Shutting down silly he-saw, she-saw eye-test arguments with actual data is always poetic.
It's more like shutting down discussion with spurious data that few have the patience to deal with for the umpteenth time. Lirl, Kane is overrated, but Rundblad is 'great'. Advanced stats must never have seen Rundblad in his own zone. If you want to believe these pseudo-advanced hockey stats, more power to you. But most here see them as severely flawed, especially on the individual level. So yes, it's an argument ender. But not because you proved anything to BobbyJet -- but because it's annoying. The same way people would end the discussion if you started listing the ingredients for blueberry donuts. You want to say Rundblad is serviceable, fine. But to say he's 'great' is silly, and prancing around with worthless data doesn't change that.
