Cdizzle wrote:Who changed what argument? And who lost an argument to begin with? I get so confused sometimes with all the grasping for relevance straws.
Who is grasping at relevance? You made a claim that was refuted with facts.
Original claim: Getting to the finals in St. Louis can involve beating 2 teams of questionable quality. It doesn't mean you suck, but that alone is a tremendously weak argument to be a 'good' team.
Refuted claim: See above posts with games and box scores of good, solid semifinal games showing those games weren't against teams of "questionable quality". This was shown as an understanding of where BirdsEyeView would have thought we had "good" teams to make the finals of those tourneys. "Bad" or even "mediocre" teams, don't win those 4 games I pointed out to you as examples.
You then tried to backtrack and say those were only "1 game" and you had to look at the season as a whole... then tried to reference where good teams may have laid an egg in "1 game" negating the stance you just took.
It's ok for a point you make to be wrong. I know you're used to winning everything under the sun, but being wrong about 1 point on a message board isn't the end of the world man.