3-time Naismith player of the year as well...

your HS graduation, made you many lunches.

Your GOAT parent, right?

.

You still consider her a GOAT parent right?

Or was your dad more GOAT, just because well, hes your dad?

>You still consider her a GOAT parent right?
>
>Or was your dad more GOAT, just because well, hes your dad?

She was the GOAT mom, my dad was the goat DAD.

My mom taught me some things my dad couldn't have and my dad taught be somethings my mom couldn't have.

If you want to talk "greatest," then that opens up a different can of worms, obviously. Same way that Christian Laettner is pretty obviously the most accomplished basketball player on the men's side in the modern era, but could he beat one-on-one X, Y, or Z? But it's a team sport, so whose supporting cast was better? If Brittney Griner was on that UConn team with Geno, would the results have been the same for her? One wonders.

But I know you didn't make this post seriously. This reply isn't for you. It's for the people who actually give a shit about what they post.

college basketball coach instead of the GOAT?

But take issue with GOAT for men's and womens

in terms of just crazy ball skills and sheer mastery of the woman's game, and the toughness to match.

she was like a female Nash

... that essentially said that Stewart was the more accomplished player, but she didn't have that type of take-shit-over personality that Taurasi had, and that even though the writer's brain said Stewart was better, his heart said Taurasi, because no one would ever replace that feeling of watching her play and talk shit as you sit and think, "holy shit, I've never seen a better women's basketball player than this." I thought that was a pretty convincing argument.

Yep to all that, and also.. her numbers dont do her justice at all. you just had to have witnessed it.

In a sense, it made me kinda understand why Bull Russel is so revered without the numbers jumping out at you..

man Dee was ICE COLD!!

Like, Roger Angell making Roberto Clemente sound like some kind of aloof-but-lethal Babylonian god is pretty much doing the same thing as some doofus on twitter saying that Bryce Harper's swing gives him a boner. The doofus, I mean. Not Bryce Harper.

It's the grand, writerly version of "the eye test" and, in a sign that hypocrisy is the only real form of intellectual freedom, one that I'll happily trot out in support of my favorites. But the problem is that it doesn't work if somebody doesn't express themselves beautifully.

>It's the grand, writerly version of "the eye test" and, in a
>sign that hypocrisy is the only real form of intellectual
>freedom, one that I'll happily trot out in support of my
>favorites. But the problem is that it doesn't work if somebody
>doesn't express themselves beautifully.

Yeah, and while this writer (I completely forget who it was) probably wasn't the most elegant to put fingers to keyboard, it still felt like an argument I rarely hear in terms of the "greats" nowadays. So often, people boil it down to "well he has X number of titles/MVPS/seasons of batting/shooting/throwing X amount of runs/points/touchdowns" and so forth. They look for the quantifiable, some sort of "definitive" logic formula.

I like that this writer didn't try to work backward toward a solution, citing the categorical advantages Taurasi may have in box scores or season averages, the way I feel that so many probably would. It intrigued me as someone who casually watches women's basketball and saw both Taurasi and Stewart play... as I, too, felt that Stewart was an exceptional talent... but Taurasi was straight-up larger-than-life.

This can obviously also work the opposite way, as some of the most irritating college basketball writers I know stick primarily with platitudes like "this is what this player does!" and other such cringeworthy phrasing. But that's where the elegance you referenced comes in, of course. Sadly, writerly elegance for my favorite sport feels like it's in relatively short supply.