Gongxi wrote:And I'm saying that its fallacious.
Ditto for your "macro" approach. Sometimes a single game or two are just that important.
I'm obviously comparing them. Game 4 in the first round was important. But...it's not being mentioned. You don't think it's important to mention it, and instead only mention important bad games? Why?
What would you like to be said? He had a monster triple double to break the No. 8 seed's back in the first round. An outstanding performance.
Now, what about the fact that he bombed in arguably the most important game of the season, in such a way that his character, effort and leadership were called into question almost across the board? Or the fact that he had three others game in the series ranging from average to poor? Painting that as "rough stretches" is like saying the Titanic was an accident.
Why? Because his team lost? So Kobe's poor first round can be glossed over because his team won? What sense does that make, we're comparing the players, not the teams.
I didn't even bring Kobe up, as far as I can recall. Now that I'm being pressed, I certainly won't gloss anything over. That series, as well as his Game 7 against Boston, and his poor play in Jan/Feb are among the main reasons I'm having a tough time putting him at No. 1. Take two of the three away, and he's my slam-dunk choice.
I think he had rough stretches.
That's it? You can pontificate on end about how lacking my standards are, or drop countless references to show what an intellectual you are, but when it comes to the subject at hand -- just how bad/good was LeBron in this particular series, and how does it impact his standing? -- you've got one benign little sentence?
