Sticking to the Debate - Much More Interesting

VANCOUVER

People are funny.

Rather than actually arguing a point, a favourite tactic is often to try and discredit the source. Don't take a persuasive point of view. Just try and accuse those who think differently of some kind of bias.

When I write something critical of the Leafs, some suggest I've only written it because I hate the Leafs. If I write something critical about the Ottawa Senators, I'll get emails saying I've only taken that point of view because I love the Leafs.

Sometimes I think I should introduce these people to each other.

So long ago I stopped worrying when people accuse me of some bias or another. It usually just means they have no intelligent argument to make.

Today, I'm dealing with all kinds of people criticizing a column I wrote that was critical of Mike Babcock's handling of the Team Canada goalie situation by writing - as though I somehow wasn't admitting it - that I'm only taking that point of view because I co-wrote a book with Brodeur four years ago.

To that I have two things to say.

One, if you believe I have a conflict, then why would you possibly care about what I think? There's no way I can argue the point, so I have to accept that some people believe that. That's part of being in this business, and its no more bothersome to me than those who say I write critical columns on the Leafs because I hate the Leafs, etc.

Second, I can make an argument that Brodeur should have continued as Canada's goalie. At the same time, I understand that some believe it's Roberto Luongo's turn. In fact, the majority of writers at these Games take that point of view. I don't agree, but I can certainly accept that point of view. And I never, ever mind being in the minority.

And you'll notice I didn't accuse Babcock of any kind of conflict because he coaches Detroit and Brodeur plays for New Jersey, or that he prefers Luongo because he's in the Western Conference.

I simply disagreed with his decision and the way in which he made it.

That's how it should work folks.

So fill your boots if you want to accuse me of conflict. All it means is you have no argument to make.

I do with Brodeur. I would have stuck with him because he has won three Stanley Cups, multiple Vezina Trophies and an Olympic gold medal, plus the fact he was brilliant against the Swiss and totally saved Canada from what would have been an embarrassing defeat by stoning each and every Swiss in the shootout. If he didn't have a strong game against the U.S., well, this is a Hall of Fame goalie who has proven time and time again his ability to bounce back.

Luongo? He didn't play his way into this start. He was handed it.

And you know what? If he backstops Canada to a gold medal Babcock's decision will have been the correct one.

And you'll read it here first. Then I'll probably get emails from Leaf fans accusing me of being a Canuck lover. . . .

Comments

[miko]

damian,

this is quite childish of you. i am an avid reader of your colums and follow your blog regularly. however, if you are going to give credit to brodeur for all his achievments; then you have to give the same to babcock and all of his accomplishmnets. He is the coach because he earned it and he makes decisions because he has proven to be quite capable of doing so. therefore i see your point of view as bias and unwarranted.

[Shanti]

A conflict would suggest you owe a duty to the public, perhaps you do, but you're just a sports writer. Does that sound condescending? Well it is, and it's a reflection of your dismissive attitude. Your history with Brodeur calls into question your objectivity and your credibility. What's hard to understand about that? Clearly you're on the defensive. The spin is apt title by the way, it must be irony-free. I enjoy your writing nonetheless, it is, after all, just about entertainment.

[Arthur Bailey]

I do not think it is a conflict that Damien wrote a book on Brodeur. In the past, when there has been a conflict, for instance, when criticizing the sports coverage of one Canadian Network, he stated in a disclaimer that he sometimes worked for it's rival network (TSN the reporters, I think).

Now that I have defended Damien's integrity, I will pose a logical argument against keep Brodeur in net: His NHL record in the weeks preceeding the Olympics.

January 26th against Ottawa stopped 9 of 12 shots, pulled for a perfect Y. Danis

January 18th vs NYI, stopped 28 or 32, pulled in favour of a perfect Danis.
January 24th against Montreal stopped 21 of 24 shots
January 29th against Toronto stopped stopped 25 of 29 shots
January 31st against L.A. stopped 19 of 22
February 5th against Toronto, stopped only 17 of 20 shots!
February 6th against Rangers, stopped only 22 of 25 shots!
February 10th against Philadelphia, stopped 12 of 15 shots!!
February 13th against Carolina, stopped 18 of 22, was pulled in favour of Danis (who stopped 8 of 8)

That is well below a .900 record.

YES, Brodeur is second for wins this season, but he is 5th in losses.

In his last 17 games going back to January 14th, including the wins, he has a save average of .884. That is beyond mediocre, that is subpar.

During those 17 games he has 6 wins, and 14 points out of a possible 34.

Damien, is this REALLY the person you want between the pipes during 4 elimination round games leading to the gold?