I mentioned how 21 d-men got a vote but not him, and how that list a year ago didn't have Klefbom, and his team's SV% when he's on the ice, and his HERO chart, etc ... how did i not explain very well?

I admired phillyjabronis use and demonstration of statistics. This was the basis of his argument, was presented very well, and his opponent was not at all able to argue against them. The only knock I had was him being quick to say the Norris trophy voting doesn't matter. While it shouldn't be the basis of an argument, the trophy is voted by hockey experts, and I feel as though their opinion is very important.

Rangers use of stats, such as plus/minus, I don't find as convincing at all. I did agree with Rangers, that there are ten better defensemen than Klefbom; yet he failed to prove that in any way.

The turning point for me, was when RAIF claimed McDonaugh was better than Klefbom, yet after phillyjabroni proved that the stats showed not, he then backtracked, claiming Klefbom is better than McDonaugh, "yet there still must be 10 better dmen". First of all, he literally accepted that what he said was wrong by agreeing with Philly. Secondly, "there still must be". He provided no evidence, reasoning or stats to prove that whatsoever, as in who the 10 are, and why.

For the reasoning provided above, I have to say, with no bias in this decision at all, that phillyjabroni won the argument. Great job to you both however.

He picked apart everything you said, like calling the Norris voters "biased". You have to have him prove that voters are biased. In the end, he said something like "unless you can conclusively say that Klefbom isn't a top 10 defenseman, you must vote that he is". It should be the other way around! When he picks apart every little thing that you say, do the same thing to him.

Good game everybody! Good job phillyjabroni! Thanks for playing everyone! As much as i lost .

phillyjabroni, can you come up with another bold claim like this one, so the two of us can discuss? Since we argue about the Flyers so much, it might be a good idea to argue about another team/player...plus this seems like a fun thing to be apart of

I will argue with whoever as to why the Canucks will win the Stanley Cup in ten years...

As much as I would like to do this, I would rather have a "march madness style" of this. I would like to see who is the winner of more debates, before I accept this.

I would like to say for the record, that while Klefbom might not be top 10, you cannot discount him from the discussion. Same can be said with Seth Jones, Jake Slavin, etc. Personally, my beliefs are held out of CF. Sometimes I make claims just to get people talking, such as this one. If nobody goes against the grain, I will, and will fight to support it, whether I believe it to be true or not.

Rangers, there were multiple flaws in your contention, as there were in mine. One of them was bringing up leadership. Since you can't quantify leadership, its hard to make a concrete point based solely on opinions. Another one was your lack of attacking my weak spots. One of them was failure to make the proper HERO evaluations. You need to dig into them more. Another way that you can refute them is by using hockeyviz, a source I used, to use graphs to support your contention.

For you to have won this, you would have had ten NHL defensemen, supported by stats, that are better than Klefbom. Saying that there are, with little to no evidence, creates reasonable doubt.

I would like to thank you for this civil and organized debate.

I want to see PJ argue Andy Macdonald is a top 10 d-man. I feel like he can do that.

top 10? Jesus, why don't you push me out of a helicopter w/ no parachute and have me argue that I will have a higher chance of living than fatality?

Rangers, another reason why I felt confident with various points of my contention that were abnormally weak was because I know of your ineffectiveness to counter them. I can easily make a counter case against mine, but I feel that is it best for you to learn from this experience and grow as a debater in NHL in the future.

MacDonald is retired.

sure! my answer for why not: They are horrible. that's it. lol.

Let's start the handshake line.

Andrew MacDonald retired???

Cmon, who wants to sign up!

no, Andy.

me! i told you my reason on why they won't!

Edit: maybe they'll make the playoffs in 10 years without winning it.

Are you serious about debating me on this or not

no, it was a joke ... i mean, we could discuss this but we don't need to have people voting on the winner.

That's kind of an impossible thing to project...like everyone thought the Caps would have multiple Cups by now...here we are

I do!

I'll start
All i need to say is this.



Jim Benning and ownership.


I win automatically

Jim Benning is actually a good GM ... i mean, not like top 10 or anything but not one of the worst ... look what he did at the trade deadline.