I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not even going to attempt to figure it out.
If you guys all had it figured out in December that the Kings were going to win the cup...and it makes you feel good to bash Button for making such an idiotic comment that the Kings were not cup contenders, then have at it.
You are mischaracterizing what I and others have said, and then attacking the mischaracterization. An old debating trick.
See the bolded part. I am not sure ANYONE here was predicting this...we merely said that we are Cup contenders. For some reason, that has seemed to stuck in your craw, somehow.
And if you view the video again, Button is so overly agitated and excited over his commentary he flubs it several times. He is clearly trying to fight that wild hair creeping up his ass, and we are merely calling him on it. I don't think its "bashing." He is getting his comeuppance, so to speak.
you have said in several posts itt that because the Kings had never won a cup, that had an effect on how the team would perform in the 2012 playoffs. Which is just an absurd line of thinking and is never going to win you many arguements
I'm still lost with where you are going on this....I'm thinking you are basically saying that it was ridiculous to assume the Kings would not win a cup or do well in the playoffs based on their 44 years of futility?
yeah, you look pretty smart saying that now...what about the previous two years? And, what does that say about 95% of the hockey experts out there who felt the same way? Show me one person predicting the Kings would win the cup back in December? And why not? Many factors, and yes, their past history would have a part in that....a BIG part.
Los Angeles is ridiculously hot. They have outshot 13 straight opponents, a streak dating back to March 11. They outshot those opponents 451-302 and only lost two games in regulation during that span. And it wasn't a creampuff schedule -- 8 of those 13 opponents are headed to the playoffs.
Uh-oh.
You mean someone actually noticed this outside of Los Angeles?
I'm still lost with where you are going on this....I'm thinking you are basically saying that it was ridiculous to assume the Kings would not win a cup or do well in the playoffs based on their 44 years of futility?
yeah, you look pretty smart saying that now...what about the previous two years? And, what does that say about 95% of the hockey experts out there who felt the same way? Show me one person predicting the Kings would win the cup back in December? And why not? Many factors, and yes, their past history would have a part in that....a BIG part.
Past history has no effect on how a team plays in the present. You need to grasp that concept.
That is soooo not the point I'm trying to make. I'm talking about PREDICTIONS.....educated guesses, etc.
IM TALKING ABOUT CRAIG BUTTON'S COMMENTS IN DECEMBER.
You earlier in the thread:
Quote:
Ummm yah, you can make assumptions based on teams history
No. No you can't. Just because the Kings had ****** years in 1969-1970 or 1996-1997 doesn't mean you can assume they would suck in 2011-2012, as any number of people in this thread have tried to point out to you. You sit there and say people are missing the point, but I get the feeling you don't even read what you write.
I'm not going to sit there and pretend I was predicting the Kings would win the Cup in December. I wasn't. I was pissed like most people here. However, I had high expectations going into the season. Based on your logic, I was an idiot for predicting they would have a good season in the first place because they hadn't accomplished anything ever in franchise history.
No. No you can't. Just because the Kings had ****** years in 1969-1970 or 1996-1997 doesn't mean you can assume they would suck in 2011-2012, as any number of people in this thread have tried to point out to you. You sit there and say people are missing the point, but I get the feeling you don't even read what you write.
I'm not going to sit there and pretend I was predicting the Kings would win the Cup in December. I wasn't. I was pissed like most people here. However, I had high expectations going into the season. Based on your logic, I was an idiot for predicting they would have a good season in the first place because they hadn't accomplished anything ever in franchise history.
Now your changing it around to work for your argument....we all predicted they would have a good season, who was predicting they would win the cup? NOBODY. Why?
Now your changing it around to work for your argument....we all predicted they would have a good season, who was predicting they would win the cup? NOBODY. Why?
Maybe because they couldn't score a goal to save their collective lives halfway through the season...?
It had nothing to do with the fact that they hadn't won the Cup in '75...or '86...or '99...or 2011.
Maybe because they couldn't score a goal to save their collective lives halfway through the season...?
It had nothing to do with the fact that they hadn't won the Cup in '75...or '86...or '99...or 2011.
Or..........EVER??
95% of all so-called hockey experts would of had teams like the Red Wings, Penguins, Boston and even a team like Vancouver winning the cup before Los Angeles. Somebody explain to me why that is if they aren't basing their judgement on past accomplishments.
95% of all so-called hockey experts would of had teams like the Red Wings, Penguins, Boston and even a team like Vancouver winning the cup before Los Angeles. Somebody explain to me why that is if they aren't basing their judgement on past accomplishments.
Because past accomplishments mean jack **** in the present.
Because past accomplishments mean jack **** in the present.
This is pointless. Enjoy.
Can't answer that one, huh? Watch how many people predict the Kings to repeat, and why do you think they might do that? Maybe based on last years performance?? Nah, that has nothing to do with it....past accomplishments mean jack ****.
Can't answer that one, huh? Watch how many people predict the Kings to repeat, and why do you think they might do that? Maybe based on last years performance?? Nah, that has nothing to do with it....past accomplishments mean jack ****.
They don't.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for you to understand this simple concept.
The reason why many will pick the Kings to repeat is because they are returning their whole team, and they won the Stanley Cup last year.
The people who are picking the Kings to win the Cup this year is because they are basing it on RECENT successful performance. Not from 1986, mind you. Recent.
I'm not sure why it is so hard for you to understand this simple concept.
The reason why many will pick the Kings to repeat is because they are returning their whole team, and they won the Stanley Cup last year.
The people who are picking the Kings to win the Cup this year is because they are basing it on RECENT successful performance. Not from 1986, mind you. Recent.
Not from 1975.
Not from 1967.
Not even from...dare I say...2000.
Ok Ron, I finally get it now. It's actually OK to base predictions on past performance....as long as its RECENT past performance? Cool, my bad.
So, then, Button's assessment back in December of the Kings being SC contenders was pretty spot on based on the previous years performance?
Ok Ron, I finally get it now. It's actually OK to base predictions on past performance....as long as its RECENT past performance? Cool, my bad.
So, then, Button's assessment back in December of the Kings being SC contenders was pretty spot on based on the previous years performance?
Basing it on recent past performance makes sense because it is essentially the same players and team. How can you not see the difference? The Kings should have a low GAA next year because they have the same top 5 defence and top 3 goalie as last year, not because Vishnovsky had a good year in 2006
Not many, if any people predicted the Blackhawks would contend for the cup in 2010-2011 even though they won the cup the year before.
The team part of it is actually irrelevant. You look at the performance of individual players in recent years combining to make the team. Since if the Jackets this year traded for all of the star players in the league, they would be favourites despite being worst last year
Can't believe i actually took the time to reply to what just has to be a troll post
Whatever dude, my original argument was in regards to people harping on Button....all I was getting at was that I didn't see anything wrong with what he was saying. The second quote in the thread you indicated above was exactly that.
BTW, I'm taking it that you dont do very well in Vegas. Maybe you could change your name to Nostrodamus since you see things better than anyone using actual logic.
I don't give a flying rats ass what your argument was. I responded to just a portion of that argument and have stuck to only that portion. If you want to continue harping about Button, go ahead, I have not, nor will I, be dragged into a debate about him.
I guess since you've done ******** to debate my point here and can only be bothered with a wasteful dig at me, calling me Notradamus, that I can safely say my point is made. Thanks. If however you honestly think that a team not winning a cup for 44 years equates to them not having future playoff success, or even an expectation of that playoff success, maybe you can go look at the NYR's in 1994.
When you say later on in the thread that teams success can be predicted on recent history, such as the past 4-5 years, you are likely correct there. That'd be because often a large portion of the roster played all of those years, such as is the case with the Kings looking at guys like Kopitar, Brown, Doughty, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz
Or..........EVER??
95% of all so-called hockey experts would of had teams like the Red Wings, Penguins, Boston and even a team like Vancouver winning the cup before Los Angeles. Somebody explain to me why that is if they aren't basing their judgement on past accomplishments.
Maybe because all of those teams are great teams in their own right and all but one is an Eastern Conference team, which is viewed a lot more often than teams on the West, such as LA? And maybe because the only team that isn't an East coast team is Vancouver, which is in Canada and as such as still viewed by a lot of those hockey experts, seeing a large portion of hockey experts reside in Canada? No, that wouldn't have anything to do with it.
I find it hard to fathom someone can be this off base as to think what goes on 40 years ago can impact a teams ability to win the cup today. I guess we can assume because you stuck a penny in a light socket when you were seven that you will likely do it again at 47, huh?
I agree with the others, troll posting at its finest here.
Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 11-06-2012 at 01:24 AM.
Reason: filter circumvention
Ok Ron, I finally get it now. It's actually OK to base predictions on past performance....as long as its RECENT past performance? Cool, my bad.
So, then, Button's assessment back in December of the Kings being SC contenders was pretty spot on based on the previous years performance?
"Current performance" takes a lot of factors into account. If you are 4/5 of the way through the season, then yeah, you have a decent idea for the odds of cup contenders. Before the season begins you have to look at management and their performance, which obviously changes vastly when there is a regime change i.e. Taylor managed differently than Lombardi, etc. You can't take in performance if you're talking about information that is outdated and no longer relevant, which would be like saying that something our team did in 2001, performance wise, has any impact on our team's performance today, outside of like drafting, trades, and "what could have been" types of questions.
Button's comment was senseless not because he thought the Kings didn't have a chance at the cup, but because he said they didn't have a chance because they didn't have enough "good defensemen" which flies in the face that defense had been solid for us all year long and has been a shining point for us in immediately recent past season performances with the same personnel. He was just trying to get a talking point in. To him, if you don't have Chara on you're blueline, you're screwed.
As for people picking the Kings, I read on like 5-6 media sources predictions for the Kings to win prior to the season, and throughout the normal media, even in Canada, on the T.V., there would usually be a mention to "not forget the Los Angeles Kings" who recently acquired Mike Richards and Simon Gagne, as well as high expectations from Doughty after his contract extension, etc... Saying no one picked them is misleading. We got a lot of attention at the start of the year.
__________________
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
As for people picking the Kings, I read on like 5-6 media sources predictions for the Kings to win prior to the season, and throughout the normal media, even in Canada, on the T.V., there would usually be a mention to "not forget the Los Angeles Kings" who recently acquired Mike Richards and Simon Gagne, as well as high expectations from Doughty after his contract extension, etc... Saying no one picked them is misleading. We got a lot of attention at the start of the year.
Yeah, The Score here in Canada predicted the Flyers and Kings would meet in the finals actually. If Bryzgalov knew how to stop a puck they may even have happened.
Granted, the Score also said TM would win Coach of the Year so take it with a grain of salt.
