LTS

I think people misinterpreted my "serious roots" statement. I did not intend that it was the only place it exists but that it does exist, with strong roots, in gang culture (notice, I said gang, not black gang, latino gang, white gang, etc.) Along those lines, there is real disrespect and perceived, generated disrespect, right? So, can we agree that a dictator committing genocide is a tad more disrespectful than bumping into someone on the street or looking at some guy's girl wrong? Furthermore, helping to define things are the responses to actual disrespect and perceived disrespect. However, responding with murder to either should pretty much be considered out of line. I get that at some points in time there were societal norms that allowed for such things but those same societies also allowed for other things we have long since outlawed. Thus, a bit of a stretch to use Burr-Hamilton as some have. So, what you describe above is an accurate statement. But to counter, I am not likely to perceive Richard Sherman as part of the following gangs: Latin Kings, Triads, Sicilian Mafia, Irish Mob, etc. Why? Because his physical features do not put him in those groups. So, the most likely comparison would be to a gang that matches his physical description. There are certainly common traits among gangs and gangs may well be full of thugs. I can summarize my views on race fairly succinctly. It's a physical trait, nothing more. As a black friend of mine growing up once said, there are (insert any slur you'd like) of every color. The ****** of one color do as much harm to the rest of their race as do the ****** of another color (I inserted the asterisks). He would be insulted when called that, not because of his color, but because of the representation that he was associated with that ***** of his color. I feel sorry for anyone who feels that any physical trait implies that a group sharing that trait is somehow inferior to others. Especially when it is a trait that has no practical meaning. It's like discriminating on hair or eye color. (don't go there).

I had a goalie do it to me once. I warned him if he did it again I would knock him out. So, later in the game he did it again. I immediately swung my stick, baseball like, right across the side of his head and knocked him out cold. It's not something to be proud of, but at 1am in the morning at age 22 I can't be expected to make the right decisions. That said.. I warned him what would happen. There are certain things you just don't do. I'll take a stick to the ankles, the knee, but you go there and you pay the price. It's inexcusable. It's like butt-ending someone to the face.. who was that Penguin who did that one year? Really brilliant dude. Anyway.. it happened.

Ahh yea.. Just like the Black IPA problem. How can it be black and pale? So they invented the Cascadian Dark Ale term too. I'm with you.. brewers have stomped all over the "style" categories these days. It's like trying to classify music.

It's not my bias. I didn't judge him as anything more than an idiot. That said, he did go down the notorious "Don't disrespect me" path. I get sick of hearing that path. And there's little doubt that that particular behavior has serious roots in gang culture. So, to that end, people are going to see it. GoDD - I am not talking about the recording. I am talking about Sterling's housing discrimination lawsuit -> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2542741 (that also includes reference to his 2003 case as well). As for the rest of your premise, I understand what you are saying. But I am not talking about what-ifs, I am talking about what-ares.

Well, purely hypothetical here but I think that the best players brains are very good at predictive analysis. Then, they are also likely good at recognizing spatial relationships. So, they are very good at seeing the relationship of each player on the ice to each other relative to the framework of the ice rink. In addition, they are capable of integrating motion analysis of those players to also see where they are most likely to be over the next second. This is obviously repeated over and over again while playing. I am sure they are also good at reacting to subtle movement changes in a player and have the ability then react in a timely manner to take advantage of it. For example, my 6 year old daughter is almost freaky good at putting these types of puzzles together: She usually completes them in about 15-30 minutes on her first attempt. Without actually looking up anything on the Internet I was amazed at this. The other day I was watching her do a new puzzle and I finally noticed how she was so good at solving the puzzles. So, she noticed little things that others did not and consequently was able to take advantage of that. It's an interesting topic. Of course there is athletic capability built into all of that but we know that the most athletic isn't always the most talented.

I cannot disagree with any of that. But the problem I have is that Sterling has long been proven to be a racist and has lost lawsuits regarding his racist issues. Only NOW does it seem to matter. It's not even the same as the anti-gay movement, etc. Ten years ago you could be anti-gay and many people would be right there with you. Ten years ago, Donald Sterling was paying record fines for discriminatory housing policies. But I do think its interesting to see what happens with the Magic owner. After all the employees of Mozilla got their CEO to step down because of his anti-gay views. It's the right action, far too late. He'll get by... I am sure of that. So, I remember that thread. But there is a distinct difference in being guilty by association and being guilty. Moreover, this is direct, proven guilt. The argument can be made that those against fracking shouldn't be supporting the Sabres. It could be argued that Pegula's influence on the environment from fracking is equally as damning as being involved in the mortgage securities debacle. Not that I want to delve too far into this.. but I am curious. If someone chooses to speak in such a way, dress in such a way, and act in such a way that is incredibly similar to people who are commonly thought of as thugs doesn't it seem inevitable that said person would also be classified as such? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck kind of thing.

I'm already rooting for a Western Conference team.. any of them in fact. Hated teams? Easy for me. 1. Boston 2. Philly 3. Pittsburgh Hated Fans? Also easy. 1. Boston 2. Toronto 3. Philly I used to not like Toronto as a team but since they are entertaining with their late season collapses I find it hard to be so negative about them. The fans on the other hand... And I'm not a conference lover. I can't root for a team that the Sabres would have had to beat to make it to the Cup. So I root for the Western Conference.

I get excited for beer. It's a craft I can truly relate to. :)

The NBA just ###### themselves big time. They let the racist POS own a franchise for this long and waited far too long to do something about it. The problem now will be this... The owner of the Magic actively campaigns against gay lifestyles. How long before the moral outrage gets too great and he's forced out? The owner of the Cavaliers helped caused the mortgage crisis... a real poster child for integrity. What's next on the thought control police agenda? I can't wait. Don't threaten the all-mighty bottom line. The bottom line is that we, as society, turn to choose a blind eye to most things until the point where it's cool to jump on the bandwagon. I listened to WGR talk about this and they were talking about people still buying tickets to the games and justifying that by saying the fans shouldn't have to suffer because of the owner's views. Well, that might be true, except that in buying a ticket to see his franchise play they are lining his pockets. In my opinion, you give your right to complain even the smallest iota if you are participating in driving revenue for that person. Clearly a person like that does not care enough and that's what big business, etc. count on. People like to complain, right up until their precious "gotta have it" entertainment is taken away and then it's all over. Yes, that's a sweeping generalization but our society has fit the bill nicely. So, you know what? Screw the NBA and the mess they are in. I want this to go further and I want them to suffer immeasurably for being so goddamned greedy for money that they allowed this racist POS to own a franchise for so long and turn a blind eye. And screw the sponsors who jumped on the bandwagon who also knew of this ######'s motivations for just as long. I am sick of corporate manipulation. See also: http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1802145/banana-eating-social-media-campaign-was-planned?cc=5901 Sure it's the right motivation, but manipulating people usually undermines your efforts once they find out. Yea.. tonight I am on a rampage.

I have had some of their stuff.. trying to remember when and where. Where? :) What Brewery? And you nailed the entire point of low abv beer. :)

I seem to recall Leopold poking a puck into the net against the Leafs in some crazy goal mouth scramble at the end of the game not too long ago. Am I mis-remembering? No intent to blow :)

Hallelujah.. let's have a philosophical discussion. I'm in! I'm sure, somehow, there could be a definition of clutch that could exist but the arguments and debate to get there would be too tedious to allow it to happen. That said. It's an eyeball test to a certain degree right? So, there's a moment in a game where something big has to happen and in that moment, what player makes it happen? To address, specifically your timing questions, I think you are discounting that when a 2-0 lead is gained in the first period there are 40 minutes + X remaining in the game for the opposition to score. Therefore, if you account for the fact that any given team would have a percentage chance to score against another team (the factors determining that not withstanding, but being equal) then a team with less time left in the game would have less of an overall chance of scoring enough goals to tie the game. Thus, scoring near the end of the game would be more beneficial, thus clutch. The same is true with goaltending. You could argue that a game that would have a potential 4 breakaway opportunities would equally weigh out to a 25% chance to score on each and thus each save is equally weighted. However, if you take them individually, and you account for the chance a player will score on the breakaway then making the save later plays back into when a goal is scored relative to the end of the game and in this case the goaltenders team's ability to either retain the lead or tie the game or come back from that deficit that would have been increased if the player had scored. Addressing the makeup question after #2 point of yours. Players have a genetic capability to be excellent players. They are coded to respond to stimuli and situations in a game. Each player responds differently. You could argue that the same coding that put Kane into that position to score was also the coding that caused Shattenkirk to fail. Thus, in a tight moment, with the game on the line, and many variables to process, Patrick Kane was able to have a clutch impact on the game whereas Shattenkirk was not. You have to admit that each player on that ice is playing a game of percentages in their head. They are assessing options they have on the fly and making a decision. Those who choose the right percentages often come out on top. So, Kane assessed his ability to score against passing or changing skating direction to let the play develop. Shattenkirk assessed where the play would go and whether his teammates could recover and Miller assessed whether Kane would shoot or pass, etc. Kane choose correctly as is evidenced by the goal. This isn't a slam dunk reason of course, but I think it shows that in that situation Kane performed better. It doesn't matter if his "clutch": outweighs the rest of the talent. What if Kane was the only guy on the team who scored game in and game out? He'd still be a clutch player it's just that the rest of the team sucks. And I think your last points are very valid. Clutch is relative to the scenario. Just as some people are born to start companies and others are born to maintain companies so too are players better in regular season games than playoff games. I would think that someone who fails in one or the other however could not be considered "clutch" overall as they clearly are not able to be the "clutch" player when needed. So, there are clutch plays and that doesn't make a player clutch, but a player who repeatedly makes those plays relative to the rest of his peers should be considered more clutch than the others, correct? So glad you posted what you did. Truly. It's a great conversation piece.

So, in a series dominated by the world's top talent he wasn't able to be the clutch player, but then again was there really a clutch player in the Olympics for any team? It seemed like a rather large letdown to be honest. It was some good hockey at times but nothing spectacular. Kane has scored some seriously clutch goals (or caused them to happen). He's definitely a significant threat on the ice. Best in the world might be a stretch but he's on the really short list of a player who I want on my team when I need to win.

Isn't he originally from Boston? Perhaps he's sour that he can't get a job there?

Because the law says so. :) So, why isn't Reinhart a consensus #1 pick? Your logic is completely flawed. Even if you argue that the Panthers take Ekblad because they need D more than O then by your logic the consensus #1 OFFENSIVE pick would be Reinhart in which case there would be no discussion since the Sabres would be taking him. But, there is discussion, because there is no consensus #1 pick and therefore you can't use your logic. The Sabres will get a Sam, of that I am certain. They will benefit one way with one of them and another way with the other. If they have a choice between the two it gets interesting. But because this is a dream world. I will say that Florida takes Ekblad. The Oilers, wanting a forward like Bennett, will trade the Sabres the #2 for the #3, the Sabres send Myers in the deal and the Oilers send RNH to Buffalo. The Sabres can then take Reinhart at #3. I love dream worlds.

I am 13. I am always 13 except one time when I was nice and let someone else have it. I hated that jersey. I am 13 because it's unlucky for everyone else. I don't believe in that crap, so it doesn't bother me. Strangely enough, my wife always wore 13 as well in high school sports. Not strangely enough, my son wears #13.. because he may have been unduly influenced by both his parents wearing 13. I am sure I have had other numbers in my lifetime on jerseys.. but none of those I can remember so they clearly don't matter.

It's just outside the offensive zone. Like an offsides. I'm pretty certain. I wonder if the calls will change in Round 2. The officiating does seem suspect this post-season. A little more loose. Lots of hits that are a good 2-3 seconds after the puck has been moved. Non-sense stuff that people have pointed out here as well. And.. there's some really great hustle and some creativity with players too.

Hard to tell sometimes with people on here loving to bash things.

Curious, is there a reason to go off like this and go with the name calling? Are you including Leino because he's a Finn? Wouldn't Ristolainen have had more influence on Armia than Leino could have ever hoped? You hear one rumor and this is your response? Fantastic.

Is there any team willing to trade for that #5 pick? The Isles have to think about shopping that pick now that it's theirs to give up. The other question, what GMs are willing to give up a lottery pick in next year's draft? It's something to think about when saying that the Sabres (or anyone) can trade something away to get another shot in that draft

Awesome too. Perhaps they'll get that social media thing figured out?

To be fair, I could find 100 pictures of him looking a certain way and I'd still end up with nothing even remotely close to what Ted Nolan looks like. This is fantastic work.

I've steamrolled a female on the ice. Not because it was a female but because she was the opposing player standing the place that I needed to be at that time (I also had the puck). I don't take sex into account when playing. It's true that guys on the opposing team are somewhat overprotective of such things. The one time I needed to turn up ice and the defender (female) was standing in front of me I just began pushing her up the ice to get her out of my way. They really didn't like that. I never knocked her over though. It was more like a bulldozer move until she decided to get out of my way. Of course these are all things I do to any player on the ice when I have to.

It's pretty clean now at BGRI. A fight nets you a 3 game suspension. The second one puts you out for a season and three and you're done. There are some skirmishes but not all out fights. I've been in one fight my entire time there and I honestly wanted no part of it. Of course he dropped his gloves and did a great job of punching my cage. I left my gloves on.. because well. they are designed to block sticks and pucks on the exterior. It was short lived as I basically threw him to the ice. What a waste.. suspended because some other jerk started throwing punches at me. Could be. I especially loved that we had varying nights and times. That made it extremely easy to plan. If I could recall much about my 2-3 seasons I played there I'd provide more detail but truthfully I was happy to leave so I didn't commit a lot to memory!

No.. I figured the point was that we wouldn't be able to tell him apart by his nickname. can't we have "But Not Out 1" and "But Not Out 2" at least? And so on...