>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.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide