This is all just bullshit.
Well, thanks for prefacing your post so I know how to respond accordingly.
My point is that if you are purporting to count something, you need a reasonable criteria for what that thing is. If you don't, you aren't counting it, or almost counting it, or counting it well enough for a certain purpose.
My point is you don't understand why I did what I did and, again, you're contorting what I did into something it wasn't intended to be.
It's not a matter of degree. You're either counting something or you aren't. If you aren't, the result isn't quick and dirty, or close enough -- it's nothing.
Do you honestly think that going through the top 10 draft picks with a fine tooth comb over 18 drafts that the results will change dramatically? Or will the fact that picks 'busting' isn't a widespread phenomenon hold up?
Does Cam Barker and Nail Yakupov
drastically alter my point or is it minor pedantic quibbling?
I don't have to sit down and do 8 hours of analyzing draft picks and researching them when the general assertion is true (it's hard to f*** up the higher you go -- something which you apparently agreed upon.) Especially when it's being done to clown on someone who never substantiates their claims.
You purported to count all the busts drafted in the top 5 and didn't count several of them,
I never said this or claimed this.
which if I remember correctly
You didn't. I was tracking all
top 10 draft picks who played 200 games or less as my criteria because I had a few minutes to kill before I was running off to meet up with someone. The 'top 5' thing was something I noted from what I had done, it wasn't what I was setting out to do, which was clown on someone who makes up shit consistently.
This is at least the 2nd, possibly 3rd, time I've corrected you on this delusion.
would have constituted a significant fraction of the final number and completely changed the result.
Yes, if different rules and criteria were used things would be different. Groundbreaking stuff.
That's not a limited or qualified success, it's misinformation.
So what does attributing shit I didn't say fall under in your rulebook?
Pointing this out isn't personal, and the fact that I'm doing now and not to someone else at some other time doesn't mean anything.
I never said it was personal, I said it's really weird how you're latching onto one person making (in your estimation) bullshit claims, and if you're the self-appointed moderator of truth and champion against misinformation, why you aren't taking an equal and applied approach to everything that's been said in the thread.
I'll ask again, but am not holding my breath for an answer:
Do you agree or disagree that it becomes increasingly harder to f*** up a 1st round selection the higher you go in the draft?
How drastically do you think things would change if I (because god forbid you do it) do a deep dive on every single top 10 draft pick and would it change my original assertion?
Or are you just going to make shit up, ignore what I've said and label it 'bullshit' attribute things I didn't say to me while claiming I'm providing disinformation?
Dude calm down. This isn't The Medical Review Board, it's a hockey forum. You are taking this stuff way too seriously.
That's, uh, sorta my point. Glad you were able to comprehend it.
