I probably should have rephrased the "snub" comment. My apologies. I should have used something similar to under-gunned. I can see where if a person is looking at 1-shot stop scenarios, they might assign more weight or consideration for a larger caliber. With ball ammo, that would be a wise consideration. With older less effective hollow point ammo, it would still be worth considering. With the newer HP ammo and its' much improved performance levels, the differences aren't as great between the major calibers (9, 40 and 45). Shot placement is huge of course but so is the ability to make quick follow-up shots if needed. That aspect was obvious in NM's linked article. Shotguns and rifles both had a 1-shot stop effectiveness in the mid 80's percentile and most pistols had around 50% or sometimes less.
The type of shooting engagement can also make a difference in what caliber/pistol is going to work better. If a person is in some kind of standoff engagement where they have good cover, a fast follow-up shot isn't as important. If a person is making a dynamic entry and follow through sweep as in an active shooter situation, then fast follow-up shots and shooting accurately on the move become more important. That type of situation was what convinced me to switch back to a 9 from a 45. In fairness, I also switched from a compact to a full size pistol as well. I can shoot proficiently with 9, 40 or 45 in compact and full size pistols. What I found was that I was just a little quicker and slightly more accurate with a full size 9 in dynamic entries and hostage situations with a full size 9mm. As always, YMMV as each of us is likely going to experience a little bit different shooting situations depending on our jobs, etc.