The NA did lose on a technicality.

First, instead of a 3 way tie in which they would have moved on due to goal differential, Sweden got in automatically because of a stupid rule that values regulation wins.

It's a stupid rule because there are no ties in the WCOH. The rule was only instituted to get teams to try and score goals instead of playing for the tie/shoot-out. Since that isn't a factor in this tournament, it's a pretty dumb rule to have.

So they lost because of an arbitrary rule. That is the definition of saying something is a technicality. Shooting the 8 Ball could be an example of that, depending on how you wanted to argue it, but I would consider that a pretty fundamental and sensible rule, so I don't know if I would say that myself.
- James_Tanner

it's sensible and fundamental for someone to lose a pool game, and lets say he dominated, because he had 1 bad shot near the end of the game?

But yet when TNA was winning and looked like they could get through you used it prove that experience is overrated. You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying that lack of experience is why they didnt make it through, but I do think team Europe making it to the finals proves that experience and structure is important when teams want to win meaningful games. It's not arbitrary that Europe made it to the finals.
- 13sundin13

That's because experience is overrated. We have reams and reams of data to support such a statement. But then again, we also have tons and tons of data to say that things like Rinne sucks, you should never sac bunt unless the pitcher is at bat, global warming etc. People just do not care about reality.

They were eliminated by the rules that they and everyone else was aware of heading in and judged by throughout the tournament. Call their elimination whatever you want, it came because they didn't succeed according to the rules of the game. Calling it a technicality now makes you a whiner.

Their losing proves that they weren't the best team in the tournament in September of 2016. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suck it up, Buttercup.

Your arguing this now makes you sound like an idiot.
- Tonybere

You don't get to say things like that and call someone else an idiot.

I had to re-read this blog because there are no other interesting blogs on HB.

I had to re-read this blog because there are no other interesting blogs on HB.
- Aetherial

The hype behind The flames- oilers split squad preseason duel isn't doing it for ya ??!

Winning in Regulation being valued more is not stupid. Soccer has used that forever. They give 3pts to regulation win. Winning in regualtion is worth more value b/c it vaulues a regulation win more than OT, as it should. A regulation win is more decisive than "needing" OT to win.
- rrentz

Not really, because in soccer your players can score no goals yet win by 2 due to the opposition scoring on their own net. You can actually be outscored and still win the game. How is that more decisive than winning in OT but actually scoring your own goals instead of having the other team do it for you?

Also, a massive amount of soccer games end in a draw that's why they list their games as win-draw-loss instead of win-loss-draw.

That's because experience is overrated. We have reams and reams of data to support such a statement. But then again, we also have tons and tons of data to say that things like Rinne sucks, you should never sac bunt unless the pitcher is at bat, global warming etc. People just do not care about reality.
- James_Tanner

Hey, like 4 scientists whose research is paid for by Exxon-Mobil, Shell and BP say it's a hoax! What about their data!!

I had to re-read this blog because there are no other interesting blogs on HB.
- Aetherial

Yeah. You'd think things would be ramping up a bit due to the teams actually being on the ice.

That's because experience is overrated. We have reams and reams of data to support such a statement. But then again, we also have tons and tons of data to say that things like Rinne sucks, you should never sac bunt unless the pitcher is at bat, global warming etc. People just do not care about reality.
- James_Tanner

But that wasn't your argument, you used Team North America's success to justify your theory that experience is overrated. By that logic if one of the most experienced teams makes it to the finals, with much less talent, it can be reasonably argued that experience is a valuable asset.
But I'm not close minded to the idea, if you want to show these reams of data that directly proves a player with more experience is the same as a player with none, it would be great to see them.

That's because experience is overrated. We have reams and reams of data to support such a statement. But then again, we also have tons and tons of data to say that things like Rinne sucks, you should never sac bunt unless the pitcher is at bat, global warming etc. People just do not care about reality.
- James_Tanner

How could you possibly have data on whether experience is overrated when there's no way to define what experience actually means. Has a team ever succeeded without having experience? Here's a stat. 100% of the teams that have won the Stanley Cup have had experienced players on their team. Canada is going to win and has players with international experience on their team. How could you possibly have a chart let alone reams of data to show whether experience played any role at all?

That bunt thing has also been thoroughly debunked. The numbers that supported not bunting were averages so they can't be applied in specific situations. It makes a huge difference where in the order you are. The biggest proponent of the never bunt theory was Eric Wedge. How's his managerial career going?