All I pointed out was that the thread is about winning a championship and the organization's commitment to do so.
Yeah.
If it's about management, then leave it there. Don't blame the star players for that same management's ineptitude.
It seems that your too inept to, ironically, follow what this thread was about, even while trying to turn that same issue into pedagogic polemic. What an embarrassment especially since, as you pointed out, it was such a simple topic.
If team result is the only measure for a player, then perhaps Robert Horry>Jordan.
So yes that is the argument and viewpoint in the context of the thread (highlighted in bold). Sorry to bring logic into your very emotional response.
As far as I know, it was your lacking logic I was very directly replying to. Reading comprehension may help, as redundancy is becoming squared with (attempted) condescension from your side; by missing my point, the question becomes whether you've then missed your own.
Specifically, the reductive, as reductio ad absurdum, assumption that TD+DR>JS+KM because of championships.
By that reasoning, Chauncey Billups>John Stockton.
If you would like to discuss largely arbitrary ranking as to "who owned whom" in various aspects of the game then feel free to start said thread.
Arbitrary? Do you understand what that means, particularly when discussing individual players?
Conspicuously, you judge the worth of star players -- their overall skill and ability to effect a game -- through team result. The argument is contradictory, myopic and, in total, an oxymoron.
Meanwhile, you think that matchup battles, favoring one player to a ridiculous degree over another, are..."arbitrary".
Congratulations. You've shown the analytical ability of a bandwagoner attending a game 7 at Staples Center.
But to frame other posters comments in such a way as to fit your argument is just a straw man.
So individual greatness is beside the point.
OK. Then, by your own stated and implied standard, that then means that Luc Longley>>David Robinson.
Any other analysis would be both a strawman and emotionally capricious.
By having me argue within your, yes, convenient and capricious standards, it only becomes more obvious how ill-thought and implosive these elements are.
So, bravo.
The Spurs have won championships, and we have not.
Ginobli+Parker>David Robinson.
They had Duncan and Robinson for part of that and others after Robinson left. And we had Stockton and Malone. The team the Spurs put together that won championships worked, our efforts did not.
Note the bold. Still confused?
