Meds wrote:Obviously I'm playing the devil's advocate here with you Coco, I do think the Sedin's have what it takes to do it, at least so far as skill and ability goes. My point is that you cannot simply dismiss an argument as stupid when your own argument has as little or less solid ground to stand on. Being able to see both sides of an argument, and accept them both, as valid in light of evidence at hand and observable data, is rather important to any debate. Outright dismissal without concrete, undeniable proof, is shortsighted.
No, I still stand by what I said.
I wanted to start from this point to make my direction clear, because the side I'm arguing from does have more solid ground, and is a much more cohesive argument.
Meds wrote:I think the onus is at least as much on the argument that they can as it is on that they cannot. To date, the clear, compelling, and ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN evidence is that they have not. As with any hypothesis, it must be proven.....one way or the other, and when you've run several experiments (4 playoff appearances as the "goto top line") and all of them have resulted in "failures". The evidence actually starts to point to the "cannot" side of the argument. They have gotten closer, but still have not gotten it done.
That's a regressive way of looking at their performances for a number of reasons.
First one being that if you look at the "batting average" of playoff appearances and stanley cup wins, you'll see that players "fail" in the playoffs more than they "succeed" with success and failure being measured strictly in winning the cup.
I'd wager that in the past 20 years, every single star player has failed in more playoff appearances than they have succeeded.
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.
Meds wrote:Because hockey is a team sport, it is very hard to truly assess a player in this light, and ultimately the facts speak about 20 individuals and their abilty to function cohesively and succeed as a team. By that token, the Sedin's absolutely do not have what it takes as they are but two pieces, albeit important ones, in a puzzle, and therefore cannot be judged by overall result and simply by individual contributions and the quality, timing, and quantity of those contributions.
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.
The aforementioned Yzerman struggled through very similar criticism from fans and media questioning his desire, heart and ability to lead his team to a cup. First it was he can't take them deep, then when the Wings lost in 95, the talk was that Yzerman couldn't win the cup.
We all know how foolish those comments turned out to be.
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.
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?