Wayward DP
Well-known member
no more credible than Dreger, but it's a countering view
more logical than Dreger, not that that's a high bar
no more credible than Dreger, but it's a countering view
About what’s happening now:
I’m suspended from hockey because of some incidents I won’t get in to. That’s what’s happening and right now I’m not doing that much except watching some hockey.
Of course I want to play but I will talk about it moving forward. Now is not the time. It’s been an untenable situation for me as a person. It feels good to be home and be able to rest.
I have a small lower body-injury that I’m trying to take care of.
About being home:
It’s good to be home again, I needed it as a person. It feels good, it feels safe to rest up my body and my mind.
About the future:
I dont think that much actually. I’m trying to get my injury in check. Of course I want to play hockey but I’m not allowed to anymore. My contract is for one and a half years. And if it gets real bad it will be one and a half years without hockey but I hope not. Hopefully we will reach a solution so I can play again.
Wow, I completely disagree with everything in this post. He's got excellent prose and in-depth analysis skill.Scott Wheeler is a fucking dumbass and has zero credentials. Doesn't know anything about hockey, isn't an advanced stats specialist, terrible writer. Can't believe he got a job with the athletic.
If I'm going to trust a qualitative analysis on hockey it better be from someone who has been involved with hockey in the past (like someone like Bourne) and not some guy that went to journalism school who never even played hockey. Dude had a full on analysis criticizing the way a particular player (I forget who) holds his stick. He's in the NHL buddy. I think he figured out how to hold a stick.Wow, I completely disagree with everything in this post. He's got excellent prose and in-depth analysis skill.
Absolutely. The best are the analytics driven crowd. Wheeler relies on qualitative analysis more than anything despite not really understanding the game. I don't like any qualitative analysis really, even from ex players, but when a guy writes a thesis on a top tier NHL prospect holding his stick wrong, it kind of doesn't sit right by me considering he has never held a stick in his life.Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the guys who've been involved in hockey in the past are actually the worst at any analysis and shun numbers/facts more than anyone in favour of tired clichés.
That's because they're all bad. Except Dom.Tbh I try not to categorize any specific writerbas good or bad. But when they make a bad argument I will try to point it out.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the guys who've been involved in hockey in the past are actually the worst at any analysis and shun numbers/facts more than anyone in favour of tired clichés.
God I used to love him as a leaf/prospect but holy fuck he's dumb.Colaiacovo for example. Thick as a plank, and as good as an example of the "common fan" as you're going to find.
It's distressing how poorly he understand things, and how easily he falls into the same dumb hot take narratives the average fan does. And he actually played!