That's how losing credibility works. They massively bungled how they handled Mik's injury. Either they didn't understand the injury, or they were extremely incompetent in how they handled it. If they make exactly the same mistake with EP that they did with Mik, then that will have affected how they handled their PR.
They don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore after Mik.
I think they are separate things though. There is bungling it from a medical perspective, and bungling it from a PR perspective. I can see how the former can seep into the latter, but I don't think that just because they have bungled several injuries from a medical perspective (assuming they have) that they are more likely to bungle things from a PR perspective. And aside from their medical issues, this management has actually been quite competent so I don't think I am at the point of dismissing some or all of their actions as having no merit or meaning because they have lost credibility.
You've made a similar appeal to authority argument repeatedly with Boudreau that's aged poorly:
Citing Boudreau's opinion on the matter actually isn't a classic appeal to authority fallacy as I wasn't citing Bourdeau because of his status as a media member or coach generally, but because he actually coached Pettersson during his last slump, and therefore, is privy to far more information than you or I or most others have (e.g., how significant of a factor Pettersson's past wrist injury was in his past slump).
The idea that he was injured and it was effecting his play during his slump was, to you and in your words, beyond belief.
This is NOT a straw man, those are your exact words.
Actually, that's not what I said in the quote. In the quote I said that I couldn't believe someone would favour unsubstantiated speculation of Pettersson being injured over his former coach basically speaking exactly on this subject. The question was what source to favour. And for clarity, the question wasn't whether one should conclude with certainty either way based on those sources.
I never said in that quote that I couldn't believe he was injured and that it was effecting his play and framing my argument as such is obviously a strawman. Frankly, its a dumb idea that anyone knows for certainty at any time whether or not a player is injured and whether or not any such injury is impacting the player's play and the extent of that impact.
I wouldn't bank on appealing to mgmt's authority as aging any better that what you did here
Again, it wasn't actually a classic appeal to authority fallacy. But with that said, I think you very well could be right that management has f***ed up in their PR on this whole thing. Its entirely possible that they view Pettersson's injury as way more minor than Pettersson views it or it actually is.
The actual quote is "It's like a nagging injury that doesn't want to go away, but we figured out a way to work around it and we're good. I don't feel any pain in it right now, it's not a big deal it's fine." After describing how he had to change his offseason training to work around his knee.
An injury that starts in January, is still ongoing, makes him train around it during the offseason and continue working around it now, is a significant injury. If he says at that moment it's fine, that doesn't negate everything else he's said about it.
I have already discussed this with
@pitseleh , but personally, I think its farfetched that he's lying about the severity of the injury while deciding to be truthful about the existence of the injury. I would have thought that if he didn't want to use it as an excuse then he just would have lied about the existence all together. With that said, I acknowledge that he may in fact be lying about the severity, or perhaps more likely, the injury could worsen since training camp.
I just provided the quotes from Pettersson as someone else linked to the interview in this thread and they were obviously relevant to the discussion at hand.
I'll pretend for a minute that I agree with what you clearly think to be true, that he is not currently injured, which I don't.
What are you talking about? Everyone knows he injured. Since he came out after the playoffs and said he was injured I've never disputed the fact that he was injured. The question since then has always been the degree to which his severity has caused his poor play. And even before he confirmed he was injured I always recognized he could be injured. Back in December of 2023 I posted that "he may be injured but who really knows".
The facts that have been laid out clearly show he had a significant injury during his entire slump last year.
They don't
clearly show this. Its very much debatable which is why its being debated ad nauseum. by you and I and many other posters. And I am not going to sit here and say I know whether the injury is significant (because I don't), and frankly, its kind of just semantics, but to me it definitely isn't clear one way or another.
I brought up Garland. I was talking to strat about how once a player has been screwed around with enough, you can't instantly fix the player by putting them with better linemates.
Once in a slump it can take players a long time to work back out of it even when the conditions that first caused the slump have changed. Garland looked night and day in his first half season here vs his second season.
Then that means that those are the issues that cause it to start, and confidence is secondary, as I have been saying.
I agree with this point generally, although again, don't necessarily agree that Garland is the best example.
"An injury is not the predominant or primary factor in why EP played so poorly last season" would be a new stance from you.
I think I have been relatively consistent on my position recognizing that I have many posts on this subject so there are going to be varying ways in which I have described my position. But back on May 2nd, 2024 in response to you I described my position as follows:
on a balance of probabilities, I find it unlikely that Pettersson's injuries are the primary reason why he has been playing poorly since like February or whatever.
So ya, I don't think its a new stance from me.
You have been clear that you do not believe his injury has had any significant effect on his play going back to January last year.
When I search my posts I actually can't find the reference you are speaking to in January.
You started this entire argument with me six months ago because I said during the playoffs that I would be surprised if he wasn't injured.
If you now think the injury was a factor, just not the "predominant or primary factor" then we no longer have anything to argue about.
Again, my position has been pretty consistent, and against, my position as stated to you on May 2, 2024 was:
on a balance of probabilities, I find it unlikely that Pettersson's injuries are the primary reason why he has been playing poorly since like February or whatever.
I have also described my position many times subsequently, and I have recognized that there are likely multiple factors / impacts (including the injury) resulting in Pettersson's play. Personally, I just think, on a balance of probabilities, that the injuries are not the primary reason why he has been playing poorly,
I have never cared to rank the order of importance for the different reasons for his slump. I frankly don't care. From the very beginning my argument has been entirely about the people who refuse to acknowledge any external factors as contributing and insist it's 100% related to some aspect of his mental state, which is verifiably wrong.
I'm not sure how many posters, if any, actually hold this position.
And your main issue very consistently was with my opinion last year that he had some sort of injury.
Again, my position is pretty clearly outlined above in that quote from May. And even before he came out and said he was injured I had recognized that he may in fact be injured,.
That's the position you've disagreed with and been arguing with me about going back six months now. Are you trying to claim that every time you started arguing with me after I posted "I think he's injured" you actually agreed with me?
I'm supposed to believe that? Or that at some point during this argument, your opinion changed but you neglected to inform me that you'd changed your view and kept arguing with me over... something you essentially agree on?
I think I have made my position pretty clear over the past six months. I have provided a quote above from May of 2024, but have identified my position other times as well. So you can determine for yourself whether and to what extent you disagree with me. Its not like my position is some secret. Its all on the record.
I conclusively ruled out confidence as having started the slump because losing confidence doesn't happen randomly in the middle of a career year, something else goes wrong first. I have always said I'm sure it's a factor now. As for mental health, I did not rule that out. I'll quote myself since this has gone on long enough that I don't need to rewrite my opinion yet again:
I think a slump can probably result from confidence or mental health (e.g., you get some bad breaks and you don't score for a while, and it snowballs). I don't think it necessarily needs to be caused by an external factor.
This isn't "conclusively ruling out mental health", it's always possible he randomly had a mental breakdown out of nowhere. Maybe it's the biggest issue now, who knows. But given what we now know for a fact, it's clearly not the most likely reason his slump started back in January.
My reference to you "conclusively ruling out mental health" was only ever in respect of the cause of the slump My position was never that you, on the whole, have conclusively ruled out mental health.
It's not a strawman. The entire reason this argument started six months ago was because you took issue with me saying during the playoffs that I would be surprised if he wasn't injured. That started this entire exchange. That was enough for you to start this entire thing that you are so dug in on now. I said over and over and over again that I took issue with the idea it's 100% mental and I believed he had some sort of injury, and those are the posts that you repeatedly argued with me over again and again.
It 100% is a strawman. My position was literally communicated to you as being the following in May:
on a balance of probabilities, I find it unlikely that Pettersson's injuries are the primary reason why he has been playing poorly since like February or whatever.
And you recently commented to me the follow (which I called out as being a strawman):
The leap of logic to assume with 100% certainty to the point that you're 10000 words into it with me that the documented and well supported still ongoing chronic injury was absolutely not a factor just seems insane to me.
Would someone who has assumed with 100% certainty use the term "balance of probabilities" and "likely" in their position not to mentioned that I am referring to the "primary reason" .
This is a textbook strawman.
You have been consistent in your opinion that injuries have never been a significant factor in his play. You clearly doubted he was injured last year and when the news came out that he was injured, you continued to believe that it never had a significant impact on his play. The fact that I thought he was injured despite your Boudreau quote was literally beyond belief to you.
Again, you misread or misunderstood the "beyond belief" part as I didn't state what you seem to think I did.
Meanwhile my opinion hasn't changed, the only thing different is that everything I was saying that you were calling unsubstantiated has been substantiated. This is what I posted six months ago:
You called this statement "out of touch" and said you side with the Boudreau quote about it being all about confidence. Your position can be clearly inferred. But sure, complain about strawmen. Your opinion was very clear at the time.
I said it was "out of touch given the Boudreau interview" wherein Bourdreau speculated that it was confidence driven. I even said that at that time I didn't think I had speculated as to why he was slumping but that I would defer to Boudreau on this (i.e., him being a better source than what was at the time unsubstantiated speculation). I didn't conclude with certainty what the causes of Pettersson's struggles were and my general position has been pretty clear on this, and I've stated it to you many times.
No one would blame you for changing it given the new information that came out should you choose to do so but for some reason you'd rather continue this argument again and again instead.
Again, my argument has been remarkably consistent from before the injury was confirmed to after. And its generally been, at both those times:
on a balance of probabilities, I find it unlikely that Pettersson's injuries are the primary reason why he has been playing poorly since like February or whatever.
