Chronologically speaking, you had not said that already: you only said it after I refuted what you originally said. Moving the goalposts, as it were.
Totals are not totals. Career totals are not equivalent to totals accumulated while playing for a specific team, under a specific contract, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise.
But, again, you didn't say that until after what you originally said was refuted. Double-check the chronology, and you will see that you said this:
... And then I refuted it. And then you said this:
And now, you are claiming that you have been saying that ^^^ the whole time. And you have not. And the timestamps of the posts you made prove that you have not. And, to follow Glenn's bulldog comparison, I am not going to let go of this, until you admit it.
The essential chronology of the argument has been thus (tl;dr version):
- Jason Thompson's production, for what he's making, looks like Kenny Thomas.
- No it does not.
- Well, when you factor in usage...
- What does usage have to do with money?
- But, the roles were different!
- So what? What do roles have to do with money?
- Hey, man, it's like I said, Thompson is headed on a downward trend, just like Kenny Thomas.
- That is not what you said the first time. We are involved in this back-and-forth because of what you said the first time. And what happened to the money?
If you want to make the argument that I am wrong because of Bob Loblaw, then that is fine. I am not, but that is beside the point. The point is that Bob Loblaw was not your original argument. You stated X, X was refuted. You then stated Y and Z, which may be meritorious discussions to have, but is not the discussion that we were having.
You have since claimed that, when you originally said X, that Y and Z were part of your original argument, which they were not, and which my compulsion towards pedantry demands I address. That may have been what you meant but, if it is, then you did not say what you meant. If you had said what you meant, we would not be having this conversation, because I am not really interested in whether you think Thompson will continue a steady decline for the rest of his career, the way that Thomas did. I am interested in the fact that you said that Thompson's production, for what he gets paid, is similar to Kenny Thomas, and why you think this is true, when it is factually not true.
I'm starting to have a feeling you're just messing around at this point.
The only thing you initially "refuted" was my first statement and you "refuted" it with this:
"Then you remember wrongly: Thomas made much more money than Thompson, and was much less productive, as a King."
After which I clearly laid out evidence to support my claim and clearly laid out the context. Chronology does not help you here, it hurts you. You're statement above provides no evidence to prove or disprove anything. It's a claim, not a refutation.
Your words:
"You said that Thompson's production, relative to his contract, was equivalent to Thomas. I demonstrated that this is not true."
By your definition of events and "demonstration", those are the totals you provided, you only did that AFTER I laid out the context of my argument in the post I made after my initial statement.
Beyond all that, it all goes back to ones definition of "significant" and "much more". You have a different idea of what those mean than I, I can respect that. I merely tried to bring up a similar situation, using a similar player. If you disagree I can respect that too.
I can't really lay out any more clearly my evidence than I did in my very first post that provided all the needed clarification. You keep sidetracking the argument, but you are arguing opinion at this point. Those arguments as history has shown, are most times unwinnable. I proved it statistically in terms of my opinion. Your opinion is that 1 rebound per 48 minutes of game time is significant. I disagree. I really don't know how you can't look at the per-minute production I posted and see no similarities, but that's apparently what you see. A few people have already chimed in on this one who saw the same thing I did. I'm sure some see things the way you did. Probably not a lot, but that's beside the point.
Prove to me that Thompsons production isn't similar to Kenny Thomas' because you still haven't done that. But know this, no matter what statistical evidence you provide, I am going to disagree with it because it isn't "significant". See where that argument gets you? I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles, you go ahead and do it, I'll just disagree with what you post to support your refutation.
Also in regards to a debate of statistical totals vs. per game production in the context of player comparison, I prefer per game. I'm going to assume so does pretty much every other relevant sports database because those are typically the stats you mostly see associated with players. And THAT is a fact, undeniable in all facets. Prove to me that it isn't.