View Single Post
03-23-2013, 09:03 PM
Registered User
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,371
vCash: 500
Ohashi_Jouzu So... before the benefit of stats available on the internet. And before newspapers from other towns were available on the internet. And with everyone having to either a) own every hockey almanac from each season to remember what the respective matchups and results were, or b) retrieve and manipulate that information from memory. And with the average person only having maybe a hockey related book or three on their shelf anyway. And before cable television made more out of market games available on more channels. And before out of market games were streamed and archived on the internet.
If ye think that was a pity, don't even get me started on how hard it was to convince our Town Cryer to report the previous season's winner when news of it finally arrived. And to that end thank goodness they finally strung the telegraph wire when the railroad was routed through our village and Joseph Hamfist the Blacksmith was learned in Morse Code because, as everyone knows, the life of a smithy is all about tap-tap-tapping.

And before millions of people have had the time to pour over these resources and reform opinions they made when they were 10 years old - without the benefit of any of these resources or a developed eye for the depth and breadth of skill in the game, mind you, etc, etc. I mean, Excel didn't even exist in those days, so what numbers were people crunching and how?
Good grief...unreformed 10 year olds' opinions?...what on earth are you talking about and where do you get these assumptions? Oh right, you're trying to call into question any opinion formed that didn't have the benefit of your computer and enlightened number-crunching by implying that such an opinion would be childlike. Gotcha.

Hey while you're at it, you may as well toss in that previous opinion-formers didn't have the benefit of modern nutrition and modern workouts, so their brains weren't functioning at the speed or level that present-day brains like yours do. Like, with these advantages, if you dropped your average HF board poster here into a pool of expert hockey writers and/or hardcore fans then who knew (but obviously didn't really know!) what was going on around them, our intrepid young number cruncher of today would just blow them all away like a Terminator from the future, or super-advanced aliens from across the galaxy.

Sorry, but the "I think the '80s Oilers are overrated, and 4 in a row is better,
Did I ever write that the Oilers were "overrated"? Where did I write that? I said they were a great dynasty, and nowhere did I say what you have just attributed to me. Could it be that you're trying to mis-represent what I said? Naaah...
so it has to be the Islanders" doesn't undermine a better roster, who did better, against better teams, and still ended up with the same number of Cups despite lacking the 4 consecutive championships factor.
...Oh, now I see why you falsely attributed that to me. You did it because you want to maneuver the debate into rosters and "who had the better team"...again...instead of what the question actually asked in order to downplay the fact the Oilers lost after only a repeat instead of defending it 3 times in a row. Guess what, some people were doing exactly what you were doing a quarter century ago. Strawmen have been around a long time, serving various purposes, including yours here.

On top of that, it's widely accepted that the Oilers would have added more Cups to the fold if one single player hadn't been removed.
Aaaaaand, the old paper roster "could have won, would have won" appears.oh, and the nebulous "widely accepted"-stated-as-a-certainty-but-really-begs-the-question gambit...yup, nothing new to see here either.

There was no such talk with the Islanders. They did great getting to that 4th, and I think the Oilers at the time convinced most people that the Islanders had absolutely no shot at a 5th; neither when they attempted the 5th against those Oilers nor any season that followed. And, in fact, they never got one, while the remaining players from that Oilers dynasty did and almost right away.
And the Oilers proved vulnerable after only a repeat by losing, then reset, and lost again after 2. That's simply not as dominant as remaining on top by defending a Championship 3 times in a row after winning. For my opinion, I rely on what happened, not an alternate reality.

That's in my opinion, of course, but it'd be nice if you didn't prance around like the Islanders is the correct default choice for mainly "traditional" reasons, or that there's no ground to be broken when looking back at what these teams did.
It kind of amuses me that you think anything you've stated so far isn't as "traditional" as what I use as criteria to answer the question. People have been pumping the Oil Dynasty's tires with the same stale air you're using since only forever ago. But it amuses me more that you think that forming an opinion to the question that disagrees with yours is a form of "prancing". That's kind of a new one. Hmmm, why, I wonder? could it be you're once again trying to paint an opinion's holder in a bad light? Nah..couldnt be!

Relatively uniformed people (or those who will default to simple if it saves them time and effort) have been making that choice (in select regions, I'm sure) for years...
Now that I have more data, I've re-assessed my former opinion that previously gave you the benefit of the doubt (the "Nah you wouldn't gratuitously try to paint a dissenting opinion-holder in a bad light). I see that giving you that benefit was naive...even a 10 year old. You in fact DO try and gratuitously paint the source of a differing opinion in a bad light to try and further your argument.

"Uninformed people", the "provincially ignorant", the "mentally lazy"...You should be a politician the way you try to assign ignorance to others who disagree with you in an effort to sway those to your camp by virtue of them wanting to simply avoid your label. Look at you, trying to persuade that you have unique, modern insight by resorting to one of the most predictable and oldest tactics in the book. You, my friend, win a ribbon for Irony.

(since at least 1990, as you point out) without attempting to collect more in terms of context and understanding of both situations, or give them their "fair due", for the purposes of an actually meaningful comparison.
How do you know they haven't attempted it, did, and simply have not seen anything that sways their opinion? You don't know this of course, you're merely trying to imply that they haven't. Just like your implication that previous opinions weren't formed in a "meaningful" way or "fairly" or "with understanding". Let's face it, you're pimping the Oilers, and have an agenda to try and maneuver the question into the "Who was the better team" category and through condescending prose imply (directly and backhandedly) that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, or too provincial to place as much importance as you do of what "lies behind" that it would trump consecutive wins for this particular question. In other words, according to you if someone doesn't see it your way, they simply aren't "enlightened".

So, go plow that same old field to your heart's content and apply your Brave New context that (like alchemy has as much chance as actually turning lead into gold) turns losing into winning, and you can share these deep-look findings just like Oil fanboys in olde sailing-ship times who shared the same ones then, and have been doing so every decade in between. You may believe you're New Age, but you're actually circa 1988 or so.

NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote