Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="diggerfoot, post: 2821702, member: 1673"] In a thread on a UConn board devoted to DTs impact you interject with "This is the Griner impact." You follow that with "Having a player like Griner on the team would make anyone better, ...." That is a true statement, as it would be for quite a few players. If you meant to interject that Griner was one of a few players that make others better, Taurasi and Bonner included, then you've made an undeniable yet not particularly enlightening statement. Yet your phrasing (along with past history of your posts) would seem to suggest that Griner's impact is the key ingredient, more than Taurasi, Bonner or anyone else. Considering that to be the case you still present no evidence that would pass the empirical standards of validity, reliability or context. You describe why Griner would make anyone better, yet there are reasons why a few players might make others better, certainly there are many reasons why Taurasi makes other players better. Oh, you also offer the ol' chestnut of "because (some expert) says so." For your case to be not merely scholastic pontificating you would have to establish why the suite of reasons Griner makes teammates better is superior to alternative reasons for making teammates better, then provide a measurable standard for comparison. You do neither, just toss out an opinion with post hoc explanations of validity with no reliable standards for comparison. You present nothing to elevate from scholastic opinion to empirical evidence. There is, of course, one reliable standard that could be used for comparison: the caliber of teammates an impactful player needs to win a championship. Griner has not provided any evidence she can impact a team towards a championship without experienced, first team AA quality teammates. Taurasi has. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach