View Single Post
01-29-2009, 01:15 PM
Ozymandias's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RedScull View Post
No, you aren't. You're downplaying Pronger's Hart using Theodore as justification for how it's worthless. Well there are a bunch of equally downplaying winners of the Conn Smythe, which is what I was attempting to illustrate. It's a fallacy that Pronger isn't a dominant player in the postseason, as his Cup runs with Edmonton and Anaheim demonstrated.

You can prefer one or the other, but picking and choosing which trophies are worth something isn't "using logic," much less using a different player in a different role as justification for it (like Theodore) is. Picking and choosing data points to suit your argument doesn't prove anything.
LOL, get a grip, I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, nor downplay the hart trophy signification. Switch to decaf dude. I stated my opinion, I would rather go with the Smythe trophy winner Niedermayer than the Hart trophy winner Pronger. To me, Nieds is MORE of a proven winner in playoffs (which you go directly and put into my mouth that I've said Pronger isn't a playoff performer, which is NOT what I said). Nieds won 4 cups FCOL, Pronger won one. To me, Nieds is a sureshot to make us better for the playoffs, whereas, to me, Pronger has less chances of making us more dominant.

Now people here have a really big obsession with big bodies and grit, but if you,ve watched hockey long enough, you know a defenseman doesn't need to be big to be dominant. Past Norris winners have shown that. They were all smaller, but more talented. Lidstrom, Nieds, Bourque.

Its a matter of opinion, and whatever way you try to twist what I've said won't change the fact that I base my opinion on facts and not stupid comparisons that don't fit.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote