jray, you make some good points, but they're obscured by your frustrating and ultimately ineffective debating style. first off, let's refresh on what a strawman argument is- it's when you pretend your opponents have said something they haven't, and you argue against that point. You said Jefferson was a big-time star coming out of college, and that justifies his presence on a finals team, whereas my players lack an ability to contribute in the playoffs. KC pointed out that many of my players were selected higher than RJ. That's not a strawman argument, he's refuting an actual point you made.
An actual strawman argument is the one you keep making, where you seem to be countering the argument that no one's making that Webster is on par with my guys as a reserve. Or the one where my bench guys are supposed to have starter-level abilities, or be more than role players. Or the one where Conley compares to Jason Kidd.
2ndly, you made the point that young players in general lack this ability to contribute in the playoffs. I named some players that have done so, only to have you then claim that they were exceptions because of a bunch of criteria that you implied you've been using all along, including the presence of an all-star backcourt. I'd like you to cite one instance of you having stated this before- otherwise, how the hell am I supposed to debate with you the relative merits of my players when after I'm done refuting your points you then shift your stance and say your new stance was your original one all along?
3rdly, you don't address at all my actual argument that it doesn't matter how my top three reserves got their minutes. Or how putting up numbers on a crap team with starters minutes means that they're unable to put up lesser numbers on a better team, in lesser minutes.
For what it's worth, I am considering improvement- and I view these "playoffs" as happening in our virtual world after next season.
4thly, it's a pretty tricky ledge you're on with your Eric Gordon nuances. Much of what you say about my players applies to him, and he's a much more important component of your team than any of my players. Again, you're claiming he's an exception because he's NBA-ready. Do I need to go find rookies how were described as NBA-ready who floundered their first year? Gordon being successful is as much a crapshoot as any of my players. We'll only know for sure at the end of the actual season. The reason I took so many rookies is because the probability of one being successful increases with the number I take. Unless my math is wrong- it's like flipping a coin once versus flipping it 4 times. Flip it once, chances of failure/tails versus success/heads is 50/50. Flip it four times, the chance of having 4 failures is 6%. You can adjust the original percentage how you like. The chances that just one of my rookies is successful next year are better than Gordon's. The chances that Gordon performs better than Chandler or Cook are abysmally small, IMO.
I'd like you to note this is the first time I've said anything negative about your team.
Lastly, regarding my other players, you note that "you have guys like Yao and Sheed that need the ball fed to them and someone to kick the ball too to knock down shots consistently. You sure as hell don't have a Kobe, Fisher, Rip, or Billups to do that in the playoffs." I'd actually say Sheed knocks down shots pretty consistently- that's why I got him. At least 3 of my starters are good outside shooters (I don't know about Conley), and defenses still have to worry about Yao in the middle. Furthermore, we obviously disagree in our assessments of West and Conley. I'm of the opinion that there's usually tremendous improvement in a point's second year, and I think West makes a pretty good point on his own, anyway. So are they Kobe or Billups and Rip? Of course not. You seem to be saying I need to pair Sheed and Yao with one of those combos, which is pretty ridiculous IMO. Should I have had 2 top 10 picks and 4 in the first two rounds? Would that be the only way to beat your team?
