18 or 19 years of age, doesn't mean that they won't be able to handle it at 20 or 21. 

This doesn't mean that all players will inherently fail when subjected to that pressure, but if you are a competent management group, and you know your team isn't going to be that good so it is going to be a nasty losing environment, and you are not sure what type of player you have (someone outside the McDavid realm), why subject them to that pressure if you don't have to?  Why not give them some years to gain some experience so that they are better suited to handle it in case it may be a problem, or where it probably won't be as big a problem because the team around them is better and they are going to be winning?   

So you'll excuse me if I question how much their success and failure is determined by mean columnists and Joe from Scarborough who thinks Kaberle should be tried on the wing.

Nope, I will not excuse you sir.  Not one bit.

 

[Kin]

Well we could throw out Joe Thorton to support your theory and then Alexandre Daigle to support mine.  The question then becomes if you consider the Bruins and Senators at the time of their drafting to be competent management teams or not.

Well, except neither are really examples of either of our points. Joe Thornton isn't someone who succeeded despite being brought into a "nasty losing environment" because the Bruins made the playoffs his first year there and Alexandre Daigle isn't someone who failed because of being subjected to a crushing media presence because, well, Ottawa in the early nineties wasn't exactly the White House briefing room.

Why did he have the addiction issues? Nobody can really answer that other than him.

Nobody could answer why he did but I think it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't because the Nordiques were bad. Otherwise there'd have been a lot more drunks in the NHL.   

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean that all players are autonomous robots either.  People can and do crack under pressure, whether you are an athlete or not.  While I agree that everyone likes to paint all prospect problems with the same brush, and that really there is a myriad of reasons why prospects can and do fail, I do think that one of those reasons could be "can't handle the pressure from fans and media as an 18 or 19 year old."  And just because they can't handle it at 18 or 19 years of age, doesn't mean that they won't be able to handle it at 20 or 21. 

This doesn't mean that all players will inherently fail when subjected to that pressure, but if you are a competent management group, and you know your team isn't going to be that good so it is going to be a nasty losing environment, and you are not sure what type of player you have (someone outside the McDavid realm), why subject them to that pressure if you don't have to?  Why not give them some years to gain some experience so that they are better suited to handle it in case it may be a problem, or where it probably won't be as big a problem because the team around them is better and they are going to be winning?

Just for starters I really don't think we know what the environment will be like if the Leafs are rebuilding. I don't buy that Leafs fans as a whole are impatient or that the media will scream about a rebuilding team being bad.

But to the general point I think this is where we really do have to start talking about actual evidence and probabilities. Is it theoretically possible that a player could come into the Leafs at 18 and be so overwhelmed by the media dorks asking him questions after practice that he falls apart as a human being? Sure. However it's also theoretically possible for that player to be so discouraged by his team's decision not to keep him that he never recovers from what he sees as a demotion. So how can a team possibly make a decision in that environment knowing that either choice could lead to calamity? Pressure's a real thing but so is the human ego.

I added it late to my last post but I referenced your examples of Nathan Horton and Jason Spezza and point out that whatever they might have said about pressure they're still two cases where it certainly doesn't look like the various pressures of media markets impacted their play in the way you say it would. Horton played just as well in Boston as he did in Florida(some would say better) and Spezza developed into a great player in Ottawa and went to Dallas and his point production didn't change from his last year in the fishbowl. Both guys may not like the pressure, sure, but there's no evidence that it made them worse at hockey.

I lived in Australia and didn't like how hot it was and that would be a factor in me declining a job in Texas or somewhere. That would be evidence of, you know, heat existing but for me to start saying things like "People who live in hot cities end up being dumber than other people", well, I think I'd have the burden of proof on me. 

 

[rdowdall]

Well, except neither are really examples of either of our points. Joe Thornton isn't someone who succeeded despite being brought into a "nasty losing environment" because the Bruins made the playoffs his first year there and Alexandre Daigle isn't someone who failed because of being subjected to a crushing media presence because, well, Ottawa in the early nineties wasn't exactly the White House briefing room.

Daigle was everywhere.  There were posters of him with the caption "The Ice man cometh" and "Our Mario Lemiuex".  The media grabbed a hold of him and he was going to be the player that took them to the promised land.  It ended with Bruce Garioch calling him a "waste of skin" on the radio.  Jason York later said on the radio that the environment sucked the joy of playing hockey out of him.  I used Joe Thorton as an example of a player that failed to live up to his expectations in his first couple of years, and that could have wilted under fan and media pressure.  Your right that the losing environment wasn't there.   

Nobody could answer why he did but I think it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't because the Nordiques were bad. Otherwise there'd have been a lot more drunks in the NHL.   

A quote from his wikipedia entry:

"He needed the beer, but it was his demise. The profession, the lifestyle -- he couldn't handle it. He wanted the hockey, but it was so hard the way he was. The inside of Bryan and the world around him didn't seem to meet." - Virginia Fogarty (Bryan's mother)

And your generalizing.

Just for starters I really don't think we know what the environment will be like if the Leafs are rebuilding. I don't buy that Leafs fans as a whole are impatient or that the media will scream about a rebuilding team being bad.

I will agree with that.  I don't know what the environment will be like either, it may be fine.  It may not.  We'll have to wait and see what happens.
 

But to the general point I think this is where we really do have to start talking about actual evidence and probabilities. Is it theoretically possible that a player could come into the Leafs at 18 and be so overwhelmed by the media dorks asking him questions after practice that he falls apart as a human being? Sure. However it's also theoretically possible for that player to be so discouraged by his team's decision not to keep him that he never recovers from what he sees as a demotion. So how can a team possibly make a decision in that environment knowing that either choice could lead to calamity? Pressure's a real thing but so is the human ego.

I added it late to my last post but I referenced your examples of Nathan Horton and Jason Spezza and point out that whatever they might have said about pressure they're still two cases where it certainly doesn't look like the various pressures of media markets impacted their play in the way you say it would. Horton played just as well in Boston as he did in Florida(some would say better) and Spezza developed into a great player in Ottawa and went to Dallas and his point production didn't change from his last year in the fishbowl. Both guys may not like the pressure, sure, but there's no evidence that it made them worse at hockey.

I watched a lot of Jason Spezza last year.  He didn't look like he cared.  I assume, based on his comments, that he looked like he didn't care because he was sick of being blamed for all of the teams ills.  I will admit that I did not watch him this year, so I don't know if it looked like he cared or not. 

We never really got to see what Nathan Horton would have been like in Columbus.  Maybe he would have put more points on the board.  Maybe he would have been a more complete player.  Maybe he would have performed better than he had in Boston.

If I had proof that one thing or another definitely destroyed hockey prospects, I'd be working for an NHL team.  NHL teams don't know from prospect to prospect what is going to work or not work.  They implement a process, hope the process works most of the time and go from there.

I lived in Australia and didn't like how hot it was and that would be a factor in me declining a job in Texas or somewhere. That would be evidence of, you know, heat existing but for me to start saying things like "People who live in hot cities end up being dumber than other people", well, I think I'd have the burden of proof on me.

No it wouldn't be like that at all.  If you went to work in Australia and found out that you are susceptible to heat exhaustion and that it forced you to miss several days of work and then made the statement, "Hey if you are susceptible to heat exhaustion, you won't be able to work as much in a hot environment."

It's the same as saying to Ricky Williams, "Hey we know you are good at football, but there are probably going to be scenario's that trigger your anxiety disorder when you play in the NFL, you may want to prepare for that"

I didn't comment previously, but I think your whole thing of "mean guy in the media or Joe from somewhere calling in" is a little bit of an understatement to what we are talking about here.  It's a guy calling you mother for your medical records.  It's a person telling you you suck while you are eating dinner or walking done the street.  It's a person posting a tweet that your teammate is sleeping with your wife.  It's someone questioning your sexuality, or saying that they "hope you die in a fire", all because you don't play hockey as well as they think you should.  None of this is stuff we have to put up with in our day to day lives.

It's the difference between fame and fortune or just fortune.  I would pick fortune without fame everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.  I don't want my life to be in the public eye, and I don't think that every athlete in the world is comfortable with that aspect of there lives either.

I worked in an environment where every mistake you made was public, and the boss would fly off the handle on a whim and he would tear you down publicly.  It was a soul sucking experience.  I nearly switched careers because of it.  It was my first job and I assumed that all places in my field were going to be the same.  I got a job to work at a different company, run by some old coworkers from that soul sucking place.  They wanted to make sure that their environment was nothing like that.  I enjoy my job more now and that is reflected in my performance.  I still know people that work in the other place and they are fine with that environment, it doesn't bother them.  Maybe they wouldn't be as successful in the environment that I work in, I have no way of knowing for sure unless they come here.  To each their own.

 

[Highlander]

Patrick, how did you know my nickname was Bud?

 

[Kin]

No it wouldn't be like that at all.  If you went to work in Australia and found out that you are susceptible to heat exhaustion and that it forced you to miss several days of work and then made the statement, "Hey if you are susceptible to heat exhaustion, you won't be able to work as much in a hot environment."

No, it's not. You yourself have said that you can't say whether what you're saying is concrete or not. That pressure can never be definitively attributed to anything or anyone as an explanation for what results they put up. Heat exhaustion is a real thing. A medical condition caused that can be measured and attributed. An anxiety condition will be diagnosed by a medical professional. You're selling snake-oil here, you can't pretend it's science when it suits you.

That's why I said the burden of proof is on you. You're the one saying that the increased pressure might affect players worse in Toronto than elsewhere and when you give examples of players who didn't like pressure you present people who played as well in pressure packed environments as they did elsewhere. But who knows, right? Nathan Horton may have been largely the same player in Boston as he was in Florida, but who's to say he wouldn't have scored 200 points a year in Columbus. Can't say for sure, right?

There's no evidence that teams in high pressure markets are worse at developing players. Just none. Pop psychology shouldn't run a hockey team.

 

[rdowdall]

No it wouldn't be like that at all.  If you went to work in Australia and found out that you are susceptible to heat exhaustion and that it forced you to miss several days of work and then made the statement, "Hey if you are susceptible to heat exhaustion, you won't be able to work as much in a hot environment."

No, it's not. You yourself have said that you can't say whether what you're saying is concrete or not. That pressure can never be definitively attributed to anything or anyone as an explanation for what results they put up. Heat exhaustion is a real thing. A medical condition caused that can be measured and attributed. An anxiety condition will be diagnosed by a medical professional. You're selling snake-oil here, you can't pretend it's science when it suits you.

That's why I said the burden of proof is on you. You're the one saying that the increased pressure might affect players worse in Toronto than elsewhere and when you give examples of players who didn't like pressure you present people who played as well in pressure packed environments as they did elsewhere. But who knows, right? Nathan Horton may have been largely the same player in Boston as he was in Florida, but who's to say he wouldn't have scored 200 points a year in Columbus. Can't say for sure, right?

There's no evidence that teams in high pressure markets are worse at developing players. Just none. Pop psychology shouldn't run a hockey team.

But again we aren't arguing whether or not it makes them worse at developing a team, we are arguing if the media and fan pressure has an impact in their development and whether or not you need to take that in to consideration.

 

[Kin]

But again we aren't arguing whether or not it makes them worse at developing a team, we are arguing if the media and fan pressure has an impact in their development and whether or not you need to take that in to consideration.

Right, and what I'm saying is that if how players develop was inherently unknowable, what caused them to regress or advance not something that could be said for certain, and if pressure was a real thing that tangibly affected certain players in the way you're talking about then it would reveal itself by presenting an advantage to teams in low-pressure situations where that negative influence didn't exist. If negative media wasn't an adverse factor in how players, and therefore teams develop, then what are we talking about here?

You've admitted we don't know what the environment will be, you've admitted we don't know how to tell what players will respond to it and in what ways, you've admitted there's no way to tell if media pressure did have an impact on a player post facto....so what in the world could a group of smart hockey minds take away from this?

 

[rdowdall]

But again we aren't arguing whether or not it makes them worse at developing a team, we are arguing if the media and fan pressure has an impact in their development and whether or not you need to take that in to consideration.

Right, and what I'm saying is that if how players develop was inherently unknowable, what caused them to regress or advance not something that could be said for certain, and if pressure was a real thing that tangibly affected certain players in the way you're talking about then it would reveal itself by presenting an advantage to teams in low-pressure situations where that negative influence didn't exist. If negative media wasn't an adverse factor in how players, and therefore teams develop, then what are we talking about here?

You've admitted we don't know what the environment will be, you've admitted we don't know how to tell what players will respond to it and in what ways, you've admitted there's no way to tell if media pressure did have an impact on a player post facto....so what in the world could a group of smart hockey minds take away from this?

Talk to the kid in his interview, ask him a few questions and go "Hmm...I think he's going to need a couple of years before he can handle the media in Toronto.  His maturity level isn't ready for it.  Or maybe we don't draft that guy and we go with this guy over here that seemed to answer the questions better."

When Lupul got traded to Toronto, the people on the Team 1200 asked Pierre Maguire how he was going to do.  His answer was something along these lines "He's a sensitive guy.  I think this caused problems for him in Edmonton.  The last time I talked to him, he seemed to be a little more sure of him self so I hope he'll do well.  If he still lets things get to him, he may have problems there."

Seems Lupul did okay.  But he just as easily could have struggled here.  If he had struggled,  what would have been the reason for that struggles in that case?  What would the media and the team have thrown out.  Injuries? media fan pressure?  Lack of chemistry with his linemates?

Why is fan and media pressure any different than say "the party guys" scenario?  Oh we don't want the party guys on our team.  The group in Philadelphia (Jeff Carter, Mike Richards era)  has a bunch of party guys in it we need to break them up.  This group in Toronto (Matt Stajan, Alex Ponikorovski era) has some party guys in it, lets trade them. 

 

[Kin]

When Lupul got traded to Toronto, the people on the Team 1200 asked Pierre Maguire how he was going to do.  His answer was something along these lines "He's a sensitive guy.  I think this caused problems for him in Edmonton.  The last time I talked to him, he seemed to be a little more sure of him self so I hope he'll do well.  If he still lets things get to him, he may have problems there."

Seems Lupul did okay.  But he just as easily could have struggled here.  If he had struggled,  what would have been the reason for that struggles in that case?  What would the media and the team have thrown out.  Injuries? media fan pressure?  Lack of chemistry with his linemates?

I...are you asking me for an explanation for something that didn't happen? Why would Lupul have struggled which he didn't? Seems to me this is another case of someone believing in your hypothesis and then when it comes time for any actual evidence of it in action you say "Well, it didn't happen, but it could have!".

If Lupul had struggled then I guess what you're saying about media pressure affecting certain personality types would have more validity but he didn't so it doesn't? I genuinely don't know how to answer other than that.

Why is fan and media pressure any different than say "the party guys" scenario?  Oh we don't want the party guys on our team.  The group in Philadelphia (Jeff Carter, Mike Richards era)  has a bunch of party guys in it we need to break them up.  This group in Toronto (Matt Stajan, Alex Ponikorovski era) has some party guys in it, lets trade them.

I don't think it's different. I think they're equally bogus. Ask Peter Chiarelli how he feels right now about trading Tyler Seguin for his "maturity" issues.

 

[Highlander]

Peter C is now available to be a GM for, dare I say us?

 

[rdowdall]

When Lupul got traded to Toronto, the people on the Team 1200 asked Pierre Maguire how he was going to do.  His answer was something along these lines "He's a sensitive guy.  I think this caused problems for him in Edmonton.  The last time I talked to him, he seemed to be a little more sure of him self so I hope he'll do well.  If he still lets things get to him, he may have problems there."

Seems Lupul did okay.  But he just as easily could have struggled here.  If he had struggled,  what would have been the reason for that struggles in that case?  What would the media and the team have thrown out.  Injuries? media fan pressure?  Lack of chemistry with his linemates?

I...are you asking me for an explanation for something that didn't happen? Why would Lupul have struggled which he didn't? Seems to me this is another case of someone believing in your hypothesis and then when it comes time for any actual evidence of it in action you say "Well, it didn't happen, but it could have!".

If Lupul had struggled then I guess what you're saying about media pressure affecting certain personality types would have more validity but he didn't so it doesn't? I genuinely don't know how to answer other than that.

Why is fan and media pressure any different than say "the party guys" scenario?  Oh we don't want the party guys on our team.  The group in Philadelphia (Jeff Carter, Mike Richards era)  has a bunch of party guys in it we need to break them up.  This group in Toronto (Matt Stajan, Alex Ponikorovski era) has some party guys in it, lets trade them.

I don't think it's different. I think they're equally bogus. Ask Peter Chiarelli how he feels right now about trading Tyler Seguin for his "maturity" issues.

I think I understand the crux of our disagreement.  I had said something along the lines of not exposing young players to a losing environment.    You said something along the lines of you think the environment in Toronto is overplayed as an excuse as to why players don't develop.

I am not saying that Toronto is any worse than any other city.  I am saying that a losing environment and media/fan pressure is a real thing that needs to be taken in to consideration in every city and every sport because at the end of the day athlete's are human beings.

So, if you know that your team is going to be losing, and you think that there may be an increase in negative press/fan reaction because of that losing, in any market, then it may be better to err on the side of caution and send your prospect back to junior or to the AHL, because why take the chance if you don't have to. 

 

[Kin]

I am not saying that Toronto is any worse than any other city.  I am saying that a losing environment and media/fan pressure is a real thing that needs to be taken in to consideration in every city and every sport because at the end of the day athlete's are human beings.

Right, and what I'm saying is that there's a difference between something being "a real thing" and something that will have a definitive impact on any players. Is friendship a real thing? Yes. Is a sports team that's best friends off the ice going to do better than one that just looks at it as a job and their fellow players the way you or I might look at the people we work with? Search me. Saying I don't think media/fan pressure plays much of a role in how players develop, or that there isn't evidence for it, isn't saying it's not a real thing.

And I disagree that "a losing environment" is a real thing. I think a team can struggle and have a generally positive environment so long as there are good leaders/coaches around. Can there be a bad environment around a bad team? Sure, but I don't think it's a given and if the people running the team are smart, there won't be.

So, if you know that your team is going to be losing, and you think that there may be an increase in negative press/fan reaction because of that losing, in any market, then it may be better to err on the side of caution and send your prospect back to junior or to the AHL, because why take the chance if you don't have to.

So by that token should the Leafs trade Rielly? I mean, he's got a lot of value right now. Wouldn't it be erring on the side of caution to not risk what all of the fan/media pressure might do to him and sell high on him?

The problem with the supposition is that by describing sending a player down as "erring on the side of caution" you're inherently describing it as the option with less downside. What I'm saying is that in order for that to be true, you'd have to have evidence behind which you don't. Like I said, sending him down might be a blow to his ego he doesn't recover from. So it's not the safer choice, just a different one. Keeping him up is a gamble on his psyche, so is sending him down. You're taking a chance either way. Because there's no way to know what players will respond to which situation, it's not something you can make decisions based on.

 

[rdowdall]

Right, and what I'm saying is that there's a difference between something being "a real thing" and something that will have a definitive impact on any players. Is friendship a real thing? Yes. Is a sports team that's best friends off the ice going to do better than one that just looks at it as a job and their fellow players the way you or I might look at the people we work with? Search me. Saying I don't think media/fan pressure plays much of a role in how players develop, or that there isn't evidence for it, isn't saying it's not a real thing.

And I disagree that "a losing environment" is a real thing. I think a team can struggle and have a generally positive environment so long as there are good leaders/coaches around. Can there be a bad environment around a bad team? Sure, but I don't think it's a given and if the people running the team are smart, there won't be.

Such as? Give me some teams that were losing a lot that had a strong leadership core.  Make sure you quantify leadership though.  I mean, who had more leadership, Messier or Sundin?  Is Toews more of a leader than Crosby?  I mean leadership is a real thing right that can have an effect on a core?  If a losing environment isn't a real thing, then why do you need something to counteract it? 

So by that token should the Leafs trade Rielly? I mean, he's got a lot of value right now. Wouldn't it be erring on the side of caution to not risk what all of the fan/media pressure might do to him and sell high on him?

Were you not the one stating in another thread that if the Leafs sent down Nylander next year, even if he was far and away the best offensive player in camp, that it might be a good idea to trade Reilly because of the message that it would be sending to the team, and it might affect their motivational level?

The problem with the supposition is that by describing sending a player down as "erring on the side of caution" you're inherently describing it as the option with less downside. What I'm saying is that in order for that to be true, you'd have to have evidence behind which you don't. Like I said, sending him down might be a blow to his ego he doesn't recover from. So it's not the safer choice, just a different one. Keeping him up is a gamble on his psyche, so is sending him down. You're taking a chance either way. Because there's no way to know what players will respond to which situation, it's not something you can make decisions based on.

Depends on if you believe that a blow to an ego because they are being sent down, which is essentially like being cut, which is something that has probably happened to them before is more likely to have a resounding effect then being introduced to an environment that is unlike something that they have seen before.  If they have handled disappointment in the past and still made it to this level, then the unknown is how they will handle the environment.  The known trumps the unknown.

 

[Kin]

Such as? Give me some teams that were losing a lot that had a strong leadership core.  Make sure you quantify leadership though.  I mean, who had more leadership, Messier or Sundin?  Is Toews more of a leader than Crosby?  I mean leadership is a real thing right that can have an effect on a core?  If a losing environment isn't a real thing, then why do you need something to counteract it?

Well, you'll notice I don't say "losing" environment. I say bad environment. Bad environments can develop on a hockey team the same way they can anywhere else. And I still don't even think a "bad environment" is really one that necessarily impacts the way players develop. I buy that a bad environment leads to players not wanting to stay there and that should be guarded against but losing on its own? Nah.

And despite what I think you're implying I haven't said that if something isn't quantifiable it isn't real. In fact I directly said the opposite. After the fact, or even during, I think you can look at the atmosphere that surrounds a club and atttribute that to coaching and the veterans on the club. That's not quantifiable, sure, but I think it's something smart managers can recognize and, if not plan for, at least attempt to correct.

Were you not the one stating in another thread that if the Leafs sent down Nylander next year, even if he was far and away the best offensive player in camp, that it might be a good idea to trade Reilly because of the message that it would be sending to the team, and it might affect their motivational level?

No, not really. What I said was that if the Leafs sent Nylander down despite being the best player on the club because they want to "tank" then they should consider the message it sends to the rest of the team. A team intentionally losing games by keeping their best options for winning off the club is one of those things that I can easily buy creating a bad atmosphere.

But I'm not advocating they do that. I'm advocating the opposite. I don't buy the idea that a rebuilding team will necessarily have a bad atmosphere so I think that if Nylander is capable of playing in the NHL next year, based on an evaluation of his hockey skill, he should make the team. I think that would be encouraging for a guy like Rielly and I think that could lead to the start of an environment within the locker room that would build as the team improved.

Depends on if you believe that a blow to an ego because they are being sent down, which is essentially like being cut, which is something that has probably happened to them before is more likely to have a resounding effect then being introduced to an environment that is unlike something that they have seen before.  If they have handled disappointment in the past and still made it to this level, then the unknown is how they will handle the environment.  The known trumps the unknown.

Well, leaving aside that I would genuinely question how many players who ever make the NHL have ever really been cut in their lives aside from a WJC(and even then, I'd guess not many) I don't agree that getting cut from a NHL team is the same as getting cut from a pee wee team. I mean I could just as easily say that all young players have also experienced pressure in their lives so that's not exactly new either.