I get that you see yourself as being fair and balanced, but from the outside, it really doesn’t come across that way. You say the 5-year timeframe wasn’t meant to push any narrative, but let’s be honest — you chose it because it painted this year in a certain light. And anytime someone brings up a longer timeframe that would show a different story, you wave it off as irrelevant. That’s not objectivity, that’s picking the window that fits the point you already want to make.
I picked the 5 year window because it made the most sense for the discussion; comparing to recent history, and the level we've shifted downward from. All recent timeframes would show a similar phenomenon, and there's nothing unreasonable about the timeframe I used. You just don't like what it shows, so you make up false claims of intent. Meanwhile, your friend's timeframe makes no sense, and you say nothing. That's not objectivity, or being fair and balanced.
Same thing with injuries. You’ve gone after people for just saying "injuries" without context, but then you did a quick-hit comparison yourself and somehow that’s enough? You can’t expect everyone else to provide layers of context and deep analysis while you get to do a surface-level rundown and call it good. If you want to hold other people to that standard, you’ve gotta hold yourself to it too.
I'm not all that interested in doing a multifactor injury deep dive in a post game thread. It's not my job to do all the work for people every time somebody makes a random claim. If you are going to claim that a discrepancy in results is a result of an injury impact discrepancy, the responsibility is on you to support that claim.
And the whole idea that you’ve been "balanced" because you apply the same criteria to everyone — that’s just not how it’s come across. It’s not about counting criticisms to make sure everyone gets the same number. It’s about how much weight you give to each thing. Under Dubas, everything’s got a reason or a caveat . Now with this group, every little flaw was treated like a huge deal It’s not about being balanced on paper, it’s about how much you’re bending to explain things away then versus now.
That's not how I've approached discussions of either GM. I put the same weight on things as I did before. You'll notice me, for example, defending Treliving for things like keeping our stars and paying significant money to Matthews and hopefully soon to be Marner, and that was the type of stuff that had people labelling me a dirty Dubas lover who agrees with everything he did.
Your perception of a slant is a result of the board, not me. This board has been overwhelmingly anti Dubas and pro Treliving, and so somebody in the middle ground who pushes back on misinformation is going to be perceived by those people to be slanted more in the opposite direction. Under Dubas, a lot more negative misinformation needed correcting. Under Treliving, a lot more reality checks are needed.
The context thing is the same deal. You talk a lot about how important context is, and that’s fine — context does matter. But you can’t just apply it when it helps your argument and ignore it when it doesn’t. Either context matters across the board, or it doesn’t. When people apply context to the Dubas years, you write it off as being biased, but when you do the exact same thing now, it’s "objective analysis." That’s not balance, that’s just spinning things to fit how you want them to look.
Context matters, and I apply it across the board. I'm not even sure what you're talking about, because I was routinely attacked exactly
BECAUSE I added context to the Dubas years. I encourage context for both GMs. I usually just saw misinformation and anger when it came to Dubas.
Same with the playoffs. You’re saying it’s ridiculous to boil everything down to when you lose, but you didn’t have that energy when you were talking about Dubas. Now all of a sudden regular season process and underlying numbers are what really matter? You can’t flip the criteria just because it’s someone different running the team. If results mattered then, they matter now.
What?? Have you ever read my posts? I've spent
so much energy arguing the exact same things about not exclusively using playoff outcomes and round number to evaluate GMs, and the greater representative value of the regular season, and the importance of underlying results, etc. for years and years, through both the Dubas and Treliving eras. Again, that's exactly the kind of thing I got attacked for all the time. I'm using the exact same criteria.
And honestly, you can’t just declare yourself "fair and balanced" and expect everyone to take your word for it. If this many people are telling you they see bias, maybe it’s worth stepping back and thinking about why that is instead of just assuming they’re all being unfair.
I don't really care about what some small clique of friends here think. Their perception of me and their need to personally attack me says more about them than me. They think that anybody that doesn't align with their bias is biased.
At the end of the day, you’re free to have your opinions — no one’s saying you can’t — but acting like you’re the only objective voice while everyone else is just emotional or uninformed is exactly why people are pushing back. If you want to be seen as fair and balanced, you actually have to show it, not just say it.
I do show it, and I don't think I'm the only objective voice here. We have some good posters, some who I agree with and some who I disagree with, who can take an objective perspective and listen to facts. But unfortunately that's not everybody.
Case in point:
You're the one who first mentioned coaches and you're the one who talked about 5 years being more significant than 7, but I can't point out that you use 8 when it suits your bias?
Notdatsyuk has already been shown his own quotes first mentioning coaches. He has already been shown undeniable objective evidence that he was wrong about which season Matthews missed the most games. And yet he still refuses to admit his error, and instead lashes out at me and falsely equates correcting
his statement about Matthews' career with "using" an 8 year timeframe myself. If you were actually concerned with fair and balanced objectivity, ClarkSittler, you would be having this discussion with him, not me.
