Canadiens retired another number

[auxlepli 17]

At this rate they'll need to go to triple digits soon. Bob Gainey's will be retired in February, and Roy's isn't even on the list. Though the way he left might preclude 33 hanging from the rafters, but he is in the Canadiens Hall of Fame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Cana...Retired_numbers

Robinson's retired

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=223228&hubname=

[toby91_ca 620]

Well, that's what happens when you have a franchised as storied as that.

Edit: Speaking of the Canadians, this could be the first decade (2000-2009) that they have not won a cup. They would have to win it either this year or next to avoid that....not looking good for that to happen.

1910's - 1 cup

1920's - 1 cup

1930's - 2 cups

1940's - 2 cups

1950's - 5 cups

1960's - 5 cups

1970's - 6 cups

1980's - 1 cup

1990's - 1 cup

Edited November 20, 2007 by toby91_ca

[interminded 1]

They'll retire David Aebisher too probably..

[eva unit zero 271]

Well, that's what happens when you have a franchised as storied as that.

Edit: Speaking of the Canadians, this could be the first decade (2000-2009) that they have not won a cup. They would have to win it either this year or next to avoid that....not looking good for that to happen.

1910's - 1 cup

1920's - 1 cup

1930's - 2 cups

1940's - 2 cups

1950's - 5 cups

1960's - 5 cups

1970's - 6 cups

1980's - 1 cup

1990's - 1 cup

Technically, the decade goes from 2001-2010.

[toby91_ca 620]

Technically, the decade goes from 2001-2010.

I'm not so sure about that....we could make a Seinfeld episode out of it though.

Edit: I look at it this way, when the calendar changes from 2009 to 2010 you are actually working on the first year (2011) of the next decade, by the time the calendar changes to 2011, that first year of the decade is already complete.

Edited November 20, 2007 by toby91_ca

[Yzermaniac192005 0]

I'm not so sure about that....we could make a Seinfeld episode out of it though.

Hahaha. No soup for you!

[vangvace 12]

Good for them... sixty more numbers to retire before they run out.

[eva unit zero 271]

I'm not so sure about that....we could make a Seinfeld episode out of it though.

Edit: I look at it this way, when the calendar changes from 2009 to 2010 you are actually working on the first year (2011) of the next decade, by the time the calendar changes to 2011, that first year of the decade is already complete.

When counting, we count from 1 to 10, not zero to 9. Therefore, the year ending in 1 begins the new 'set' of tens, hundreds, thousands, whatever. Otherwise, if you count backwards, you end up having to include the year 1 B.C. in the first decade A.D...which is incorrect.

[toby91_ca 620]

When counting, we count from 1 to 10, not zero to 9. Therefore, the year ending in 1 begins the new 'set' of tens, hundreds, thousands, whatever. Otherwise, if you count backwards, you end up having to include the year 1 B.C. in the first decade A.D...which is incorrect.

Disagree...you should start from 0. When you were born, you were not 1 year old. On your first birthday, you turned 1, the next day is the first day in your 2nd year of life.

[Legionnaire11 0]

some calenders start with 0.

either way, the new decade is always regarded as starting on the 10's. for the NHL's purpose, the next decade will be from 2010-2019

[eva unit zero 271]

Disagree...you should start from 0. When you were born, you were not 1 year old. On your first birthday, you turned 1, the next day is the first day in your 2nd year of life.

This year is 2007 AD. Meaning that at the end of this year, exactly 2007 years will have passed since an arbitrary counting point loosely associated with the birth of Jesus. If our ages were counted the same way, we WOULD be born at the age of 1. Or alternatively, it would currently be the year 2006, as we would not have completed 2007 years from our arbitrary counting point yet.

[Vincanni 1]

Heh almost seems like they're retiring numbers to compensate for their lack of accolades over the decade. I jest with this notion more than I aim to be serious. But hey, who can deny nothing says, "look at the success of our past" like retiring numbers?

[eva unit zero 271]

some calenders start with 0.

either way, the new decade is always regarded as starting on the 10's. for the NHL's purpose, the next decade will be from 2010-2019

That is mathematically incorrect.

Quick question...what's the first day of the year? January 1st? Not January 0th? What's the numerical designation for January? One you say, not zero?

A decade counts from the beginning of the first year until the end of the tenth. The numerical year is the number of years that will have passed since an arbitrary counting point. The first decade would have ended with the tenth year, which would have been the year 10, as that is how many years would have passed at its completion. Therefore, every decade that followed would also have ended in a multiple of 10, including 100, 500, 1000, and 2000. If the NHL wants to count decades differently, why don't they count from 97-98 to 06-07, thus making this year the first season of a new decade, and last decade Cupless for the Canadiens?

[Legionnaire11 0]

That is mathematically incorrect.

i'm not disputing the mathematical technicalities. no one is saying you're wrong in your explanation. Only that for any historical purposes, past, present and future. If you look up any decade in a history book, it will start with the 10 and end with the 9. if the Canadiens don't win a cup in the next two seasons, history will state that they failed to win a cup in the first decade of this century.

[auxlepli 17]

Well, that's what happens when you have a franchised as storied as that.

True, but teams could be like the Leafs and just honor numbers. It's an alternative I like a lot.

I think eva unit zero is right on this decade issue. I remember many people reporting the first year of the current millennium started on Jan. 1, 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium#Ranges

Right after that check out the debate paragraph. In any case, the Canadiens haven't won a Cup in more than 10 years.

Edited November 20, 2007 by auxlepli

[toby91_ca 620]

True, but teams could be like the Leafs and just honor numbers. It's an alternative I like a lot.

I think eva unit zero is right on this decade issue. I remember many people reporting the first year of the current millennium started on Jan. 1, 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium#Ranges

Right after that check out the debate paragraph. In any case, the Canadiens haven't won a Cup in more than 10 years.

Yes, I understand the whole debate around the millennium, birth of Christ, all that...........but, from a hockey perspective, I think most would consider the 1990 Cup winning team to be considered the first team to win in the 90's, not the 1991 team.

[eva unit zero 271]

Yes, I understand the whole debate around the millennium, birth of Christ, all that...........but, from a hockey perspective, I think most would consider the 1990 Cup winning team to be considered the first team to win in the 90's, not the 1991 team.

And is there some rule saying that the majority cannot also be factually inaccurate?

[vangvace 12]

as "math inaccurate" Time wise is a-ok. wiki lists it 0-9 as well.

wiki

with makes sense to be because 1990 wasn't part of the 80s. Nor, when I turn 30 will I look back and consider it part of my 20s.

[joshy207 156]

Eva, I understand what you mean, and in the sense you're referring to proper decades, you're right. Same would apply to centuries and millenia (like the 21st Century didn't begin in 2000, it began in 2001, and goes through 2100.) However, when people refer to "The 80s" they don't mean from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1990... they're talking about 1980 through 1989 inclusive.

[toby91_ca 620]

Eva, I understand what you mean, and in the sense you're referring to proper decades, you're right. Same would apply to centuries and millenia (like the 21st Century didn't begin in 2000, it began in 2001, and goes through 2100.) However, when people refer to "The 80s" they don't mean from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1990... they're talking about 1980 through 1989 inclusive.

Exactly. How could someone even try to argue that ninteen-"NINETY" is part of the "EIGHTIES" and not the NINETIES?

[lets go pavel 2]

actually if you want to get technical about it you are both right ... a decade is by definition a group of ten sequential years, it doesn't matter when they start or stop ... so 1980-89 is a decade, 1981-90 is a decade, and 1985-94 is a decade ... however the most popular, logical, and easily namable way to assign decades is as joshy207 stated - the eighties, the nineties, etc ...

this is only mathematically incorrect if you bring in the word "first" or assign some point in time as a starting point - for example the birth of Jesus ... then as eva says you have to start from that reference point in time and count forward in groups of ten ... in this case, 2001-2010 is the 201st decade AD ...

however, the NHL probably doesn't have much reason to reference the birth of Jesus when assigning decades (though i hear Moses had a wicked slapshot and loved to throw his body around)

Edited November 21, 2007 by lets go pavel

[Legionnaire11 0]

yeah man, Moses could part a defense like no other!

[eva unit zero 271]

yeah man, Moses could part a defense like no other!

He could never score though; Jesus would always make the save.

[lets go pavel 2]

He could never score though; Jesus would always make the save.

... though i do remember one goal that got through ... i believe it went in off his own d-man, Judas ...

Edited November 21, 2007 by lets go pavel

[HomeNugget 2]

He could never score though; Jesus would always make the save.

and then Esposito would score on the rebound