coco_canuck wrote:That's a regressive way of looking at their performances for a number of reasons.
No, it's a factual way of looking at their performances. It is neither progressive nor regressive.
coco wrote:Secondly, the twins relative failures are measured in 3 second round exits and a loss in the Stanley Cup final in their 4 playoff appearances as the star players on this team. So in each playoff year, they've been amongst the the top 2-8 teams standing.
So in terms of their potential future success, they're constantly in the top 25% of the league come playoff time. In terms of probability alone, the more you rounds you win, and the more appearances you have, the better your chances of winning the cup.
So they're showing that their chances of getting it done are improving by regularly winning at least one round and last year moving all the way to the final game of the season.
As you said yourself, they're getting closer. So if they're continually growing, and inching closer to their ultimate goal, then it's rather short-sighted to say they cannot get it done and have never had it within in them to win, because that presupposes an imaginary ceiling that cannot be bypassed regardless of any possible improvements.
To say something is impossible, when it's clear it's not impossible, is pretty stupid in my mind.
Nobody is disbuting the fact that they have been in the top 25% come playoffs. Nobody cares about that either. What is up for debate is if they can be in the top 25% in games where everything is on the line, and can they then lead the team from being top 8 to top spot. They lead the team to the top 2 last year, so yes, they can get that far. They were useless in 2 of 4 rounds though.
Nobody said it is impossible.
coco wrote:Agreed, but I don't see how that works against my argument, if you're intending it as a point of emphasis for your own position against mine.
The context of my initial post was directed at those who say the twins cannot be a part of a team that goes deep, let alone win the cup. Not debating whether they're good enough to play superman.
It doesn't really work for either side if the twins are the sole subjects under scrutiny. You'll note that that particular comment prefaced my admission to playing devil's advocate.
coco wrote:The other factor that strengthens this side of the ledger is the pure ability, character and individual accomplishments of the Twins. Between them they have a Hart, a Lindsey, and two Art-Ross trophies.
We're talking about elite level players who are on one of the best teams in the league and they've had moderate to good playoff success individually and with their teams.
We have all seen plenty of players, particularly of the European variety (no offence Per), who have had their share of regular season success only to disappear after 82 games. As I said, the talent and actual skill of the Sedin's is not at all up for debate, at least in my mind. They have elite skill sets.
coco wrote:Isn't it more irrational to question the success ceiling of two of the best players in the league who are clearly dedicated and motivated to win the cup, than saying they have the ability to possibly win the cup?
And the biggest distinction being made by me is that it is POSSIBLE the Twins can do it while the other says it's IMPOSSIBLE. If it's difficult to ascertain certainties, then why is an assumed certainty a similarly just and rational argument?
As I said, I'm playing the devil's advocate. My opinion of the Sedin's is that they are elite players in the NHL, late bloomers, incredibly smart, have great character, and are the epitomy of stoicism on the ice. Can they lead this team to a Cup? Before tonight I would have said probably not. My reason was simple: They don't have the emotional edge to LEAD
the team there. Although tonight seemed to indicate that maybe they could surprise me as Henrik certainly showed more aggression than we've ever seen from him before after Keith brought the flying elbow on Daniel.
The point of my original reply to your post was to point out that it is not logically impossible to make the argument that the Sedin's do not have what it takes. I fully agree with you, they probably do have what it takes, but I can only point to evidence that suggests it, not proves it. Therefore the other side of the coin can be construed logically. It would be illogical to argue that they don't have what it takes simply because they are European, or because they don't have the skill or endurance. If you are going to say that my original argument is stupid, lacks thought or ignores all powers of observation, then go right ahead, but I don't think you'll find many rational supporters that can seriously say that I'm "pretty fucking stupid". It's not a stupid argument if it is put together empirically or objectively. That was my original point.
The only question-mark left in my mind regarding the Sedin's is, as I said, whether or not they have the "edge" to lead the team to absolute victory. Keith may have just done Canuckdom a favor tonight by drilling it into them with his elbow.