So I’m reading an article about the Bruins by a writer named Allan Muir, and he’s making a lot of decent points: they’re getting old (some of them), their defense needs to be better on both ends, they need more scoring, etc…
And then, either because he’s trying very hard to make a point in order to “sell” his article, or because he actually believes it, he writes this:
“The Bruins’ forwards are also short of spark; only rookie David Pastrnak seems capable of generating anything creative.”
I mean, that’s just absurd. To say they need MORE offense is one thing, to say he’s the ONLY FORWARD on the team capable of offensive creativity is ridiculous. From both a having-watched them standpoint (since I have) and from a statistical standpoint. Vis:
Patrice Bergeron: 52 GP, 35 Points
Loui Eriksson: 52 GP, 31 Points
David Krejci: 33 GP, 25 Points
Brad Marchand: 48 GP, 27 Points
Carl Soderberg: 53 GP, 33 Points
David Pastrnak: 17 GP, 7 Points
Message to Allan: While it may be good copy and good fodder for readers, bringing in obviously (IMPO) faulty “points” does not make an article better…it makes it worse.
-Puppy >.< Yip!