[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You make a very lucid argument, but the counterargument still comes down to this: The only evidence we have to go on is the evidence that everything you thought was right was wrong. Dead wrong. The team that you gave no chance to went and won the title. Doesn't that sort of render impotent all arguments along these lines? Shouldn't it be something like, "But, by my line of reasoning, they'd have never won it in the first place, but I guess they did, so what the hell do I know?"

I'm sorry, but I just can't be convinced by "Yes, I was wrong about lightning not striking on my head the first time, but don't you see that I'm even MORE likely to be right now?"

And yes, I get that certain things inevitably changed after the championship, in that way that you can't ever step in the same river twice. Yes, for some players--and let's all be candid, this begins and ends with Dirk--the mountain may have been already climbed. But that would never, ever, ever--I mean, like Taylor Swift ever--be a good argument against making your best effort to compete the next year. Or at least, it's not an argument you could make to your team and live to get away with it.

I'm just curious. Did YOU pick that team to win the title? I can't remember.