FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Definitely voting right in this one... while I think a salary cap could be a useful tool, the challenger here has demonstrated unequivocally that it is not a prerequisite for small-market success and that big spending does not automatically equate to championships. Also, the creator of this throwdown continued to concede his opponent's points ("good argument" and "you've got a point there" are not positive signs for your own case) while the right adeptly countered every attack. Utilizing his entire space for argumentation, presenting sound refutation all throughout, this vote is easily going >>>>>>>>>>>>>

I voted right, in the end, because of the discussion about equipment differences. If this is indeed a different type of vehicle in any way, it is a matter of diversifying one's abilities. Further, the fact that the left argues that this is limited to a few people actually works against the premise of his argument. Only if this were something that was prevalent amongst the drivers of the (Winston) Cup series would it be such a pressing matter...

Ultimately, winning a Nationwide Series is just like winning a title at the Satellite level of tennis or the regional PGA tournament... and we see the big guns often jump in and sweep those as well. So I'm sending my vote right on this one...

I actually just finished reading John Feinstein's book on the game, [i]A Civil War[/i]... always a great read to get into the true spirit of collegiate football before a new season starts!

Voting right based on arguments... but my underrated top five?


1. The Civil War - Oregon v. Oregon State
2. The Border War - Wyoming v. Colorado State
3. The Holy War - BYU v. Utah
4. The Battle for Paul Bunyan's Axe - Minnesota v. Wisconsin
5. The Army-Navy Game - Army v. Navy


Funny enough, I thought of both games you each put at #5 before I even clicked on the link... so arguments truly swayed the day here!

Dryden wasn't even PLAYING in 1973/74 -- so how, pray tell, can that be construed in favor of him?! In REFUTATION of your claim that he only won because of the strength of his team, I mentioned the team's lack of success when Dryden was away from the team. That is NOT stepping out of bounds; that is providing evidence that Dryden's success was predicated on more than merely the might of the Montreal juggernaut.

And now that I feel I've explained my actions, I'm done with the comments section. I've only ever used it in a throwdown to refute claims by other spectating site members.

#118 was addressed to Swayze's comment about stats...
#119 provided an answer to a simple question from Argos...
#120 merely reiterates the point that we don't even HAVE save percentage data for Dryden, so he can neither be penalized nor lionized based on that stat.

I refrained from leaving a reply when Johnny_D attacked me in comment #123. I even asked several people how best to deal with what I felt was obviously pernicious attempts to denigrate my argument and my ability. But when you came in at comment #127, I could no longer sit back and allow myself to be blasphemed...

I stand vindicated in my actions, and I still had a fun time arguing with you. I'd even do it again in the future should circumstances permit. But I will not stand idly by and allow myself to be dragged into the mud, treated as a cheater when I have done nothing wrong...

Agreed... a throwdowner or any other debater should not have to fend off attacks from the peanut gallery, either... he should only have to answer the contentions his opponent brings forth.

The time frame is 1974/75 to 1978/79 for Dryden and 1994/95 to 1998/99 for Hasek... how am I stepping out of the time frame? If you are referring to the fact that I mention Montreal was incapable of winning a Cup in the decade without Dryden, that is not stepping out of bounds but merely demonstrating the value he did bring to the team for his second five-year stretch with the team.

Look, I was going to refrain from answering any more attacks out of respect to my opponent. But when I see him coming in here and starting to obfuscate the truth with assertions that I have gone outside of my zone of engagement in this debate, I will lash out with full fury until the truth is fully illuminated.

You find me one place in this throwdown where I tell the readers to consider Dryden's two other Stanley Cup victories, or his 1973 Vezina, and I would forfeit right now. (Want to talk about someone stepping out of bounds? Try someone attempting to cheapen the achievements of a Hall of Fame goalie by arguing that his trophies are invalid. I triple-dog dare you to go into Ken's home and try to replace his five Vezinas with Jennings Trophies simply because the criteria for winning the award was transferred to that trophy after his retirement. Tell me how that goes over when you get done...)

People keep wanting to throw statistics in my face, yet no one wants to actually seem to refute any of my claims regarding those stats:

1. The variables which affect the legitimacy of GAA also affect a goalie's SV%.

2. Objective awards are always going to be more valid than subjectively-voted awards.

3. Despite how good a team may be, goalies still must make the stops that come their way. And a goalie who has to face less shots is disproportionately punished for each one that goes past versus someone who faces a multitude of shots.

4. Dryden can't be penalized for save percentage when the league didn't even keep it as a stat in his playing days. For all we know, his % could be higher than Hasek... we just don't have the ability to compare.


With all this talk about refutation, where were any of the counterpoints to these arguments? I think people like Johnny_D and the rest who would come in and bash me (as well as my opponent, whose attempts to pander to the lowest common denominator by accusing me of breaching the boundaries) need to go out and study some debate theory. You'd learn that historical comparison is a legitimate tool for analysis, and that failing to counter an opponent's points is a concession of the point to your opponent's favor.

The problem in this debate is that the NHL simply didn't compile consistent saves statistics during the 1970s, so we can't compare the two directly on that front. But riddle me this: How doesn't how many shots a team allows affect save percentage as well? The more shots a goalie faces, the more he can allow behind him and still maintain a respectable goals-against average. And, further, this fails to take into account just what types of shots a goalie actually sees. A goalie who faces 45 shots but only sees them coming from the perimeter and from distance through clear shooting lanes is in a better position to stop those shots than a guy who rarely has to stop a shot but, when he does, it is probably of the odd-man-rush variety or otherwise against the flow of play. We can toss about every variable in the book, but at the end of the day what do YOU most value from YOUR goalie?

Rogie Vachon was the starter and Phil Myre was the backup when the 1970-71 season started...

Stats are but one way of comparing greatness. Awards are another. What I mentioned in my last argument is that we cannot depend solely on stats, especially since so many factors can influence how the numbers actually break down. But I'll leave it to the voters from here. Thanks for a great throwdown, Comedian...

Leaning right so far, based simply on the mathematics of the odds... whereas the chances of the guy on the left are one in millions, Vince Young only has to prove better than the thousands of people who will likely pass through the NFL during his career should he prove to have a long tenure.

It wasn't from the Sabres... essentially both New York senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, have crowed their opposition to a franchise in Hamilton, asserting that it would drain as much as 15-20% of Buffalo's fanbase. But there are certainly enough people still clamoring for hockey in the region that Buffalo's 99.2% attendance rate at home wouldn't be affected that much. Considering the massive desire for tickets that the Maple Leafs face, this is more likely to satiate that fan base than to drain the Sabres'...

No... but you can go watch Ned Braden anytime you'd like:

[img]http://tinyurl.com/kpvj3r[/img]

Call it a Coyote Ugly situation... and I'm not talking about hot bartenders!

Yeah, but couldn't the same be said about Newcombe's chances in Brooklyn? It wasn't as though he got to go to the postseason every year...

Great arguments here, guys... I'm going to have to wait for the closing statements. I like the Gilmour pick more on the left... but I like the Horton pick more on the right. I look forward to the finish of this debate...

I'm never a big fan of debates where a defenseman is argued for solely based on his offensive output. I voted right simply because the arguments on the Pronger/Chara dispute centered around defensive as well as offensive output, and convinced me that Zdeno is the better pick than Chris...

I'm impressed by the arguments on both sides. Cam Neely was traded, too, don't forget... and the fact that Lindros yielded a championship haul while Neely yielded merely Barry Pederson shows which one has been valued more fairly through the ages. I was inclined to go with Neely at first, but the arguments and that final argument have caused me to look only at the on-ice play and have led me to the right in this one... great job, guys!

But does longevity equate to excellence? The fact remains that Marichal was on less-than-dominant teams throughout his career, and simply didn't get enough postseason time to amass a win. Anything can happen in two starts, but by five starts things usually balance enough in the statistics to bring at least one win.

Even if you take away the two years in Korea, Newcombe had the team to contend. After all, he's the one amongst these two pitchers who has a World Series title to his name. But despite pitching well in both 1949 and 1955 for Brooklyn, he just didn't get the support he needed to gain a W.

Yes, they have to have actually STARTED a game in the postseason for them to qualify for consideration...

Why click on the topic? Just to berate someone else's sports-fan proclivities? Oh, wow, you're a big man now! Been on the site a whole six days and think you're some kind of expert into the likes and dislikes of FanNation members. You come with some stupid argument like that, I'll come with an entire army of soccer fans to bury your record so far into the red that you'll never see .500 again. Why don't you stick to observation alone right now, because commenting constructively is obviously out of your realm?