I don't personally share the idea in question, but I imagine it's something similar to the argument of "I've been good for x amount of games, and then Riot sticks me for one bad game?".
In most of those cases, people act like they've only been punished out of the blue, when in reality, it was either a severe enough offense to warrant a one-game punishment, or it was that they were in fact misbehaving for that "x amount of good games", and the game in question being the straw that broke the camel's back.
In either case, the former especially, the argument seems to suppose that there's some ratio of "good points" to "bad points", and that you can generally just walk the line of being bad if you just have enough "good" games.
Which, I personally guess that that mentality plays into the "I had Honor x, why'd I get punished?" - they expect that the system functions off of "good points" and "bad points" instead of rules being followed and rules being broken, so they expect that their Honor Level should be representative of their likelihood to be punished, rather than representative of how long they've (arguably) followed the rules.
Though, I do have to reiterate, that this is all supposition on my part, and I don't have the same views on the Honor System as is being called into question, so, take what all I say with a grain of salt.