Quote:
Originally Posted by DementedReality
thanks , i dont want to give it up, i enjoy the debate.
i always believed that in the NHL, due to 16 teams making it (vs 8 in MLB) that the NYR spending 80m really didnt impact the ability of those teams who only spent 30m to a) make it to the playoffs and b) to make an impact.
despite the fact that my position is supported by historical facts, people still use the example of the Yankee's and Rangerss as good reasons for the cap.
yet, when looking at NHL history, NYR, PHI and TOR have but one final between them compared to a finals visit for CRL (2), TBY, BUD, CGY, ANA, and WSH.
seems to me the parity in the NHL was just fine and the story that payroll disparity was "unfair" was simply scare tactics.
|
Taking a sample of which teams get to the finals is simply a poor means of analysis. I'd be more intersted to see a analsyis of overall winning percentage of teams in relation to size of payroll. If you can prove through that means that there is no relationship I listen to that argument, otherwise your dealing with the wrong data. The success of a team over 82 games (or in MLB 162 games) is a much more meaningful basis to look at this then "who gets to the final".