Thread is not about posting history or posters. I called out your false equivalencies and factually proved they were wrong. 20th is not 45th in TOI/GP and 24:15 is a lot closer to 25:00 mins than 22 is it not. This is what is called as clinically destroying a false equivalency that you tried to portray here. Since there is no way of disproving this. Yes if I were you I would be done too.
Keep patting yourself on the back.
Here's what you did. Very simply put.
You said the last 5-6 Norris winners were 25+ mins in TOI/GP and were 1st-12th and that this is a great predictor.
Then I checked and found 18-19 stats that eliminate (using your great predictor) a couple of guys that many think are contenders. I didn't get into much detail but in case you're wondering.
As of today:
Burns- P/GP-1.09, TOI/GP-
24:13 (
20th in the league)
Rielly - P/GP-1.10, TOI/GP-22:26 (44th in the league)
Letang-P/GP-0.92, TOI/GP-25:59 (4th in the league)
Giordano P/GP-0.95, TOI/GP-
24:45 (
15th in the league)
Then, despite the fact that Burns doesn't fall under the 25+ minutes or 1st-12th ranking great predictor of yours, you bent the requirements and basically said he's close enough. Rielly isn't. I assume you'd have done the same for Giordano.
That's why I brought up your history. Because you're trying to come off as some unbiased analyst who's come up with some great predictor. But when it's challenged you moved the posts and defended a guy who's close enough.
I hope Gio and Burns get played a bit more. Otherwise you may have to move your predictor down to 24+ minutes and finish in the top 20.
Or you can just do that now...as long as it eliminates a Leaf.