Game 7 - Montreal @ Boston - Protect the Civic

Status
Not open for further replies.

veritas

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2009
2,978
Somerville, MA
catomatic said:
No, the overall point was that it didn't qualify as domination. I was responding to the argument that their effort level in game 6 belied my characterization that they were missing a key percentage of desire and focus. Someone wanted to SSS my assertion in true reductio ad absurdum fashion. But yeah, those defensive lapses—whoever it was that committed them—spoke to poor concentration. Why is this even arguable? Why do you think they played the way they did in games 6 and 7? Was it the same level of effort and intensity as earlier in the series or were they demoralized by dominating territorially and having nothing to show for it? Will and desire get obstructed by such things. Again, is this arguable? The determination to frame emotion as irrelevant to this game of hockey is really extraordinary. The worship of the infallible professional will is frankly a little strange. 
 
The Blackhawks got dominated by an inferior Minnesota team in game 6 and still advanced to the next round. Why do you think they played that way? Seriously, explain it. They looked like shit all game. Should Blackhawks fans be going crazy on message boards questioning their desire?
 
The Bruins outplayed the Canadiens in game 7 and lost. It happens. If anything you could argue they were pressing too much, trying too hard. A lot of their mistakes and missed chances, IMO, were due to hurrying and/or playing too tightly. I saw no lack of effort. Blaming a couple defensive lapses by a couple of players on the team's collective "lack of desire" is just asinine. You think Kevan Miller didn't want to win? To speak in your terms, he's a "scrappy underdog" who has "fought his way into the NHL", and "gets by on heart more than skill". His gaffe in game 6 and a few poor passes in game 7 had nothing to do with a lack of desire.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,177
Park Slope, Brooklyn
veritas said:
 
The Blackhawks got dominated by an inferior Minnesota team in game 6 and still advanced to the next round. Why do you think they played that way? Seriously, explain it. They looked like shit all game. Should Blackhawks fans be going crazy on message boards questioning their desire?
 
The Bruins outplayed the Canadiens in game 7 and lost. It happens. If anything you could argue they were pressing too much, trying too hard. A lot of their mistakes and missed chances, IMO, were due to hurrying and/or playing too tightly. I saw no lack of effort. Blaming a couple defensive lapses by a couple of players on the team's collective "lack of desire" is just asinine. You think Kevan Miller didn't want to win? To speak in your terms, he's a "scrappy underdog" who has "fought his way into the NHL", and "gets by on heart more than skill". His gaffe in game 6 and a few poor passes in game 7 had nothing to do with a lack of desire.
Again, you've completely distorted what I wrote—completely. The reductio ad absurdum approach is not even worthy of game thread level commentary. Go back and read what I wrote before you say stuff like that. Did I say Kevan Miller didn't want to win? Did I say that a couple of defensive miscues are the sole and most damning evidence of a "lack of desire?" Lack of desire is a phrase you have used, not me. Was I going crazy on this message board questioning their desire or were others going crazy questioning my assessment of Games 6 and 7? Who was going crazy? Show me please which parts of my post sound like I'm going crazy> No, I'm serious, pull out the offending text, cite it, back it up or toddle off into the kitchen and fix yourself a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up. 
 
Edit: Typo
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,442
catomatic said:
Again, you've completely distorted what I wrotecompletely. The reductio ad absurdum approach is not even worthy of game thread level commentary. Go back and read what I wrote before you say stuff like that. Did I say Kevan Miller didn't want to win? Did I say that a couple of defensive miscues are the sole and most damning evidence of a "lack of desire?" Lack of desire is a phrase you have used, not me. Was I going crazy on this message board questioning their desire or were others going crazy questioning my assessment of Games 6 and 7? Who was going crazy? Show me please which parts of my post sound like I'm going crazy> No, I'm serious, pull out the offending text, cite it, back it up or toddle off into the kitchen and fix yourself a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up. 
 
Edit: Typo
Did you say this? "But yeah, those defensive lapses whoever it was that committed them spoke to poor concentration."

Or was that you making fun of someone making fun of one of your posts? I honestly can't tell anymore.

And that post above is downright crazy.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,177
Park Slope, Brooklyn
veritas said:
Because those are all "going crazy"? Sure thing, hoss. I'm guessing you guys all think that emotion played no part in Montreal's performance in Game 1 either. Anyone care to step up and explain that by sheer Xs and Os? I would really like to hear that one. And then you can walk into the locker room and tell them that their effort "as it is with every professional athlete every time out is 100%" or some other bullshit blather that was supposed to sit my ass back dow the other night. Okay guys, get behind it. If the Bruins had no emotional letdown in Games 6 and 7 then Montreal did not suffer one either—how do you want to slice it? And who ever tried to puncture my argument by saying the Bruins dominated in Game 7 against Montreal is flat out high. That's not the game I nor any of the guys I skated with tonight saw at all. So—Desire/Will/Emotion have nothing to do with these games is what I've been bludgeoned with by the cool kids. Who's gonna step up and make the asinine case that this is so and can be substantiated to the point that a detractor warrants an internet stoning. Come tell me how you can have it both ways. 
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,442
catomatic said:
And who ever tried to puncture my argument by saying the Bruins dominated in Game 7 against Montreal is flat out high. That's not the game I nor any of the guys I skated with tonight saw at all. 
Just so we know the ground rules in this argument… because you and a bunch of guys you're friends with and play hockey with agree about something then therefore it is true.  So if some of us and our friends have a differing opinion we're high?  
 
Just want to make sure..so if you and 11 other guys or so have a similar opinion then everyone else can't possibly win that argument…correct?
 
Also…see how some people break their thoughts into different paragraphs?  It makes it a lot easier to read.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,177
Park Slope, Brooklyn
lars10 said:
Did you say this? "But yeah, those defensive lapses whoever it was that committed them spoke to poor concentration."

Or was that you making fun of someone making fun of one of your posts? I honestly can't tell anymore.

And that post above is downright crazy.
What is controversial about poor concentration? Is there no link between sub-optimal will/desire/emotion and poor concentration? What are you arguing? Where are your characterizations besides "You're crazy dude!" Quality stuff from SOSH on display here. Step up and state your case as to the influences on Boston Games 6 and 7 and Montreal Vs. Rangers Game 1. Stop hiding behind "you're crazy dude"—come with something analytical that eliminates the unquantifiable and therefore nonexistent influences I've suggested—sanely, not crazily—might be pertinent. I haven't read it yet and I sure am reading a ton of posts from a ton of people who are very, very exercised over this and have zero to offer.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,442
catomatic said:
Because those are all "going crazy"? Sure thing, hoss. I'm guessing you guys all think that emotion played no part in Montreal's performance in Game 1 either. 
Exactly no one has said that emotion played no part in any of the Bruin's losses.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,442
catomatic said:
What is controversial about poor concentration? Is there no link between sub-optimal will/desire/emotion and poor concentration? What are you arguing? Where are your characterizations besides "You're crazy dude!" Quality stuff from SOSH on display here. Step up and state your case as to the influences on Boston Games 6 and 7 and Montreal Vs. Rangers Game 1. Stop hiding behind "you're crazy dude"—come with something analytical that eliminates the unquantifiable and therefore nonexistent influences I've suggested—sanely, not crazily—might be pertinent. I haven't read it yet and I sure am reading a ton of posts from a ton of people who are very, very exercised over this and have zero to offer.
You've ignored everyone that's argued against you thus far…and where is your case and info to prove your points?
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,177
Park Slope, Brooklyn
lars10 said:
Just so we know the ground rules in this argument… because you and a bunch of guys you're friends with and play hockey with agree about something then therefore it is true.  So if some of us and our friends have a differing opinion we're high?  
 
Just want to make sure..so if you and 11 other guys or so have a similar opinion then everyone else can't possibly win that argument…correct?
 
Also…see how some people break their thoughts into different paragraphs?  It makes it a lot easier to read.
Good stuff. Because I said that playing hockey legitimizes my point of view.
 
I cited the other guys because there's a bunch of guys in here enjoying their strength in numbers enough to start calling people crazy. Playoff hockey is widely and sometimes deeply discussed in my locker room and there was plenty of talk about the Bruins getting worn down by not scoring despite all the chances—that they were a bit demoralized by spending 75% of the game (up to Game 6 and 7 where that was clearly not the case) in the Montreal zone and having nothing to show for it.
 
Folks in here argue adamantly and quite personally that that is simply not a factor in these games and I call horses hit and I call horses hit in the misplaced arrogance of the people who are so convinced of their rightness on the subject.
 
And congratulations on successfully avoiding bringing a counter-argument once more. Well done. Call the other dude crazy, arrogant and bad at graf breaks but for god's sake don't show your hand—it's too much fun right now indulging in ridicule. This dynamic is way too prevalent and predictable on this board. Come with something. 
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,177
Park Slope, Brooklyn
lars10 said:
You've ignored everyone that's argued against you thus far…and where is your case and info to prove your points?
Such as your own? 
"1. Chara was playing with a broken hand?  So perhaps his stick handling wasn't as good as it would have been?
2. Sometimes the puck bouncing a certain way has nothing to do with concentration?
3. There are many other reasons than 'concentration' for why there can be defensive lapses or misplays…I think that's why it's arguable.
 
So when you say 'is this arguable'….yes.  Most if not all of your statements are arguable…which is why most people are disagreeing with you…or at least saying that there are a ton of other reasons other than 'effort, intensity, determination, concentration' etc. for why the Bruins lost."
 
Chara's finger and puck bounces and misplays that have ZERO, NOTHING (as you seem to argue) with a somewhat demoralized team resulted in a 7-1 goal differential between two teams that had played close games all year?
 
Okay. That's not a hell of a case in my opinion. I think if you look at it on the face of things. I think it's much more compelling to say that they played, inexplicably, a really flat Game 6 in a chance to eliminate their fiercest rival and, in Game 7, when everything started to follow the same "we dominate territorially and then cough up a couple goals script" they lost their edge. 
 
Call it what you want, "learned helplessness" is one psychologist's term, simple "frustration" is another, but it got to them and it screwed up their will/poise/concentration and whatever else you want to call it, but they didn't get it back. The emotional edge, the determination they needed to dictate the terms of the game wasn't there.
 
I called it a quantity of desire (Nota Bene—nowhere was this referred to as a "lack of desire"). I referred to it as a critical quantity that was hard to summon but that could be measured and seen in the aftermath of incidents like the Aaron Rome hit on Horton when the Bruins outscored Vancouver 8-1.
 
Nowhere did I say Kevan Miller didn't want the game or that the Bruins didn't want to beat their rivals or any of the deliberately obtuse shit that's been thrown around here in the supposed name of clarity.
 
So, Chara's finger, bad bounces and misplays unconnected to any underlying team dynamic? That's what you've got? For the 7-1 differential? Same holds true for Montreal against NY in Game 1> Still no takers?
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,442
catomatic said:
Good stuff. Because I said that playing hockey legitimizes my point of view.
 
I cited the other guys because there's a bunch of guys in here enjoying their strength in numbers enough to start calling people crazy. Playoff hockey is widely and sometimes deeply discussed in my locker room and there was plenty of talk about the Bruins getting worn down by not scoring despite all the chances—that they were a bit demoralized by spending 75% of the game (up to Game 6 and 7 where that was clearly not the case) in the Montreal zone and having nothing to show for it.
 
Folks in here argue adamantly and quite personally that that is simply not a factor in these games and I call horses hit and I call horses hit in the misplaced arrogance of the people who are so convinced of their rightness on the subject.
 
And congratulations on successfully avoiding bringing a counter-argument once more. Well done. Call the other dude crazy, arrogant and bad at graf breaks but for god's sake don't show your hand—it's too much fun right now indulging in ridicule. This dynamic is way too prevalent and predictable on this board. Come with something. 
 
I already made a counter argument up there…which you ignored.  And I also don't think we even really disagree adamantly?!  Nor do I really think a lot of people here do… I think the point has just been made ad nauseum that the factors that you have held in high esteem are merely part of the reason the B's lost and not the ONLY reason.  We've already found out that four or five of the B's were playing with injuries and some with potentially serious injuries.  That and a bunch of young players being put in bigger spots because of those injuries, pucks bouncing various ways that had absolutely nothing to do with determination, concentration, want-to, get up and go, etc etc. and sometimes just had to do with a puck bouncing.
 
What I was trying to say about you and your hockey team is just because they agree with you doesn't therefore make it true and others wrong..which is how I felt like you were stating your argument.  But what stats could you provide that show Montreal dominated Boston other than the score in game 7? 
 
And I wasn't doing anything but saying that I'd like you to break up your sentences so others can figure out what you're trying to say…cause it's really hard to read… although I could have said it better.
 
edit: no longer ignored.
 

catomatic

thinks gen turgidson is super mean!!!
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,177
Park Slope, Brooklyn
TheoShmeo said:
Can we re-name him Catatonic?
"Can TheoShmeo choke on his smug self satisfaction hard? Like really, really hard?" 
 
'Cause from where I sit, that would be really, really great.
 
This is what you brought to the table:
 
"I would more chalk it up to Montreal clogging the neutral zone and using their speed to disrupt passing lanes, leading to more indirect and other bouncing passes that proved difficult to complete given Montreal's proximity to Bruins players and probably because the ice gets shittier the warmer it is.  But that's just me."
 
Yeah, makes sense. Sudden 7-1 goal differential results from just the application of new clogging techniques unfamiliar to them in Games 1-5, bad bounces and warm ice that affected one team disproportionately than the other. That it? Montreal v. NYR? Got anything about ice conditions on that one?
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
6,442
catomatic said:
That's just flat out bullshit.
I'd actually be kind of interested if you could actually find one post that says emotion (or whichever) played NO part... I think that a lot of people have said that there are many other reasons.  Also, it's really hard to either prove or disprove whether emotion, determination, etc played a part in the B's losing...so there really is no argument that can prove you're right or wrong...right?
 

TFP

Dope
Dope
Dec 10, 2007
18,190
Ok this thread and discussion has run its course. Take it to PM if you want to continue. Ugh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.