View Single Post
Old
02-02-2012, 02:57 PM
  #307
dynastyREredux
Where's the Doritos?
 
dynastyREredux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Posts: 1,247
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dynastyREredux
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
And yet completely leave out the fact that you also bolded the part that said "No matter the goalie" which is a good sign that I'm making an assertion based on a historical perspective. And yet you completely leave the fact that the following sentence also clued in to the history of that stat, as I said "and when he's not there we've hardly managed to do as good"... It's not broken english, it's you taking a part of ONE sentence and taking it out of its context. The historical nature of the assertion was quite obvious when I mentioned our poor record when he wasn't there.
No matter the goalie doesn't mean it's past tense though. If it wasn't broke English then you clearly meant the Habs are a 100 point team with Markov if he plays 82 games, which means present tense as well as historically, which means I strongly disagree. Like I said, that makes him an 11+ win player at the current pace. Do you really think he's an 11 win player?

And yes, you used historical evidence but people use historical evidence to prove future events or probabilities all the time.

The fact that you keep trying to point out "clues" that you were talking historically and not including present tense (despite actually saying present tense words) shows that it's not as clear as you want to believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
4- have nothing to prove he won't be back 100%, when facts show the opposite conclusion (other cases like Wiz, Malkin, Williams).
Right back to the straw man. I never said he wouldn't be back to 100%, I definitely believe it's unlikely but like I said, those 3 cherry picked examples are irrelevant. First of all, as I'm sure even you know, everyone responds differently. Second of all, not all of those players had the same number of injuries as Markov, or as frequently and anyway, they were all younger which is definitely a factor.

I never, once said Markov can't return to his previous levels, but even you have to admit there's question marks. Even if he wasn't hurt, he's getting to an age where there's natural regression. I mean, I could find 3 guys who weren't the same after a couple knee surgeries and make the same stupid, emotional argument but the fact of the matter is we don't know. I'm inclined to be doubtful at this stage, because of the factors I mentioned but I don't think it's moronic to feel the other way.

You're chastising me because I have no proof of my opinion and the obvious fact is you don't either.

dynastyREredux is offline