News Article: Mirtle: It’s time to ask some tough questions about these Maple Leafs

[diceman934]

Are you serious with this ****? You need someone to say they were wrong because you don't understand hyperbole? Good lord.

No he lied about what I said and under the pretense of what I said.

 

[Nithoniniel]

You were wrong and can not admit it. Calling me out and you misrepresent what you said and what I said. Take the loss as you said.

No I was not wrong. I was using hyperbole. If you can't understand that from my post, then I have no idea how you can function in a modern society. Not everything is meant completely literally, you know.

No he lied about what I said and under the pretense of what I said.

I quoted your post word for word

So if we were talking about just plain hits my bad they did not hit as much. In that vein I was wrong.

Edit: Didn't actually see that. This is all I wanted.

However we were talking about how soft we are as a team and Nylander leads the charge. So in that vein I am not wrong and bang on with my assessment. You still never admit when you are wrong catch you a lot and yet nothing buck back pedaling.

The only time we talked about Nylander was when I said we should be patient with him, because another soft player got that patient and rewarded his team for it just last playoffs. I never said anything about him not being soft. Stop making up strawmen.

As for me not admitting that I'm wrong, just make a search for posts with me and those words. I have absolutely no problem with it. I admitted fault earlier today even. I'm just not going to do it because you suddenly pretend not to understand the difference between literal meaning and hyperbole.

 

[diceman934]

No I was not wrong. I was using hyperbole. If you can't understand that from my post, then I have no idea how you can function in a modern society. Not everything is meant completely literally, you know.

Jesus Christ. This just might take the cake for the most ridiculous hill to die on I've seen on this site.


I quoted your post word for word


Edit: Didn't actually see that. This is all I wanted.

No you lied. You never quoted your post word for word leaving out that detail showed you were wrong. As I though you have never been wrong in your life.

You take the cake as you have removed all doubt as to just what you are willing to do or say rather then admit you were wrong.

 

[Nithoniniel]

No you lied. You never quoted your post word for word leaving out that detail showed you were wrong. As I though you have never been wrong in your life.

You take the cake as you have removed all doubt as to just what you are willing to do or say rather then admit you were wrong.

Like I said above, you can search for me saying those words and get plenty of results. Earlier today I told @MyBudJT that I was likely wrong with how I read the Babcock quotes.

I said that Chicago won without hitting. I did not literally mean that Chicago spent five years never throwing a single hit. A child would understand that.

 

[socko]

Mirtle: It’s time to not ask some tough questions about these Maple Leafs.

There, I fixed it for Mirtle. Blaming stuff on Marleau and Zaitsev and Lou. I could come here if I wanted to read that crap and pretend this team doesn't have major compete issues. Not to mention Marleau's stats are as good as Nylanders. Left that part out eh Mirtle? Tough questions..... Um yeah.

 

[IBeL34f]

No you lied. You never quoted your post word for word leaving out that detail showed you were wrong. As I though you have never been wrong in your life.

You take the cake as you have removed all doubt as to just what you are willing to do or say rather then admit you were wrong.

There seems to be a little projection going on here...

 

[Nithoniniel]

So which is easier, replacing one 80 point player or two 60 pointers? I honestly don't know. I guessed the 80 point guy, but that might very well be wrong

Yeah, certainly seems like that. Huh. I was wrong on that one.

I guess I was wrong

Hey, thanks for this. Glad I got things wrong in this case.

Here's some recent posts by me where I admit that I'm wrong.

But I saw earlier that you admitted you were wrong about the hits in the way I meant it too, so no issues there. Shouldn't have said the hill to die on-comment, as I had missed that.

 

[Notsince67]

So you're saying that instead of taking issues with me saying that Chicago didn't hit a lot, you thought that I literally meant that while all other teams had approximately 10'000 hits during that period, Chicago had zero? And you think that somehow looks better for you?

You're just being ridiculous now, Dice.

Official hits are not the only hits that people talk about. I watched Marner on 2 occasions last game knock a guy to the ice and no hits were registered

 

[diceman934]

Like I said above, you can search for me saying those words and get plenty of results. Earlier today I told @MyBudJT that I was likely wrong with how I read the Babcock quotes.

I said that Chicago won without hitting. I did not literally mean that Chicago spent five years never throwing a single hit. A child would understand that.

My god. We had a limited discussion about hitting. You said they never hit and I laughed and said my god you could not be any more wrong etc . I said they were far from a soft team. Which was not focusing on your words of not hitting at all. You then posted stats about how many team hits etc. I posted names of players with a lot of hits. Then you accused me of all sorts of things in an attempt to twist and sway things your way.
I was 100% correct when I called out your bs post of them winnning the cups without hitting. I posted name of players who were big time in physical play.

Chicago was never a soft team.


Edit just saw your above post. Let’s leave it as we misunderstand what the other was taking about. Have a good day.

 

[Nithoniniel]

My god. We had a limited discussion about hitting. You said they never hit and I laughed and said my god you could not be any more wrong etc . I said they were far from a soft team. Which was not focusing on your words of not hitting at all. You then posted stats about how many team hits etc. I posted names of players with a lot of hits. Then you accused me of all sorts of things in an attempt to twist and sway things your way.
I was 100% correct when I called out your bs post of them winnning the cups without hitting. I posted name of players who were big time in physical play.

Chicago was never a soft team.

There's no point in this going on. I just wanted you to admit that Chicago didn't hit a lot. You eventually did. I have no idea why we keep going in circles on this. It's done as far as I'm concerned.

But be my guest, keep posting about how right you are that people who use hyperbole are wrong. Real high mark for you, that.

 

[RLF]

Official hits are not the only hits that people talk about. I watched Marner on 2 occasions last game knock a guy to the ice and no hits were registered

Yes, official hits are often way off. I watched a game where I credited Kappy recently with 5 hits/finishing his check. He got credited for 1 hit in the game.??? Hits is also not the definition of physical play as neither is Fighting as some relate it. They are a part of it, but not it's definition as a whole.

 

[Notsince67]

Yes, official hits are often way off. I watched a game where I credited Kappy recently with 5 hits/finishing his check. He got credited for 1 hit in the game.??? Hits is also not the definition of physical play as neither is Fighting as some relate it. They are a part of it, but not it's definition as a whole.

This is often lost on a lot of people here...especially the stats nerds.
To Hit or Not to Hit?

edit.
Hey @diceman934 . Please notice the Buehler reference in the article. Given your recent interaction I thought it was pretty hilarious.

 

[RLF]

This is often lost on a lot of people here...especially the stats nerds.
To Hit or Not to Hit?

edit.
Hey @diceman934 . Please notice the Buehler reference in the article. Given your recent interaction I thought it was pretty hilarious.

But because it is a stat, it proves it. No?
I wonder how many that have thrown out hit stats to show teams aren't "physical", actually bothered to look at how they were calculated. Of course that can be said for many stats.

 

[IPS]

edit: delete

 

[ShaneFalco]

You're talking to a guy who literally prefaces every post of his by patting himself on the back for being right before he posts whatever he posts.

Don't waste your breath.

so true
Had to finally ignore

 

[crump]

 

[socko]

Wendel had 76 in 64 games. Give the man his due. Finally given a number 1 center and not expected to fight Bob Probert who has 30+ lbs on him every night the guy showed his talents.

 

[The CyNick]

Yes, official hits are often way off. I watched a game where I credited Kappy recently with 5 hits/finishing his check. He got credited for 1 hit in the game.??? Hits is also not the definition of physical play as neither is Fighting as some relate it. They are a part of it, but not it's definition as a whole.

A lot of official stats are way off which is why real hockey people don't value advanced stats.