Actually this "debate" is part of the reasons why people start ignoring you.
LOL, that may be, but my points are valid anyway. If people ignore me because it takes too much effort to think about what I'm saying, so be it. Sound bytes are misleading and I will not be reduced to them.
And also, just for the record, most of this board's regulars don't ignore me.
I make a statement. You tell me I'm wrong, but provide no contractory evidence
That is completely untrue and you know it. The counterexamples are well documented: The Celtics with Bird, the Pistons with Thomas, the Bulls with Jordan.
You say that those don't count, because Bird had very good front-court players alongside him, which is true; that the Pistons had a unique (at the time) team defensive style, which is true; and that Jordan was, well, special, which is true.
But they are still counterexamples! When you make a sweeping statement like,
"Historically, the key to getting into the finals has been to have a strong overall team and a great big man,"
you don't leave any wiggle room. What you meant to say, I think, was,
"Generally, it is important to have at least one very good big man, unless your team is exceptional in some other way."
In that case we would have had no problem.
and would rather get into word games.
Do you really think they're word games? If so, there is no point in further discussion, because you don't understand the basic tenets of constructing an argument.
You say, "I believe such-and-such because of this reason." If you're depending on the reason to support your case, you'd better be darn sure what the reason is actually saying! Otherwise, it could support anyone's argument, or be used against your own. Precise language is critical if you're serious about supporting your point.
Then you tell me that the whole point of the debate is outside the scope of the discussion without asking why the point was made to begin with.
Oh please, like it's not obvious why the point was made to begin with.
You treat your opinions as "facts" and then wonder why people stop caring what you say.
No, I treat historical evidence as "fact," which it is.
Okay, sport, you want me to spell it out for you once more, I will.
The Suns right now have several deficiencies, but let's focus on two:
1. Weakness at center.
2. Absence of any one superstar, elite player, r00ler, or whatever.
In an ideal world, they would address both of those weaknesses in one fell swoop by getting the next dominant center in the league on their team, whoever that happens to be. (And no, it won't be Maciej Freaking Lampe.)
But this is not an ideal world, so the Suns have, at best, two choices:
1. Upgrade the center position so that it is above average, but forgo the superstar.
2. Acquire a superstar, but forgo a significant upgrade to the center position.
Your position is that (1) is preferable to (2). That's fine. But your stated reason for preferring (1) is that (2) is hopeless.
And (2) is not hopeless. Teams have won by following path (2) before. It happens rarely, for sure, but it can happen.
In fact, the evidence suggests it is (1) that is hopeless. In the last 25 years, no team has won the title without an ultra-elite player on its roster -- with the arguable exception of the Pistons, who are already exceptional for the reasons you gave. Teams have won without a dominant center, and even though those cases may seem unique, they are better than nothing.
So when you say that winning a championship by path (2) is impossible, that's going to draw a reaction. It isn't impossible. It has been done. It may be very unlikely, but it is possible.
Where is your evidence that path (1) -- getting a "good" center, with no superstar to lead the way -- is possible? You have none. Instead, you just say, "Championship teams need a dominant center," and you leave it at that.
Now frankly, I doubt you've read to this point, since I seem to overwhelm your attention span. But if you have, ask yourself who's the one playing games, and who is really addressing the question.
