Don't remember every saying that the players in the NBA are not elite athletes. You are inventing an argument and then responding to that invention, and is a way to avoid addressing the point that you have undoubted lost. A 25 minute per game player gets the same minutes on another team. That proves my point whether he is a starter or not. I could have said a 35 minute player or a 32 minute player or a 26 minute player. And your example of Korver is, once again, pointing out the exception and pretending it is the norm. Yahtzee!!!
Wasn't your point that an NBA player can make a transition without having any learning curve? I'm pretty sure it was. First of all you're wrong, there is a learning curve as I pointed out with Korver, McDermott had the same problem transitioning from the Bulls to Thunder. Those two were less productive, PERIOD. I'm using local guys so you could try to relate even though that seems doubtful at this point. I mention the elitism of the athletes as the reason why the learning curve isn't so steep. In summary the bottom of the elite doesn't just come in and play the same minutes, that's your hypothetical myth that you've yet to prove and I debunked with local guys. Furthermore, the top of the elite learning curve is pretty flat in the NBA as in any sport, which I previously mentioned. Even the top (Miami Big 3) had their struggles against competition. It took a year for that team to truly gel. Your whole premise has fallacies, that you can't support with any data.
It's real easy, in ANY DAMN sport:
Superstars - very little if any transition
Contributing veterans - little transition, fewer plays, less minutes, etc.
Relative Newbies, guys getting old, Not the cream of the crop - More transition, likely will have a dropoff in contribution, less minutes, faster hook to get sat, etc.
Not much more to debate. How about is the sky blue or blueish?
EDIT: Look up Taj Gibson's transition to the Thunder too, you'll note another example (or exception) of your wrong presumption.