View Single Post
Old
03-16-2011, 10:32 PM
  #148
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
They "got" your point. They're just rejecting it.
... That's mildly interesting. Besides, it looked to me like they posted "hey a win's a win and those are the rules now" whereupon I replied "hey no ****, sherlock."

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
We'd have asterisks all over every record if we used rules of the past to interpret results today. The regular seasons were shorter in the past, teams played fewer games, there were fewer teams, there used to be no OT period, etc, etc. Records are established based on present-day rules. Always have been. Always will be.
... See? Just like this one, where immediately I think "hey no **** sherlock, you mean to tell me that rules change within the sport over time? no ****in way!"

If you think it's perfectly legit to compare W-L records one-to-one to seasons past where there was no shootout and no three-point games, and then to use a line like "hey the season used to be 80 games or 74 games so yeah rules change this is totally legit" as your rationalization, then cool. I don't choose to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
Your Hammond comments aren't worth dignifying with a response.
... Then here's an idea! If that's how you feel, then don't respond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV View Post
It's sad you found it necessary to ***** about something and rile up fans in spite of all of the Kings success of late.
... It's sad that you can't or won't accept a perfectly legitimate criticism of something misleading at best and dishonest at worst, something that's written deliberately to be an eye-opener.

I guess it would be technically correct as well that the Kings have won 17 shootouts in the past two seasons, MOST EVER in Kings history, right? But that doesn't catch the eye as much as saying the Kings have won 40 games for two seasons in a row for the FIRST TIME in Kings history, does it?

You know pretty well that I've been happy with the recent results this team has posted. I find it a bit silly and humorous that some need to latch onto some misleading numbers in order to feel a few warm fuzzies about the team right now. 40 wins in a season used to mean something - elite, or pretty close to it. Now, 40 wins squeaks a team into the playoffs, and in fact the Kings could miss the playoffs this season despite posting 40 wins. That would not have been possible before 2005, would it? So, do me a favor and spare me the condescending lecture, OK? Thanks!

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote