https://www.theplayerstribune.com/bobby-ryan-senators-playoffs-why-not-us/
Here is what Bobby Ryan said about his less than stellar regular season that a lot of people didn't know about.
To know Ryan’s story is to understand his struggle this season.
By all accounts, those close to Ryan and the Senators say his coping with his mother’s death would help explain his toughest year as a professional hockey player as much as the injuries that caused him to miss 19 games.
It’s not hard to see why. Ryan's mom wasn’t just his mom, she was his everything - the single mother who worked two different jobs so Ryan could play competitive hockey while his father was in jail for assaulting her.
As much as the Senators say Ryan played well, there is no working your way through that. At one point during the season, Senators coach Guy Boucher sat Ryan for a January game for disciplinary reasons.
“He had a lot of things to manage,†Boucher said Saturday night. “Bobby had a tough year also on a personal level, and there’s nothing you can do about that. Some years are tougher than others in that respect.â€
Ryan, 30, called these playoffs a shot at “redemption.â€
“It's a refresh, I think, for me. I think it was a complete restart,†Ryan said post-game. “I just knew at some point those pucks that I had been chasing all year long in front of the net, they were going to come.â€
Time for another OT game.
Ducks' lack of discipline gave the Preds life in the last 8 minutes.
Good game! Still hoping for a Preds-Ottawa series
So happy the Ducks won. Holy cross checking on the Preds gtg too.
And any true Sabres fan can not be rooting for the Preds. Laviolette is literally the biggest ****** in the universe (even bigger then John Edward). I will never hope a team that he is coaching wins a cup.
Still hoping for a Ducks-Pens finals. That would be the most entertaining.
If we get a Ducks - Sens final, it will be the playoff series of the Bobby Ryan trade.
‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Example
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridgeâ€, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
But who determines what logic is?
that's like asking who determines what reality is.
philosophy is a mind bending subject.