conqueso
10-26-2005, 04:17 PM
Amazing. So Jordan isn't great, because he had everybody else doing it for him. How many championships did the Bulls win with Pete Myers starting at the 2? Oh yeah, none. Everybody else was there and in place, and they couldn't even get to the Finals. The Drexler argument is equally crazy. History proves that Drexler had WAY more talent around him than Jordan did. My opinion is that if Jordan had played for the Blazers he'd have won the same six rings plus one against the Pistons AND the one that Drexler won in Houston.
Ugh, I didn't want to do this, but you really just missed my point entirely. The Jordan-Drexler hypothetical was not important because of what we think would have happened, or how many titles each would have won. The point I was trying to illustrate was that a human being has a objective, quantifiable amount of skill at basketball. This skill though, does not translate directly into playoff success (Wilt Chamberlain is the best example of that premise). The playoff success of a team is affected by factors other than just the skill of its best player. Those factors include (but are not limited to) the ability and performance of that person's teammates.
You obviously overstate my point when you construe it as "So Jordan isn't great, because he had everybody else doing it for him." It is obvious to any conscientious reader that I wasn't saying that in any way at all. You have taken a statement of mine, intentionally misconstrued it so that it sounds completely absurd, and used it to discredit me. Please refrain from such contemptible behavior in the future.
After all of your arguing, the best you can come up with is "well, if the Spurs lose then Duncan's just as bad as Robinson, but Robinson fills up the stats, so I win. I'll make excuses for every single playoff failure for Robinson, including some shit I just made up, but I won't cut Duncan any slack at all for having two bad ankles and still managing to win a title."
Again, you have missed my point. Do you see the pattern yet? My argument has extremely little to do with Robinson's stats, and if you had read my posts with an impartial, open mind, you would have realized that. Of course Robinson's regular season stats are better, and yes that reflects something, but there is so much more.
You again unfairly characterize my explanations as "making excuses for every single playoff failure for Robinson." I am doing more than that. I am also using the same rationale to show why my thesis (what you call an excuse, namely the significant impact of the supporting cast) not only explains Robinson's failures, but also Duncan's successes. The entire hypothetical in my last post was geared toward showing that by applying your own perspectives, my point is still cleary manifest.
After all of your arguing, the best you can come up with is "well, if the Spurs lose then Duncan's just as bad as Robinson, but Robinson fills up the stats, so I win. I'll make excuses for every single playoff failure for Robinson, including some shit I just made up, but I won't cut Duncan any slack at all for having two bad ankles and still managing to win a title."
That's not "all I can come up with." That's all you choose to acknowledge. A plethora of other viable reasons have been presented to you, many of which you have ignored. Regardless, I think it's great that Duncan played with two bad ankles. Very admirable. But did you just make an excuse for why Duncan sucked it up in the clutch? Isn't that the same practice you chided me for? I think it's clear that Duncan had a lot to do with winning that ring. I think it's also clear that without his exemplary supporting cast, he would have lost that series. Those are self-evident facts. I want to go a little further and claim that some of Duncan's greatness is a misplaced accolade. I want to give his teammates a little bit more credit than the average person is inclined to, so maybe that's where some of our disagreement lies.
And by the way, I didn't make anything up, as you unjusty accuse. At least not intentionally, although the stats and things I cite are subject to some degree of honest mistake.
You can make ifs and buts all you want. None of it changes the fact that the Spurs win more in the playoffs with Duncan, even when Duncan isn't at 100 percent. Even discounting the 2005 title, Duncan still is more of a reason for the other two than Robinson is. If Duncan doesn't do what he does, Robert Horry is hitting a three at the buzzer to make the final score a little less of a blowout, or Horry is hitting threes for Miami instead of San Antonio. Ginobili's heroics wouldn't mean anything if the Spurs were down by 25 going into the last five minutes of the game. That's where it all falls apart. I choose to judge the players by what happens on the court in the post season. If you don't, then we shall have to agree to disagree.
Obviously nothing changes that fact. But the question isn't "who won more in the playoffs, Duncan or Robinson?" The question is "who is better." I have tried several times to express to you that there is a clear distinction between these two questions. I doubt now, after all of your posts, that you can see this obvious difference. I blame myself. If only I was a little shrewder advocate, a little better writer, I could shown you the that what happens on the court in the post season isn't the only thing that matters.
Yes, Duncan took the team very far. The reason I bring up Bob's shot and Bowen's block and Manu's game is to show you that sometimes, Duncan chokes just as bad as Robinson, but the reason he didn't lose those games was because he had amazing players around him. The very reason that Robinson lost these types of games is why you disparage him. Why not disparage Duncan for playing just as bad? Why should it change his legacy that he was lucky enough to have great players to bail him out? You put those same players, or players of their caliber, next to Robinson againt Phoenix, Houston, or Utah, I bet you DRob would have a ring to his credit. But of course, ifs and buts aren't good enough for you, since you haven't yet been able to see the forrest from the trees. But that's okay. I'm here to help.
Ugh, I didn't want to do this, but you really just missed my point entirely. The Jordan-Drexler hypothetical was not important because of what we think would have happened, or how many titles each would have won. The point I was trying to illustrate was that a human being has a objective, quantifiable amount of skill at basketball. This skill though, does not translate directly into playoff success (Wilt Chamberlain is the best example of that premise). The playoff success of a team is affected by factors other than just the skill of its best player. Those factors include (but are not limited to) the ability and performance of that person's teammates.
You obviously overstate my point when you construe it as "So Jordan isn't great, because he had everybody else doing it for him." It is obvious to any conscientious reader that I wasn't saying that in any way at all. You have taken a statement of mine, intentionally misconstrued it so that it sounds completely absurd, and used it to discredit me. Please refrain from such contemptible behavior in the future.
After all of your arguing, the best you can come up with is "well, if the Spurs lose then Duncan's just as bad as Robinson, but Robinson fills up the stats, so I win. I'll make excuses for every single playoff failure for Robinson, including some shit I just made up, but I won't cut Duncan any slack at all for having two bad ankles and still managing to win a title."
Again, you have missed my point. Do you see the pattern yet? My argument has extremely little to do with Robinson's stats, and if you had read my posts with an impartial, open mind, you would have realized that. Of course Robinson's regular season stats are better, and yes that reflects something, but there is so much more.
You again unfairly characterize my explanations as "making excuses for every single playoff failure for Robinson." I am doing more than that. I am also using the same rationale to show why my thesis (what you call an excuse, namely the significant impact of the supporting cast) not only explains Robinson's failures, but also Duncan's successes. The entire hypothetical in my last post was geared toward showing that by applying your own perspectives, my point is still cleary manifest.
After all of your arguing, the best you can come up with is "well, if the Spurs lose then Duncan's just as bad as Robinson, but Robinson fills up the stats, so I win. I'll make excuses for every single playoff failure for Robinson, including some shit I just made up, but I won't cut Duncan any slack at all for having two bad ankles and still managing to win a title."
That's not "all I can come up with." That's all you choose to acknowledge. A plethora of other viable reasons have been presented to you, many of which you have ignored. Regardless, I think it's great that Duncan played with two bad ankles. Very admirable. But did you just make an excuse for why Duncan sucked it up in the clutch? Isn't that the same practice you chided me for? I think it's clear that Duncan had a lot to do with winning that ring. I think it's also clear that without his exemplary supporting cast, he would have lost that series. Those are self-evident facts. I want to go a little further and claim that some of Duncan's greatness is a misplaced accolade. I want to give his teammates a little bit more credit than the average person is inclined to, so maybe that's where some of our disagreement lies.
And by the way, I didn't make anything up, as you unjusty accuse. At least not intentionally, although the stats and things I cite are subject to some degree of honest mistake.
You can make ifs and buts all you want. None of it changes the fact that the Spurs win more in the playoffs with Duncan, even when Duncan isn't at 100 percent. Even discounting the 2005 title, Duncan still is more of a reason for the other two than Robinson is. If Duncan doesn't do what he does, Robert Horry is hitting a three at the buzzer to make the final score a little less of a blowout, or Horry is hitting threes for Miami instead of San Antonio. Ginobili's heroics wouldn't mean anything if the Spurs were down by 25 going into the last five minutes of the game. That's where it all falls apart. I choose to judge the players by what happens on the court in the post season. If you don't, then we shall have to agree to disagree.
Obviously nothing changes that fact. But the question isn't "who won more in the playoffs, Duncan or Robinson?" The question is "who is better." I have tried several times to express to you that there is a clear distinction between these two questions. I doubt now, after all of your posts, that you can see this obvious difference. I blame myself. If only I was a little shrewder advocate, a little better writer, I could shown you the that what happens on the court in the post season isn't the only thing that matters.
Yes, Duncan took the team very far. The reason I bring up Bob's shot and Bowen's block and Manu's game is to show you that sometimes, Duncan chokes just as bad as Robinson, but the reason he didn't lose those games was because he had amazing players around him. The very reason that Robinson lost these types of games is why you disparage him. Why not disparage Duncan for playing just as bad? Why should it change his legacy that he was lucky enough to have great players to bail him out? You put those same players, or players of their caliber, next to Robinson againt Phoenix, Houston, or Utah, I bet you DRob would have a ring to his credit. But of course, ifs and buts aren't good enough for you, since you haven't yet been able to see the forrest from the trees. But that's okay. I'm here to help.