Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Teams of the Decade?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 atodaso

atodaso

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:13 PM

Well, atodaso and Buppy, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your points are coherent and well-stated, and I give you props for making a good, intelligent argument.

That said, I still disagree.

However, it being here nor there, I propose we raise a glass to what we DO agree on: Wings Rule!!! :beerbuddy:


i will agree to this :D

cheers! :champs:

#22 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:21 PM

counting fingers? that's not the same as counting years

let me try to explain my views on this.

when a baby is born it is 0 years old and after one whole year of life it is now one year old. if that baby was born on january 1st, 1990, for example, then that baby will turn 10 years old (and have lived a decade) on january 1st, 2000. therefore that child will now be beginning it's second decade of life in the year 2000.

another thing... i don't like the whole argument of there is no year zero. there is a year zero and it was back when the earth was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago. of course, it is impossible to know the exact time when this happened but regardless of that you cannot start counting from 1.



just another point to add to this. you don't count your first finger as 0 and you also don't count your first year as 0 but you have to start from 0. you cannot start counting from 1.


Yes, when a baby is born it is 0 years old. Meaning that it has not lived a full year yet. A baby that is born between March 1st, 2011 and February 29th, 2012 will live 365 days and still be 0 years old in that it has not yet reached its first birthday.

But you are also an idiot. The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.


A decade is just a period of 10 years. It doesn't matter when it starts. Doesn't even have to start on the 1st of the year. Typically, when speaking of a named decade, like 'the '90s', you're referring to numbers in the '90s. '90-'99. That is still 10 years, so it is a decade.

Technically speaking, there was no year 1 either.


There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.

The current year numbering system wasn't adopted until the 6th century. It's based on a guess that is almost certainly wrong. There have been many adjustments to calendars in the course of human history. Furthermore, whether or not there was a year 'numbered' zero, there were plenty of years prior to year 1. Many, many millions of them in fact.

Zero is a much more logical 'beginning'. And even if you want to be pedantic, calendar adjustment is hardly unprecedented.


Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#23 atodaso

atodaso

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 05:29 PM

Yes, when a baby is born it is 0 years old. Meaning that it has not lived a full year yet. A baby that is born between March 1st, 2011 and February 29th, 2012 will live 365 days and still be 0 years old in that it has not yet reached its first birthday.

But you are also an idiot. The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.


the fact that you call me an idiot without knowing me at all says a lot about you.

so, i guess my only reply to you is...














Posted Image

#24 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:22 PM

... The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.

There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.

Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.

My point was that it doesn't matter.

Even if you don't have a Year 0, calendars have been adjusted in the past. Who cares if the first decade had only 9 years, or the first millenium only 999? Does that matter any more than the fact some years in different parts of the world subtracted 10-13 days from the year when transitioning from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If there was an error in origin, it makes sense to correct it. In this case, it is almost certain that the basis for the AD numbering is incorrect, so what difference does it really make if we just say that a decade or century or millenium 'begins' on the more logical 0 year, if both are factually inaccurate? When Dionysius devised the AD numbering scheme in 525, he calculated that it was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ. Question is, did he mean that the beginning of 525 was 525 years after Christ was born, or that the end of that year would be 525 years. So even if you ignore the fact that his estimation was wrong, we still don't really know if he started at zero or one.

Secondly and more to the point, as I said earlier, when referencing a named decade, it is common practice to include those years with a common tens digit. The 90s = 90-99. Whether or not that is actually the 200th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent.

[edit: decades did start at 0]

Edited by Buppy, 02 December 2010 - 11:52 PM.


#25 LeftWinger

LeftWinger

    42 years in Detroit! Time to spend the rest in paradise!

  • Silver Booster
  • 8,735 posts
  • Location:HART - MI

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:07 PM

Yes, when a baby is born it is 0 years old. Meaning that it has not lived a full year yet. A baby that is born between March 1st, 2011 and February 29th, 2012 will live 365 days and still be 0 years old in that it has not yet reached its first birthday.

But you are also an idiot. The calendar we use is based on when the birth of Jesus is believed to have happened. There are years that happened before it, and years that have occurred since. As you clearly are not very intelligent, I will enlighten you. After 1 B.C. came 1 A.D., there was no "Year 0" which fell in between. The first decade A.D was 1 A.D to 10 A.D.




There was, it simply was not called as such. But for the purposes of our current calendar system, it matters.



Yes, a decade is a period of 10 years. But if we're basing them on numbered decades from our existing calendar, then it's 1991-200 and such. If we're simply basing it on the decade as a period of ten years, then why not divide it up starting with 1916-17 through 1925-26? If we're ignoring decade division from 1 A.D, then why not count starting with the inception of the league? That makes more sense than random division.

Was there even a team in 1 AD? :lol: How long until someone mentions the Mayan Calender? Their calender (at least their most important one) was a period of 260 days.... According to that, who is the team of the 4 Ahaw, 8 Kumk'u? :lol:

Edited by LeftWinger, 02 December 2010 - 07:18 PM.

Don't Be Jealous, But I Live Here...

www.thinkdunes.com

 

Nestrasil, yes...Cleary....No!

Dump Q and K Now!


#26 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,844 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:09 PM

I'm sure this thread has gone exactly how the OP envisioned.

This is the best thread of the new decade so far. :lol:
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#27 HankthaTank

HankthaTank

    3rd Line Center

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,815 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:14 PM

Posted Image hahaha! Amazing entertainment indeed! So the best team of the decade I would say is the '02 Wings. Didn't read the OP so I guess thats a failure on my part but just the replies themselves have been priceless.
TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS EXPECTED.

#28 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:22 PM

My point was that using the Gregorian calendar as we do, if we are to say "team of the decade" and refer to "the 90s" and such, then we must properly recognize where those decades start. If we are simply using periods of ten years, then it makes no less sense to start at the beginning of the NHL and count ten-year periods from there.
"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#29 Inultus

Inultus

    Slush ****

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts
  • Location:Lansing, MI

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:22 PM

LOL, wish I could still get on this site at work. I miss the ridiculous and work-time-wasting arguments!
"It's been six years since we won the Cup. That's too long." -Nick Lidstrom

"my message is simple: The next time anyone runs any of our guys in a way that shouldn't be done, then a message will be sent. I'm not going to go out and run your skill guys, your superstars. I'm going to go right to the guy (who did it), and fair justice is fair justice." -Downey

#30 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,922 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 02 December 2010 - 09:53 PM

My point was that using the Gregorian calendar as we do, if we are to say "team of the decade" and refer to "the 90s" and such, then we must properly recognize where those decades start. If we are simply using periods of ten years, then it makes no less sense to start at the beginning of the NHL and count ten-year periods from there.

I'm not even drunk and this sounds brilliant. So... the NHL started Nov. 22, 1917, so the first decade would be from 1917-1926, unless you say that it was formed in November, so 1917 doesn't count as a full year, in which case the first decade would be from 1918-1927.

Of course, some people will probably argue that it would be 1917-1927, because that's 10 years...

#31 theman19

theman19

    #40 Mobile suit Zeta, the new red comet

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,831 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 10:42 PM

what would you define "lean years" as?



how quickly people forget, Mario, leaving the game because of injury, then coming back,....jagr being a flake, the entire pens team almost being sold and move to seattle (although i believe that was in the 00')

The pens were no where near the dominate team they started the decade as in 99.

Edited by theman19, 02 December 2010 - 10:43 PM.


#32 eva unit zero

eva unit zero

    Save the Princess...Save the World

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,734 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 11:10 PM

My point was that it doesn't matter.

Even if you don't have a Year 0, calendars have been adjusted in the past. Who cares if the first decade had only 9 years, or the first millenium only 999? Does that matter any more than the fact some years in different parts of the world subtracted 10-13 days from the year when transitioning from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? If there was an error in origin, it makes sense to correct it. In this case, it is almost certain that the basis for the AD numbering is incorrect, so what difference does it really make if we just say that a decade or century or millenium 'begins' on the more logical 0 year, if both are factually inaccurate? When Dionysius devised the AD numbering scheme in 525, he calculated that it was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ. Question is, did he mean that the beginning of 525 was 525 years after Christ was born, or that the end of that year would be 525 years. So even if you ignore the fact that his estimation was wrong, we still don't really know if he started at zero or one.

Secondly and more to the point, as I said earlier, when referencing a named decade, it is common practice to include those years with a common tens digit. The 90s = 90-99. Whether or not that is actually the 199th decade of the AD calendar is completely irrelevent.


Perhaps you don't understand things very well. If you look back into history, using the Gregorian calendar, you will reach 1 A.D., and then what happens after that? When you keep going THERE IS NO YEAR 0. You count down past the year 1 A.D and get to the year 1 B.C., and start counting upwards.

To use an analogy:

Every year, you eat one banana on your birthday. Then you change and start eating apples instead. If you base a calendar on this change of fruit, the first year would be 1 apple, 2 apples, etc. and before that you would be counting the number of banana years before the change. How do you apply a year zero, when you would have eaten either an apple or a banana?

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic."
"I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

#33 LeftWinger

LeftWinger

    42 years in Detroit! Time to spend the rest in paradise!

  • Silver Booster
  • 8,735 posts
  • Location:HART - MI

Posted 02 December 2010 - 11:24 PM


Perhaps you don't understand things very well. If you look back into history, using the Gregorian calendar, you will reach 1 A.D., and then what happens after that? When you keep going THERE IS NO YEAR 0. You count down past the year 1 A.D and get to the year 1 B.C., and start counting upwards.


....ahhhh, but even though the rows in an airplane are numbered 1-12 then the next row is 14, doesn't mean you aren't actually in the 13th row, because you are! :ninja:

Don't Be Jealous, But I Live Here...

www.thinkdunes.com

 

Nestrasil, yes...Cleary....No!

Dump Q and K Now!


#34 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 11:50 PM

My point was that using the Gregorian calendar as we do, if we are to say "team of the decade" and refer to "the 90s" and such, then we must properly recognize where those decades start. If we are simply using periods of ten years, then it makes no less sense to start at the beginning of the NHL and count ten-year periods from there.

But that's wrong. As I said, a decade is just a period of ten years. But if you specify a certain decade with a qualifier such as 'the 90s', you are implicitly defining it as the ten years with the single common '9' in that tens position, ergo, 90-99. 1990 is a part of the 90s.

If you were to say the 200th decade, then you could say it means 91-00, but no one says '200th decade' because it's stupid. Similarly, when referencing centuries, 'the 1900s' is from 1900-1999 and 'the 20th century' is 1901-2000 (if you subscribe to the accuracy of AD numbering). It makes no sense to exclude the number after which you are naming your range.

And once again, the entire 'no year zero' argument is predicated on the assumption that the period of time described in AD numeration as AD 1 - AD 525 was actually 525 years. Contemporary knowledge suggests that that almost assuredly not the case. And if you 'retro-fit' the numbering to make it the correct length (modern historians typically put the birth of Christ between 7 BC and AD 6, hilarious bit of irony by itself) then you tacitly admit that the origin point is not important. If the origin is unimportant, then why can't we just say that the first year of the first decade/century/millennia was the year 1 BC.

Or, once again, if modifying the number of days in a month or year to correct errors in the calendar isn't a problem, why is it a big deal to alter the number of years in the first decade/century/millennium?

#35 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 12:06 AM

Perhaps you don't understand things very well. If you look back into history, using the Gregorian calendar, you will reach 1 A.D., and then what happens after that? When you keep going THERE IS NO YEAR 0. You count down past the year 1 A.D and get to the year 1 B.C., and start counting upwards.
...

There is no year NAMED 'Year 0', just like there was no year named 'Year 1' until more than 500 years after the fact, when someone decided to call it that.

#36 Stolberg

Stolberg

    you call that blowing?!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 12:22 AM

how quickly people forget, Mario, leaving the game because of injury, then coming back,....jagr being a flake, the entire pens team almost being sold and move to seattle (although i believe that was in the 00')

The pens were no where near the dominate team they started the decade as in 99.


they made the playoffs every year in the late 90s. went to the conference finals in 01 playoffs. some teams would kill to have lean years like that.

of course they were terrible for 4 years after that



#37 theman19

theman19

    #40 Mobile suit Zeta, the new red comet

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,831 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 12:39 AM

they made the playoffs every year in the late 90s. went to the conference finals in 01 playoffs. some teams would kill to have lean years like that.

of course they were terrible for 4 years after that



I didn't count 01 as that wasn't in the 90's.

From the penguins own wikipedia page:1997 saw the franchise's playoff success continue but with a five-game first round exit to their cross-state rivals the Philadelphia Flyers and Mario Lemieux's announced retirement. Because of Lemieux's achievements over the course of his career, the Hockey Hall of Fame waived its three-year waiting period and inducted him as an Honored Member in the same year he retired. The captaincy was passed to Jagr and for the next 4 seasons, Jagr won 4 consecutive Art Ross Trophies. However, the Penguins were unable to match Jagr's individual success with a sustained playoff appearance, with a first round exit in 1998 despite being the second seeded team in the East followed by a second round exit in 1999 this time from eighth seed. In 2000 the Penguins stunned the highly touted Washington Capitals 41 in the first round only to fall to Philadelphia 42 in the second round.
Even in the midst of this success, the Penguins were in the midst of a battle for their survival. Their free-spending ways in the early 1990s came with a price; at one point they owed over $90 million to various creditors. Owners Howard Baldwin and Morris Belzberg (who bought the Penguins after their first Cup win) asked the players to defer their salaries to help pay the bills. When the deferred salaries finally came due, combined with other financial pressures, the Penguins were forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 1998. For much of the 1998-99 season, it looked like the Penguins would either move or fold.

I would consider the team post 1996 to be much leaner then the dominate NHL franchise that they where at the start of 1990. Also, while making the playoffs is cool and all, no NHL team would "kill" to come that close to moving across the country.

I stand by my point, but I see yours as well.

#38 Stolberg

Stolberg

    you call that blowing?!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 01:47 AM

I would consider the team post 1996 to be much leaner then the dominate NHL franchise that they where at the start of 1990. Also, while making the playoffs is cool and all, no NHL team would "kill" to come that close to moving across the country.


i agree



#39 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,785 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 03 December 2010 - 09:47 AM

2002, 2008 Wings, 2007 Ducks

"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#40 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,844 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 03 December 2010 - 07:57 PM

2002, 2008 Wings, 2007 Ducks


Read the OP.
According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users