How very convinient that his prime only lasted the specific period of time where he could take as many shots as he wanted.
I think I was giving you too much credit up to this point because it's not possible that you can't comprehend such a basic principle.
Let's try it one more time, if you still don't get it I was definitely giving you more credit than you deserve.
A basketball team has 5 players on the court at any given time. When you share a lineup with a bunch of role players just waiting for you to pass it to them so they can shoot it, your AST% will inevitably tend to get inflated.
Now, if you are in a lineup with 2 other playmakers that share offense creation responsabilities with you, your AST% will obviously be lower because you aren't the only guy creating offense out there. But that doesn't necessarily mean you are a lesser "ofense creator", it just means you can't have the ball in your hands all of the time.
After leaving the Warriors, Durant upped his AST%, does that mean that he suddenly became a better "offense creator" or that, as the Nets weren't as stacked as the Warriors, he just had the ball in his hands more?
Now this is the most re ed I've read/heard in a long time. Even more re ed than what Arenas said. So, you are telling me that the guy that played with 2 fellow MVP's and couldn't win ; the guy that got an MVP to join his team and couldn't win , the guy that demanded a trade to join the MVP he previously played with and another hall of famer and still couldn't win , the guy that is known for checking out when not getting his way and coming up short in the most important of times, that guy would have helped the Spurs win more than Manu did?
The 90's Bulls only got 6, the Warriors only got 4, Shaq and Kobe only won 3, but one of the biggest losers of all-time, a guy that has a reputation for choking in the playoffs was going to help his team win more than all those dynasties?