Running around bullying EVERYONE, eh?LOLLLLLL
Thanks so much for the laughs. Seriously.
"It's not entirely subjective!"
Correct.
If only you could understand that sentence and apply it appropriately. You're unable to because you're..... well, I don't want to get benched. Have a good one!!!
Just no.
I do understand it.LOLLLLLL
Thanks so much for the laughs. Seriously.
"It's not entirely subjective!"
Correct.
If only you could understand that sentence and apply it appropriately. You're unable to because you're..... well, I don't want to get benched. Have a good one!!!
That 6-year cutoff is one you've come up with. Unless the information in the original post is a lie (or mistake), they compared offenses of the past TWENTY years, not six. It just so happens that several of the better offenses (at least according to this statistic) have been from the past six years. That doesn't mean that comparison was limited to those six years.
This is impossible lol.
Awwwww, this was a cute response!Nope...still don't care.
All manner of professional writing - Newpapers, e-media, government documents, academia, fiction and non-fiction..many with professional editors...have spelling and grammar errors.
But for you...it's hillarious I mispelled a word on my phone on a sports fan message board.
now THAT...isworthy.
The dimwitted are so easily amused.
Oh, you also can't spell "hilarious."Nope...still don't care.
All manner of professional writing - Newpapers, e-media, government documents, academia, fiction and non-fiction..many with professional editors...have spelling and grammar errors.
But for you...it's hillarious I mispelled a word on my phone on a sports fan message board.
now THAT...is
The dimwitted are so easily amused.
I get the frustration with dilution of the meaning of words. I share it. But the stat involves 27 years of data. To me, in this context, that qualifies as historic because that is a fairly lengthy amount of time. Going much further back than that probably gets--generally--into lower scoring eras, so the comparisons would become less useful. Maybe you could go back to 1995, or so, and not run into that problem (maybe you never would, I'm not absolutely certain about that)? Still, over two-and-a-half decades is quite a bit of data over a relatively lengthy span of time. While I don't think there is an absolute or inarguable definition of the word "historic", its usage here isn't ridiculous. I can see where, maybe, some might see that as questionable, but I don't think it qualifies as hyperbole or serves as evidence of a hidden agenda.
Shoot, it's actually 27 years, right?
Yeah, some people are just jumping to conclusions and/or can't read the chart. I'm not arguing that the information is the most revelatory in the world, but some of the nitpicking and reflexivity going on in this thread is...crazy.
Am I missing something? I'm questioning myself because, surely, no one would double down this way on something that seems so obviously incorrect. The comparison goes back to 2000. That so many high ranking teams are from relatively recent seasons doesn't undermine it's value (although I wouldn't argue it as much beyond just being interesting).
Ugh...TWENTY-SEVEN years. My typo/mistake.
There's no way to be less credible than just copy-pasting an AI answer.
You are correct. Kevin can't read.
Not what I did turd.
it’s just done insufferable people here. i get frustrated with this team as much as the next guy, but never feel the urge to just look for every reason to trash them and other fans
Awwwww, this was a cute response!
It wasn't a typo. It wasn't fat fingers.
You simply didn't know how to spell the word.
We both know what that says about you.
And you had to double reply. We know what that says about ya.Oh, you also can't spell "hilarious."
Was that the phone's fault too?
Pretty easy to grade when the student can't spell "embarrassment" and "hilarious."
