Alright, Cujo (and Chizip), I really don't care that much. Yes, I shouldn't get so worked up over the Canucks. Yes, your opinion shouldn't bother me. And yes, I need a beer. Badly. But since you've posted some more, I'll go back and debate some of it with you...
cujo said:
When I said stop focusing on regular season stats, I meant the entire year team records.
But this is exactly what *you* used to determine the "top teams" (Dallas and Detroit) in the conference. You used point totals based on an entire year to show how great the Ducks are for beating the 1 and 2 "top teams" How is this not obvious?
If you weren't near-sighted about the Canucks, you would realize that they did not have the best record in the last quarter of the season... which is a good PLAYOFF indicator.
Uhm, read my posts again. I actually went out of my way to point out that the Canucks played much better for *most* of the season than they did at the end. I fully indicated this exact point, saying they slumped at the end.
Those types of stats may not always translate into postseason success, but OFTEN the better teams are those who are hot in the last few months. So, when you make statements like "oh yeah, well we beat Dallas in two periods of hockey one time"... that really has no value for comparison. Just because your team beat Dallas ONCE, doesn't mean you can beat Anaheim FOUR times in a playoff format. Does this make sense?
Yes, this completely makes sense, and I have not once disagreed with this thinking by anything I've said. My point is that the Canucks are once again playing like they were when they beat Dallas 4-2 on March 17th--and let's not forget when they beat Detroit several times, once by a 5-2 margin. So, I disagree that these scores have little relevance. They show what Vancouver can do when playing well. They are playing well right now. Therefore, they have relevance. That's my point. Hopefully you won't ignore it this time
I don't mind having a friendly debate about hockey, but when you dismiss mine and other's comments to be folly if they challenge the stature of the Canucks, then I don't see the point in a continued response.
That's just it, though, it wasn't very friendly. You guys basically jumped all over me (get your mind out of the gutter, Chizip
) for saying you contradicted yourself, and you didn't even realize what I was actually saying to top it off. Yeah, maybe I should lighten up, but maybe you should realize I'm not the only one who needs to do that. Also, maybe I would have responded better to your criticisms if you didn't respond to my criticisms as being so folly -- ie, saying I'm dreaming, must be drunk, etc.
Also, when did I dismiss your comments? I simply argued one main point, which I still haven't seen you defend.
Ps. Okanagan Spring Pale Ale would suite me just fine right about now.
