Ruzious wrote:Nivek wrote:I think payitforward's point isn't that environment doesn't matter, but rather that good management, good coaching, good players, good people make for good environment. Good teams are the ones that make more good choices. Dynasties are teams that make more good choices over a long period of time.
That I agree with, but it's not at all what I took from pay's post - which seemed to say that a "good player" is going to be good no matter where he plays.
So... you'd like to assert the opposite? A good player won't be good if he plays on a bad team? Even though, e.g., we hear people say that rookie Nicholson will be good on a bad team? So... what? He must not be a good player, right? Otherwise, he wouldn't be good on a bad team? So he must be a bad player -- and when you put a bad player on a bad team... he's good! There you go.
Worse, if you put a good player on a good team, and he's good -- that's only because he's on a good team. Like Kawhi Leonard. I mean you take a good player like e.g. LeBron James, and you put him on a bad team, like e.g. the Cavaliers pre-LeBron, and he won't be a good player.
Or... what? Thing is, this is all 100% BS. A "good team" is a team with players who play well. Because they play well, they win games. Because they win games, they're a good team. What does it mean to be a good player -- it means to help your team win more games than some other player: you are better than that other player. What in God's name else could the phrase "good player" mean?
So lets say it this way: if player A is better than player B, then player A helps the team he is on win more games than if instead the team had player B. That is what it means to be "better." If you are "better" than most guys, why then you are "good."
What is complicated about this? And why don't you give me some evidence to the contrary if you have any. I don't think you have any.