View Single Post
09-03-2013, 10:27 AM
Clown Fiesta
Clown Fiesta's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,709
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
No, I'm explaining to you why your examples were bad. If you think I was wrong, explain why instead of going on some long whining *****fest about me having a POV you don't like. It's differing POVs that make these boards interesting. Everyone has a POV, there's no such thing as absolute objectivity coming from any human being in any field or topic. However, that doesn't mean that certain arguments aren't better than others objectively. Right now my POV is informed by my best effort at objective analysis. I don't want Nash to suck, he's the best forward on my favorite team. But, based on what I've seen from him and from other players in the league I'm very concerned he's not good enough to build a championship team around.

Now bringing this back to the point of this thread, I said Nash was meaningless as a goalscorer in the playoffs. 1 goal in 12 games is a pretty good piece of evidence I got going for me there. Now, you countered by trying to say that other similar players have been just as poor, and I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the point of bringing this up was to say that either I shouldn't be so down on Nash (although this doesn't really counter my point about him) or that since these other players didn't score many goals in the last playoffs I shouldn't be concerned that Nash didn't. I think the latter is the weaker argument, but has the desired implication you want, that either Nash will be better in the future or that we won't need him to be.

Now my response to your argument there was to say that your comparison was faulty. In order for a comparison to have a point, the objects of comparison have to be similar. I'll grant you that half of the equation here works, the lack of goalscoring in last year's playoffs. But that's only half, you need the other have to work too. The other part is that the players you used have to have strong similarities to Nash. Here is where I disputed your notion and explained why. I think I thoroughly dismantled your argument, but if you think you can explain where I went wrong I'd be very willing and eager to hear it. So just to be clear, you need to explain why those players were good comparables to Nash in light of the reasons I explained they were not.
Nothing whiny about it, just an open and honest opinion. Sorry if you don't like it.

You missed the point completely, and it's simple. The point I am trying to illustrate is that bad playoff performances happen, even to guys with rings and substantial playoff experience. I don't really care if you are down on or dislike Nash. If you are to take anything away from it, and I'm not suggesting you should or will I would hope it was a slight tinge of optimism that maybe a player isn't as bad as you think, because **** happens and not all of it is defining.

Originally Posted by JCrusty View Post
While some of this is true, just looking at the sheer number of goals scored in the 1st period or when the differential is one, that teams shouldn't be floating in those situations. It's impossible to really know without dissecting each and every goal. But yes, I think some people fail to realize how easily teams can shut down a top performer in the PO's it happens all over the league, and guys like Malkin and Crosby that can perform consistently regardless of the game tightening up are an exception, not the rule.

Last edited by Clown Fiesta: 09-03-2013 at 10:33 AM.
Clown Fiesta is offline   Reply With Quote