2013 NHL Season

[Demonbinder]

21/27!

[Sava]

If he's arguing Hawks vs Heat, it's gotta be Hawks. There are rarely any good teams in basketball... just dominant players. The Heat are three players... one in particular. It's more a comparison between sports than the accomplishments of the two teams. Basketball isn't as much as a team game as other team sports. You could maybe argue basketball versus baseball because two outstanding pitching aces can win you a world series. Hockey is probably comparable to football. Goalie vs QB. Best players playing about half the game at most... that sort of thing.

[-Jrabbit]

@ Detroit tomorrow -- always tough.

I do love it when Melrose gets all geeked out.

[Sava]

does he still have the mullet? I don't see him as much anymore

[-Jrabbit]

He has toned down the mullet - more of a slicked back look and not as long as it used to be, but still a little bit of a party in back...

[Demonbinder]

As usual, a great game between Hawks and Wings. I had to watch it on tape delay because of other commitments. Chicago dominated first half of game and Detroit second half until the end with the two bad clearing attempts. I never give up on Hawks when they are down one goal. This year they always find a way to come back. Both goalies were outstanding and Kaner saved the day.

Too bad they are moving Detroit out of conference, but could you imagine a Chicago - Detroit Stanley Cup finals?

[Guynemer]

So infuriated.

[Sava]

detroit sucks

[snoopy369]

Yeah, I honestly wouldn't have minded losing the streak to the Red Wings - valiant opponents and all that. And in some ways it would be nice for it to be over, so we can relax and move on. But, great game

Sava, I don't think your sports comparisons are logical. Baseball is very much a team game - all ace pitching isn't nearly enough to win (see: Philadelphia Phillies 2011-2012). Baseball is in fact IMO even more different from basketball because it's sort of two sets of players - pitchers and hitters. I see it more like football, really, but ultimately baseball is different from every other sport in that it's largely a combination of individual matches rather than the entire team at once - each pitcher/hitter interaction is effectively separate from each other, while you're at the plate your teammates don't have much effect on you. I also don't see the goalie being nearly ace-pitcher level important in hockey - a team needs a decent goalie to win, but a team with good defense doesn't necessarily benefit all that much from a Hasek-type goalie. Teams like the Capitals are the ones more in need of dominant goalies.

Basketball is certainly unique in that it can be effectively an individual star-led sport, though I think you overrate that aspect. Teams like the 2013 Bulls, the 2012-13 Pacers, the 2011 Mavericks, etc. can be successful without a 'big star' (Nowitzki is good, but he's not a top 5 player IMO) but rather through good team play at each position. Sure, occasionally a big star can have a significant impact (or two or three), but that's more because of the (silly) cap structure and the fact that you only have five guys on the floor - baseball can't really have that since they have 9 player teams; if you have 3 superstars, you still have 6 other role players. Hockey is the same way there - sure you can have 3 superstars, but since even your superstars only are on the ice for 25 to 30 minutes max, versus 40+ for basketball, your other players are pretty important as well.

Really the four American sports are well chosen, because they're each very different. Baseball is a bunch of one on one matchups, and fairly slow paced. Hockey is a fast paced physical team sport. Football is a slow paced physical team sport. Basketball is a fast paced athletic sport with a hybrid of one-on-one and team mechanics. Having all four available to watch and enjoy means we can watch whatever appeals to us.

[Sava]

Finding random exceptions to the rule does not an argument make.

[snoopy369]

Random exceptions? Lots of teams fail to win championships with dominant (ace) pitching. Otherwise the Tigers would be world champions the last few years, and the Mariners would be in the hunt many years (like the year they had Felix, Pineda's good year, and Fister). I don't think anybody knowledgeable about baseball thinks you can win or dominate solely with ace pitching - you need bats as well. Sure, you can have more pitching and less hitting and win, but it's nothing like basketball.

[Supr49er]

Hockey is unique - what other team sport plays all their guys?

[Sava]

Random exceptions? Lots of teams fail to win championships with dominant (ace) pitching. Otherwise the Tigers would be world champions the last few years, and the Mariners would be in the hunt many years (like the year they had Felix, Pineda's good year, and Fister). I don't think anybody knowledgeable about baseball thinks you can win or dominate solely with ace pitching - you need bats as well. Sure, you can have more pitching and less hitting and win, but it's nothing like basketball.

strawman


I said:

two outstanding pitching aces can win you a world series

not

two outstanding pitching aces WILL ALWAYS win you a world series

[rah]

How do you think about

TWO outstanding pitching aces WILL USUALLY win you a world series.

It's all a matter of degree.

[Sava]

How do you think about

TWO outstanding pitching aces WILL USUALLY win you a world series.

It's all a matter of degree.

It's fun with semantics. That's all.

The only correct way to frame such a statement is to reference every historical example. Snoopy is just arguing against an absolute statement... that I didn't make. Imaginary arguments are always the best.

The only guaranteed way to win a world series is to score more runs than the other team in at least 4 out of the 7 games.