UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

https://www.collegehockeynews.com/reports/team-nhl/New-Hampshire/38

Food for thought!

The number that literally jumps off the page is Rod Langway's career +276.

When all's said and done, I'll predict Brett Pesce will pass Langway at the top of the Games Played list.

 

[Greg Ambrose]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

Tyler Kelleher is the player of the decade? Well I’ll guess it is the first time since the sixties since the player of the decade (if they even had such awards back then) was never named and All American. Who was it in the aughts? Plenty of worthy candidates (Haydar, Hemingway, Conklin, JVR to name just a few). In the nineties? Krog, Mowers, Bogey. Eighties? Brickley would be my choice, maybe Steve Leach. And the seventies? Clark, Miller, C. Cox, Hislop, Miller, R. Cox, Gould. Before that? I’ll defer to Snively. We are going backwards, aren’t we?

As for whoever used the term “garbage science,” this is what it has come to now? You don’t agree with the findings of the 90% of the climate scientists on one side of this issue so you use the lame “both sides” argument and say it is “garbage.” Okay.

 

[Dan]

Tyler Kelleher is the player of the decade? Well I’ll guess it is the first time since the sixties since the player of the decade (if they even had such awards back then) was never named and All American. Who was it in the aughts?

While your general point remains regarding the depth of competition for player of the decade, Kelleher was an All-American as a senior (second-team) and Id continue to argue he was among the (and perhaps the) best offensive players in the sport that season. His production - and his amazing percentage of team production - was off the charts in spite of very little help...

That said, the only reason TK was the POD is because he played four years to Poturalski’s two. AP was the better player AND a first-team All-American following his sophomore year.

Both players are elite UNH talents in ANY era. UNH has had some nice talent recently - just nothing like the depth they’ve had in the past and never nearly enough at any one time to support any team success...

 

[HockeyRef]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

While your general point remains regarding the depth of competition for player of the decade, Kelleher was an All-American as a senior (second-team) and Id continue to argue he was among the (and perhaps the) best offensive players in the sport that season. His production - and his amazing percentage of team production - was off the charts in spite of very little help...

That said, the only reason TK was the POD is because he played four years to Poturalski’s two. AP was the better player AND a first-team All-American following his sophomore year.

Both players are elite UNH talents in ANY era. UNH has had some nice talent recently - just nothing like the depth they’ve had in the past and never nearly enough at any one time to support any team success...

...wasn't AP an All American as well??? Please excuse my LOK on this stuff, but, when I look at those pics in the lobby of other All Americans...why aren't they up there? Again, excuse the lack of knowledge on the subject I have always wondered...and right on to all you said here Dan...(just imagine a team where players like TyK being paired up with guys like AP AND guys like Warren Foegele...oh, wait, that did happen....).

In my short time here have sometimes felt that TyK was always being measured against the past UNH greats, which, is understandable, I guess. But, make no mistake, TyK is one of those UNH hockey greats! Look at his senior year totals!!! Hasn't been a player since to even come close...but I imagine he's out there.

 

[e.cat]

The number that literally jumps off the page is Rod Langway's career +276.

When all's said and done, I'll predict Brett Pesce will pass Langway at the top of the Games Played list.

Yup the +276 is impressive and agree about Brett Pesce.

 

[wildcatdc]

Tyler Kelleher is the player of the decade? Well I’ll guess it is the first time since the sixties since the player of the decade (if they even had such awards back then) was never named and All American. Who was it in the aughts? Plenty of worthy candidates (Haydar, Hemingway, Conklin, JVR to name just a few). In the nineties? Krog, Mowers, Bogey. Eighties? Brickley would be my choice, maybe Steve Leach. And the seventies? Clark, Miller, C. Cox, Hislop, Miller, R. Cox, Gould. Before that? I’ll defer to Snively. We are going backwards, aren’t we?

As for whoever used the term “garbage science,” this is what it has come to now? You don’t agree with the findings of the 90% of the climate scientists on one side of this issue so you use the lame “both sides” argument and say it is “garbage.” Okay.

I solemnly swore, but when I see this, I WILL respond.

1. Greg, you know exactly “whoever” it was, and yet you chose to go the junior high route. Grow up. You have a problem with what I say, address me directly. Stop with the passive aggressiveness.

2. Where is your reading comprehension? Or are you just so spring-loaded as to assume I disagree? I agree with the concept of climate change. Perhaps you weren’t perceptive enough to pick up on that when I EXPRESSLY said I agree that the earth is warming.

3. There absolutely IS garbage science on both sides, and if you think it’s a lame argument, you live in an echo chamber. It’s why one side (and their media cohorts) say that 187 million people are destined to lose their homes due to ocean levels rising, whIle the other side says it’s between 41,000 and 305,000 (as does their cohort media partner). It’s why one side says we have 11 years to right the ship or all hell breaks loose and the other side says that’s nonsense. MY POINT WAS, it’d be nice if we had a source we felt comfortable with, and in unanimity with to anchor on, and that source simply doesn’t exist today. Especially when the media on both sides amplify the extremes.

4. Two examples of “settled science”: pre-Copernicus galactic orientation and Newtonian physics. Would it be better if we’d stomped our feet in defense of the earth being the center of the universe or ignored relativity? Point is, let’s get very specific and objective about where we are going and stop the sound bite BS.

Now I’m done. Can’t believe this was the best you had. Talk about lame.

 

[wildcatdc]

...wasn't AP an All American as well??? Please excuse my LOK on this stuff, but, when I look at those pics in the lobby of other All Americans...why aren't they up there? Again, excuse the lack of knowledge on the subject I have always wondered...and right on to all you said here Dan...(just imagine a team where players like TyK being paired up with guys like AP AND guys like Warren Foegele...oh, wait, that did happen....).

In my short time here have sometimes felt that TyK was always being measured against the past UNH greats, which, is understandable, I guess. But, make no mistake, TyK is one of those UNH hockey greats! Look at his senior year totals!!! Hasn't been a player since to even come close...but I imagine he's out there.

Did a quick scan of the rosters from 2000-2010, and you know what, TyK (as Dan mentions) would stand up pretty well in that era. Haydar, Hemingway, Gare, Collins, Conklin (for a year), Ayers, Stafford, Winnik, JvR, Saviano, Mikflikier... I think TyK holds up well with most of that crew.

 

[wildcatdc]

The number that literally jumps off the page is Rod Langway's career +276.

When all's said and done, I'll predict Brett Pesce will pass Langway at the top of the Games Played list.

That’s an insane stat.

 

[HockeyRef]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

Did a quick scan of the rosters from 2000-2010, and you know what, TyK (as Dan mentions) would stand up pretty well in that era. Haydar, Hemingway, Gare, Collins, Conklin (for a year), Ayers, Stafford, Winnik, JvR, Saviano, Mikflikier... I think TyK holds up well with most of that crew.

Bravo to all of the UNH greats, past, present and future! UNH has certainly had their share of stellar players with hopefully more to come. 3 days til we are back on the ice Go 'Cats!! (kind of waited too long to buy tix for Army; only bleacher seats left hope the view is decent)!!

 

[Chuck Murray]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

I solemnly swore, but when I see this, I WILL respond.

1. Greg, you know exactly “whoever” it was, and yet you chose to go the junior high route. Grow up. You have a problem with what I say, address me directly. Stop with the passive aggressiveness.

2. Where is your reading comprehension? Or are you just so spring-loaded as to assume I disagree? I agree with the concept of climate change. Perhaps you weren’t perceptive enough to pick up on that when I EXPRESSLY said I agree that the earth is warming.

3. There absolutely IS garbage science on both sides, and if you think it’s a lame argument, you live in an echo chamber. It’s why one side (and their media cohorts) say that 187 million people are destined to lose their homes due to ocean levels rising, whIle the other side says it’s between 41,000 and 305,000 (as does their cohort media partner). It’s why one side says we have 11 years to right the ship or all hell breaks loose and the other side says that’s nonsense. MY POINT WAS, it’d be nice if we had a source we felt comfortable with, and in unanimity with to anchor on, and that source simply doesn’t exist today. Especially when the media on both sides amplify the extremes.

4. Two examples of “settled science”: pre-Copernicus galactic orientation and Newtonian physics. Would it be better if we’d stomped our feet in defense of the earth being the center of the universe or ignored relativity? Point is, let’s get very specific and objective about where we are going and stop the sound bite BS.

Now I’m done. Can’t believe this was the best you had. Talk about lame.

You are absolved, my son. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.

 

[Snively65]

I solemnly swore, but when I see this, I WILL respond.

1. Greg, you know exactly “whoever” it was, and yet you chose to go the junior high route. Grow up. You have a problem with what I say, address me directly. Stop with the passive aggressiveness.

2. Where is your reading comprehension? Or are you just so spring-loaded as to assume I disagree? I agree with the concept of climate change. Perhaps you weren’t perceptive enough to pick up on that when I EXPRESSLY said I agree that the earth is warming.

3. There absolutely IS garbage science on both sides, and if you think it’s a lame argument, you live in an echo chamber. It’s why one side (and their media cohorts) say that 187 million people are destined to lose their homes due to ocean levels rising, whIle the other side says it’s between 41,000 and 305,000 (as does their cohort media partner). It’s why one side says we have 11 years to right the ship or all hell breaks loose and the other side says that’s nonsense. MY POINT WAS, it’d be nice if we had a source we felt comfortable with, and in unanimity with to anchor on, and that source simply doesn’t exist today. Especially when the media on both sides amplify the extremes.

4. Two examples of “settled science”: pre-Copernicus galactic orientation and Newtonian physics. Would it be better if we’d stomped our feet in defense of the earth being the center of the universe or ignored relativity? Point is, let’s get very specific and objective about where we are going and stop the sound bite BS.

Now I’m done. Can’t believe this was the best you had. Talk about lame.

Ok, I will address you directly, wildcatdc. There is so much misinformation in your points 3. and 4., I do not even know where to begin. I think that you should stick with comments on hockey.

 

[Dan]

...wasn't AP an All American as well??? Please excuse my LOK on this stuff, but, when I look at those pics in the lobby of other All Americans...why aren't they up there? Again, excuse the lack of knowledge on the subject I have always wondered...and right on to all you said here Dan...(just imagine a team where players like TyK being paired up with guys like AP AND guys like Warren Foegele...oh, wait, that did happen....).

In my short time here have sometimes felt that TyK was always being measured against the past UNH greats, which, is understandable, I guess. But, make no mistake, TyK is one of those UNH hockey greats! Look at his senior year totals!!! Hasn't been a player since to even come close...but I imagine he's out there.

Yes. AP was a First Team All-American after scoring 22 goals and 52 points as a sophomore in 2016. Had he stayed two more years (especially his JR year with TK) it’s a very real possibility he puts up two 60+ seasons and is the fourth Wildcat to crack 200 career points...

TK was a Second Team All-American in 2017 after finishing his senior season. He scored 42-46-63 in his last three seasons respectively and finished with 167 total points. He’s at least a top-50 all time scorer if I remember correctly.

The numbers these two put up with no help aside from each other (in one season playing together) were phenomenal. If UNH had an equal second line and better D/G these two would have played on much more successful teams and they’d be better remembered for their talents, instead there’s a real chance they get lost in the mess of some dismal seasons for the team as a whole...

Both easily keep up with the star forwards of the 90’s and 00’s, IMO. Just to name one example - Mark Mowers was an awesome talent, but also one who played with Krog, Bekar, Nolan, Bogey, Nicklaus and Souza in JUST his junior season. Neither AP or TK ever played with a single other player of this caliber (aside from each other) for their entire careers...

UNH used to have great ROSTERS. No they’re reduced to having the occasional great player. It’s why landing the occasional star recruit means nothing - AP, TK, Gildon, Stutzle - they’re not going to win you anything unless you can land more (many more) and then build around a core. Good recruiters don’t land a stud or two. Anyone can do that. Good recruiters land studs consistently. If Souza and company can’t do that then they’re just...treading water...

 

[wildcatdc]

Ok, I will address you directly, wildcatdc. There is so much misinformation in your points 3. and 4., I do not even know where to begin. I think that you should stick with comments on hockey.

Thanks for the astoundingly worthless input.

The very fact that you would pull out a misinformation argument to debate point 3, which is an argument about misleading/confusing information in and of itself, is so breathtakingly stupid it merits no further conversation, EXCEPT this:

If you believe my sources to be suspect, please take it up with them directly - the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, The WSJ, you know, all those disreputable organizations. I’m not quoting Alex Jones here.

My point, AGAIN, is that for the good of ALL of us, it’d be nice to have real clarity on the issue from sources without agendas, one that will rally all without question. Is that really so hard for you to understand or support? I’d like to think my family is doing its part to manage our carbon footprint - is it too much to ask to stop the noise of the extremist news cycle fueled by polarizing studies so that we can do even more?

And the fact that you would debate the desire to encourage continuous scientific breakthrough to get to better solutions (point 4) just shows what a whiny little contrarian you can be. Perhaps that point was too nuanced for you.

Please don’t deign to determine what I should or should not talk about. That’s buffoonery of the highest order.

 

[NCAA watcher]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

MY POINT WAS, it’d be nice if we had a source we felt comfortable with, and in unanimity with to anchor on, and that source simply doesn’t exist today.

You are absolved, my son. Now go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.

Help me out. My first search takes me to the US goverment site, and their first link is

Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

While Chuck is happy to "me too" on your comment, his "sources" were, as I stated, two guys, one of whom has no credentials, and the other a meteorogist, who themselves rely upon two books written in the 70s by a business forecaster who is discredited (and believed in chemtrail conspiracies).
I'm all for being contrarian, but just being "contrarian" without a basis because it fits your worldview is different than the trite Copernicus example, where he was appying science against something that was not scientifically-based on observations, but fit into the a "blief" anti-science worldview.

So, Wildcatdc, help me out with the dispute, not about how dire the consequences will be, but the dispute about whether humans are contributing largely to the climate change.

 

[wildcatdc]

Help me out. My first search takes me to the US goverment site, and their first link is



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

While Chuck is happy to "me too" on your comment, his "sources" were, as I stated, two guys, one of which has no credentials, and the other a meteorogist, who themselves rely upon two books written in the 70s by a business forecaster who is discredited.
I'm all for being contrarian, but just being "contrarian" without a basis because it fits your worldview is different than the trite Copernicus example, where he was appying science against something that fit into the a worldview.

So, Wildcatdc, help me out with the dispute, not about how dire the consequences will be, but the dispute about whether humans are contributing largely to the climate change.

You just proved my point, Watcher. I don’t dispute for a second the FACT that climate change is real. What we need to get to is HOW dire, and what the measured path to addressing what we CAN address, and ensuring that those things we can address have the impact we desire. That will keep us from wasting time and money on that which makes us feel all good inside but have ZERO impact. Is that so hard to get?

 

[wildcatdc]

Help me out. My first search takes me to the US goverment site, and their first link is



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

While Chuck is happy to "me too" on your comment, his "sources" were, as I stated, two guys, one of whom has no credentials, and the other a meteorogist, who themselves rely upon two books written in the 70s by a business forecaster who is discredited (and believed in chemtrail conspiracies).
I'm all for being contrarian, but just being "contrarian" without a basis because it fits your worldview is different than the trite Copernicus example, where he was appying science against something that was not scientifically-based on observations, but fit into the a "blief" anti-science worldview.

So, Wildcatdc, help me out with the dispute, not about how dire the consequences will be, but the dispute about whether humans are contributing largely to the climate change.

By the way, point out where I’m being contrarian to the point of view that the climate is changing. Please, show me where I’m contrarian. You and Greg appear to easily miss points from my earlier post.

 

[NCAA watcher]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

You just proved my point, Watcher. I don’t dispute for a second the FACT that climate change is real. What we need to get to is HOW dire, and what the measured path to addressing what we CAN address, and ensuring that those things we can address have the impact we desire. That will keep us from wasting time and money on that which makes us feel all good inside but have ZERO impact. Is that so hard to get?

Yes, because if we can agree that humans are causing the thing that causes climate change, then that's a start. But if your point is "we may not be able to change this," isn't the better and safer choice to try and change it, even if it ultimately is futile? Rather than saying "I'm not going to change until you can prove definitively that it will help?"

And I'm not even adderssing the Trumpism of "I'm actually going to reverse the steps just to **** off Obama" taht some here might love just because they get riled up at Obama and snowflakes (and 14 year old girls). That's a whole level of idiocy of cutting of the nose to spite the face. As my first google result showed, the level of objection correleates to the level of education in the field.

 

[wildcatdc]

Yes, because if we can agree that humans are causing the thing that causes climate change, then that's a start. But if your point is "we may not be able to change this," isn't the better and safer choice to try and change it, even if it ultimately is futile? Rather than saying "I'm not going to change until you can prove definitively that it will help?"

And I'm not even adderssing the Trumpism of "I'm actually going to reverse the steps just to **** off Obama" taht some here might love just because they get riled up at Obama and snowflakes.

How much more violently would you like us to agree before you realize that we are agreeing? What I’m asking for, (which seems to be way too hard to grasp) Is to stop the cow fart and trains to Hawaii talk and advance the science on what we can and should do. And in the meantime, my family DOES try to do what we can, in spite of the extremist rhetoric on both sides.

 

[NCAA watcher]

Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

How much more violently would you like us to agree before you realize that we are agreeing? What I’m asking for, (which seems to be way to hard to grasp) Is to stop the cow fart and trains to Hawaii talk and advance the science on what we can and should do. And in the meantime, my family DOES try to do what we can, in spite of the extremist rhetoric on both sides.

Glad we're in agreement then. It's just your third point of "both sides" and the fourth point of how noble it is to be a contrarian might be misread by some less discerning as validating their denial.

Now let's see if we can fix UNH recruting, which is also at risk of sinking below sea level.

 

[wildcatdc]

Glad we're in agreement then. It's just your third point of "both sides" and the fourth point of how noble it is to be a contrarian might be misread by some less discerning as validating their denial.

Now let's see if we can fix UNH recruting, which is also at risk of sinking below sea level.

Just to be clear, my 4th point was not about the nobility of being a contrarian, but about never standing in place on “settled science” and looking instead to paradigm shifts in thinking that get us to better solutions. And not cow farts and bullet trains to Honolulu.