Ok I'm going to be controversial but before I do let me start with saying I am new to paintball and so defer to your knowledge of the game. *However, I do make a living from building logical arguments. *Since your case is made out, not on impirical evidence but on logical conclusions I feel I can contribute.
And so my counter argument is that the logic applied by the OP is disjointed and the only true conclusion one can draw is "it depends on the team". *Now before its suggested that this is a flippant response I propose to argue it mathematically and logically which based on your two lecture posts Robbo I assume you'll appreciate, (if perhaps for little more than a bit of intellectual sparing).
First, your use of Einsteins ap priori experiment misses the fundamental mechanism; namely you need either to have some factual certainties or at least some widely accepted assumptions; those serving as the caveats to your conclusion.
To this extent one would be wise to observe the Socratic deductive method of reasoning, such as the well known syllogism "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal".
Leaving aside the point that to prove Teamwork and Communication ("T&C") are over rated by some, you'd first need to assess the rating they have given it, the logic of your argument follows like this "It is possible to win without T&C, some teams value T&C alot, therefore T&C are overrated". *The problem with that logical analysis is (a) it can be deployed for every aspect of the game including tightness. *"It is possible to win the game without being tight, some teams value tightness, therefore tightness is overrated" and (b) it reaches a logical certainty from an uncertain baseline. I'll show what I mean for both points.
In relation to (a): Before my inexperience is leapt upon and exposed with the line "ah thats because you do not understand the significance of being tight", that would be to misunderstand my argument. *I am talking in terms of possibilities and so too is the OP. *If a different argument were deployed "ah yes but if you knew the game you would know straight away, tightness is more critical" that in fact serves to highlight the correctness of my argument. *Relativity! *Once you move away from possibilities and more into quantitative assessment the OP becomes meaningless (at least in so far as its logical basis is concerned). *The OP is about using logic in ones mind not evidence, impirical or anecdotal.
In relation to (b): suppose we use the same logic as the OP in a different way. *Take this example "It is possible for a man to live his life without eating meat, Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates did live his life without eating meat". *Immediatel the falisy becomes obvious. *The proper conclusion is "it is possible Socrates lived his life without eating meat". *Either by inadvertance or intellectual slight of hand the OP has created the impression of a logical argument that in fact does not follow the premise. *It uses an open-ended baseline of possibilities which it crystalises into a certainty which is undeserved.
The only real logical conclusion to the question "is teamwork overrated/ over prioritised" is "it depends on the team".
Let me demonstrate with mathematics. *Lets devise a relatively uncontroversial formula for winning (the total accuracy is not important for the purposes of demonstratong the conclusion - its illustrative). *So lets say:
Winning = Individual Skill + Equipment + Preparation + T&C + Other Gaming factors + Luck (or happenstance whatever you want to call it) + the Unknown Variables.
Now lets use that to consider what teams should prioritise (as that was the thrust of the OP).
First lets make some deductions. *Luck and Unknowns are by definition beyond a player/ team's control save for limited mitigation by Prep, so they cannot be prioritised.
Also Equipment in terms of priority does not correlate to training (how much you can afford and what you doing during training are not intersecting factors).
So that leaves Individual Skill (including tightness), Prep + T&C and Other Gaming factors.
Secondly, lets take three fairly obvious statements, (a) "to complete the formula we would need numerical data, (b) "as winning is a competitive formula the required value to win is relative to the opponent you are facing" (c) each numerical value has a curved progression (here we use a bit of reality, the more proficient you are the more effort it takes for the same degree of improvement - take runners for example, it is much easier for a new runner to shave a second of their 100m sprint than an olympic runner).
So how do we resolve that formula, without impirical studies. By applying some logic (and common sense) to the three *statments above. *The priority will depend on the individual teams make up. *Take football for example (not impirically - im not cheating, but illustratively). *Sometimes you get the best individually skilled players but they do not gel and vice versa. *Some teams however have gifted individuals who can operate in isolation. *
Lets draw our first obvious conclusion. *T&C will improve your chances - to a lesser or greater degree.
Some teams however will over prioritise T&C, either because they fail to realise other weaknesses are greater or because their T&C is very good and the further investment of effort is not warranted by the improvement gained. *However that analysis is true of any feature of the game. *This immediately dispels the OP. *Because it can apply to any control factor the criticism can be made of any feature. *You can onky draw two conclusions from that sub-conclusion. *The first is "all features are over rated/ prioritised" - that would make no sense. *The other conclusion (and therefore the conclusion) is some teams may be overrating/ over prioritising "a" feature of the game which may or may not be T&C.
So with little difficulty we can conclude the answer to the formula is, "it depends on the team." *
Now I suspect in truth the OP is really using anecdotal evidence. *I'd say you appear to be very well respected and so your anecodotal evidence holds some credibilty. *But thats not the same thing as passing it off as a logical analysis
