*Hypothetical All-Time Starting 5*

[Infinite_limit]

Bob Ryan got me thinking with his comments recently. He would take Bird & James at the 2 Forward positions over Duncan. I did not consider this previously. With the way the game has changed, how would such a lineup compare?


Classic:
SF) Bird or James
PF) Duncan
C) Russell/Wilt/Kareem


2000s:
SF) James
F) Bird
C) Russell/Wilt/Kareem



James - Bird - Shaq for example

[King Emmanuel]

magic-kobe-mj-lebron-timmy imo

bird is a faggot

[lefty]

No PG?
Although James can play point forward

[Infinite_limit]

No PG?
Although James can play point forward
My apologies. I edited my post. I meant just in terms of the Forwards & Centers

[Fabbs]

3) Bird James Dr. J
4) Duncan
5 Russell Wilt Olajuon.

No pussy Lakers.

[Infinite_limit]

magic-kobe-mj-lebron-timmy imo

bird is a faggot
Kobe & MJ would be a disaster. Magic & James seems like overkill.


I think I would do

PG) Isiah Thomas
SG) Jordan
SF) James
F) Bird
C) Wilt/Kareem/Shaq

[Malik Hairston]

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Michael Jordan
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson

[King Emmanuel]

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Michael Jordan
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson

lol hh's lists seemingly change every 2 weeks or so

[Malik Hairston]

I considered replacing Scottie with Kawhi Leonard, tbh, as Kawhi is one of the greatest Finals performers of all-time, so I know what I'm getting once the pressure rises..

[Infinite_limit]

I considered replacing Scottie with Kawhi Leonard, tbh, as Kawhi is one of the greatest Finals performers of all-time, so I know what I'm getting once the pressure rises..
Better make room for Steve Kerr while you're at it

[Cry Havoc]

Magic/Thomas/Stockton
Jordan/West/Gervin
Bird/LeBron/Garnett
Duncan/Barkley/Dirk
Jabbar/Hakeem/Wilt

[spurraider21]

i dont like magic on these all-time teams... when building these teams your other 4 guys are plenty capable of scoring at will. magic just eliminates spacing and would force you to have some weird defensive matchups

[Brunodf]

J.Kidd/Lebron/Bird/Duncan/Russell or Kareem would be a sick lineup tbh

[DAF86]

Lebron, MJ, Bird, Duncan, Wilt.

[Cry Havoc]

Yea, LeBron at point would be terrifying. Talk about a ridiculous defensive team as well.

[Captivus]

Magic/Thomas/Stockton
Jordan/West/Gervin
Bird/LeBron/Garnett
Duncan/Barkley/Dirk
Jabbar/Hakeem/Wilt

[Malik Hairston]

Most of these teams can't shoot, tbh, it wouldn't be that difficult to stop them..

[Franklin]

team with James will always look good but I guess when you actually use that team to play a real game (where crunch time counts the most), Lebron would probably be the last one you wanna choose.

[Infinite_limit]

Most of these teams can't shoot, tbh, it wouldn't be that difficult to stop them..
Which is why you need Bird. Otherwise you are forced to stick a Stockton at PG. Need 3 point shooting especially if you are going 2 classic Bigs in the Post

[spurraider21]

Most of these teams can't shoot, tbh, it wouldn't be that difficult to stop them..
yeah, thats why i dont like Magic as a PG choice for these all-time teams. he's the best PG, sure, but if i'm building a team and have access to all the legends, i'd rather have a PG who can shoot from didstance

[BatManu20]

Tony
Ginobili
Kawhi
Timmy
Fabricio Oberto.

[BatManu20]

And The Little General off the bench. Imo.

[Venti Quattro]

Magic
Kobe
LeBron
Chuck
Duncan

[resistanze]

Nash
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Hakeem

[Galileo]

PG Magic
SG Jordan
SF Russell
PF Timmy aka Old Death n Taxes
C Jabbar

[Cry Havoc]

Magic
Kobe
LeBron
Chuck
Duncan

Kobe over Jordan. Rofl.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if u want spacing why not replace magic for stockton?

[Malik Hairston]

My concern with Magic isn't really his shooting, it's the locker room issues and potential for disaster, tbh(HIV, aggressive homosexuality, etc)..

[spurraider21]

Stockton-MJ backcourt is a no-brainer imo. you basically have to have MJ, and if you're going with 2 traditional bigs, i'll take Stockton's spacing/defense over Magic

on what is going to be a team full of greats, Bird is probably the best fit at the 3, though if i was building a realistic NBA team, i'd go LeBron at that spot.

you can play with the 4/5 basically however you want. Duncan/Dream would be great both ways, both are great rim protectors, rebounders, passers, can be great in the low post or can step out and knock down midrange shots.

Stock, MJ, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem

[Phillip]

Magic/Thomas/Stockton
Jordan/West/Gervin
Bird/LeBron/Garnett
Duncan/Barkley/Dirk
Jabbar/Hakeem/Wilt

:lmao west and gervin over Kobe

The inflammation of anus is strong in this one, as well as most spurfans :rollin

[Silver&Black]

PG-Jeremy Rin
SG-Kirby Bean
SF-Swaggy P
PF-Carlos Boozer
C- Jordan Hill

[Cry Havoc]

:lmao west and gervin over Kobe

The inflammation of anus is strong in this one, as well as most spurfans :rollin

Kobe is a better individual player. One on one he'd destroy either of the other players in his prime.

That said, I wouldn't want him anywhere near a team with real leaders on it. He wouldn't be able to deal. I also wouldn't want that black hole on a team full of highly efficient scorers and guys who actually have played defense their entire careers, rather when they felt they had something to prove.

[Phillip]

Kobe is a better individual player. One on one he'd destroy either of the other players in his prime.

That said, I wouldn't want him anywhere near a team with real leaders on it. He wouldn't be able to deal. I also wouldn't want that black hole on a team full of highly efficient scorers and guys who actually have played defense their entire careers, rather when they felt they had something to prove.

:lol considering west and gervin to be defensive stalwarts

[jag]

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Michael Jordan
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson

nice

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao west and gervin over Kobe

The inflammation of anus is strong in this one, as well as most spurfans :rollin
What exactly is so laughable about choosing West and Gervin over a role player and team cancer?

[ambchang]

Most people start these by sticking the best player of all time at each position and call it a team, ignoring skill makeup and chemistry. The problem is that a lot of these all time greats are scoring machines who require the ball to operate, it would be a classic case of too many cooks in the kitchen.

Then there are those who have Jordan penciled in, but the fact is the Jordan was a ball dominant off guard who is pretty much the only off guard in NBA history who dominated the league. He required a very unique type of team around him to win, and none of those involved dominant big men on offense because that would crowd the lane (1st 3 peat) or low blocks (2nd 3 peat) and negate Jordan's strengths.

For me, a shooting guard should be able to shoot to open up the paint for the bigs, can pass, and can defend some what.

My starting 5:

Magic - Greatest PG ever, can run half court and break equally well. Decent outside game (not the greatest by any stretch of imagination), can play the passing lanes (younger version), but not the best one on one defender. Stockton is my other pick. Great shooter, can pass in midcourt and open court, directs offense well, doesn't have to score, great and dirty defender.

Jerry West - Shooter, and that's all is needed. Jordan is obvious other choice, but I feel his presence will negate the strengths of the others.

Lebron - Best combination of skill set and defense. Would be great if his outside shot is better. Larry Bird is the obvious other choice here, but he is just too unathletic and I have concerns about his defense.

Duncan - Greatest PF of all time, one of the best team defenders of all time. Can score on the low blocks, can pass, set screens, and do whatever is necessary to win. Dirk is the other choice here, but his defense may be an issue. His outside game will open up the game a LOT though. I am tempted to put Dirk here instead.

Russell - No need for more scoring here, just some guy who will defend, outlet, run the court, and pass the ball. Hakeem is too ball dominant, Shaq takes up too much space, Kareem doesn't pass enough, and Wilt is all three. Robinson is the other choice here because of his versatility and speed. I am also tempted to put Ben Wallace here, but he is too much of a liability on offense. Mourning is too much of a ball stopper, and Mutombo is both. Bill Walton would be the best choice here, but he's just too fragile, if I can only pick a peak year, I will pick Trailblazer Walton here.

This team will pass, defend, can shoot, and have no or very little weakness.

[Cry Havoc]

:lol considering west and gervin to be defensive stalwarts

West and Gervin never imploded teams or ran Hall of Famers out of town.

:lol selective response

[z0sa]

Havoc makes a solid point. Kobe is a beast 1 on 1, but he's clearly a cancer and little bitch from the team standpoint.

[Phillip]

West and Gervin never imploded teams or ran Hall of Famers out of town.

:lol selective response


Havoc makes a solid point. Kobe is a beast 1 on 1, but he's clearly a cancer and little bitch from the team standpoint.

If he is such a cancer, how did the Lakers during his time manage to win 5 championships, spread across completely different collections of players?

I agree he has some attitude issues, shot selection issues, and that if he had fixed those issues, they could have probably won more championships, but his issues aren't nearly as bad or as severe as you idiots suggest. If he was so implosive to a team, there is no way on earth that he is an integral part of 5 championship teams, including a repeat and a three-peat. And let's not act like those teams had massive loads of talent and simply won despite him. They all were built around a high-low star duo, with a bunch of balanced, although not necessarily supremely talented role players. Without him, all 5 teams have severe struggles and deficiencies.

If a player is relied upon as heavily as he was, to be able to win those 5 championships, there is no way he could be this utter and complete cancer you all claim him to be. You can get away with a role player being a cancer perhaps, but not a player as significant as him.

Basically this means 1 of 2 things. 1) He is not that big of a "cancer" or 2) He is so incredibly good that despite being a "cancer", he can be so dominant that it overrides his cancerous tendencies, thus making those aforementioned tendencies irrelevant. Pick your poison.

[z0sa]

Wait wait wait, pick my poison, why when I can have guaranteed team players in Gervin and West? You've kinda moved the goalposts homie.

[Cry Havoc]

If he is such a cancer, how did the Lakers during his time manage to win 5 championships, spread across completely different collections of players?

He had 2 of the 5 best big men in the NBA when both were in their primes. Shaq was unquestionably the most dominant center in the game since Hakeem and likely a top 5 center of all-time. Gasol was an all-NBA big with one of the highest BBIQs in the NBA. Both left LA after people blamed them for the Lakers' failings.

No one is saying that Kobe isn't a great player. He obviously is. But the day you land in LA is the day your clock starts ticking at the altar of Kobe. You say he won 5 titles, I say he left several on the table, given the exorbitant cashflow the Lakers were shelling out to a team each year.

And this is all echoed by what happened to Dwight Howard. One of the game's best players? Don't expect Kobe to coexist for very long.

[Infinite_limit]

Stockton-MJ backcourt is a no-brainer imo. you basically have to have MJ, and if you're going with 2 traditional bigs, i'll take Stockton's spacing/defense over Magic

on what is going to be a team full of greats, Bird is probably the best fit at the 3, though if i was building a realistic NBA team, i'd go LeBron at that spot.

you can play with the 4/5 basically however you want. Duncan/Dream would be great both ways, both are great rim protectors, rebounders, passers, can be great in the low post or can step out and knock down midrange shots.

Stock, MJ, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem
Give me your thoughts on a lineup with Bird at the 4

[spurraider21]

Give me your thoughts on a lineup with Bird at the 4
would get smashed by a team with a PF that can score.

[Medvedenko]

I love that Kobe's a cancer...but he still was either the first or second option on 7 final team appearances winning 5 titles. What a horrible cancer. Once again watch the games. Oh and to chime in on an all time team you'd have to look at what the roles and abilities of each said player. You can't just load up on the best offensive players in their respective roles.
Magic/Jason Kidd (Passing, post up and fast break skills)
MJ/Kobe (doesn't matter who had the better career, we're talking about role on the team. (Defense, outside shooting and penetration)
James Worthy/Lebron (Finisher, post up, intellect)
TD/Dirk (rebounding, intellect, clutch plays, outside shot)
Shaq (rim protector, post play and passing ability)

[Clipper Nation]

I love that Kobe's a cancer...but he still was either the first or second option on 7 final team appearances winning 5 titles. What a horrible cancer.
He was never the first or second option for any championship team.

[Medvedenko]

He was never the first or second option for any championship team.

How old are you?

[Phillip]

Wait wait wait, pick my poison, why when I can have guaranteed team players in Gervin and West? You've kinda moved the goalposts homie.

Oh, so basically you are a moron. Glad you admit it. :tu


He had 2 of the 5 best big men in the NBA when both were in their primes. Shaq was unquestionably the most dominant center in the game since Hakeem and likely a top 5 center of all-time. Gasol was an all-NBA big with one of the highest BBIQs in the NBA. Both left LA after people blamed them for the Lakers' failings.

And yet neither of them could win championships without Kobe, or in Shaq's case, Kobe/Wade/Refs.


No one is saying that Kobe isn't a great player. He obviously is. But the day you land in LA is the day your clock starts ticking at the altar of Kobe. You say he won 5 titles, I say he left several on the table, given the exorbitant cashflow the Lakers were shelling out to a team each year.

Hmm... sounds more to me like the day you land in LA with Kobe, your chances of winning a title go up significantly, considering these two superstar, dominant bigs you speak about, didn't win jack without Kobe, then once paired with him, got to 3+ finals appearances each, winning consecutive championships during each run. I'm pretty sure that if you go and talk to these stars, despite Kobe perhaps being a difficult teammate at times, that they wouldn't trade the time they got to spend playing with him for anything because of the fact that he also helped them raise their own level of play and be able to compete at the highest level possible over an extended period of time, something most teams cannot do.

Some championships may have been left on the table, I don't argue with that, but without him, there is a very good chance that no championships are on the table at all.


And this is all echoed by what happened to Dwight Howard. One of the game's best players? Don't expect Kobe to coexist for very long.

So Dwight can shoulder absolutely no blame for how things went in LA? He didn't underperform? He didn't show an extreme level of mental weakness and immaturity?

[z0sa]

Im a moron for calling you out on your false dichotomy and having a different opinion than you :lol okay, go ahead and make LMAO spurs threads bro

[Phillip]

Im a moron for having a different opinion than you :lol okay, go ahead and make LMAO spurs threads bro

No, not because of a different opinion. Nothing wrong with that. But having a complete and utter lack of reasoning to back up the opinion is what makes you a moron.

[z0sa]

What part about kobe being a cancerous little bitch did you not read?

LMAO spurs are more your thing tbh

[Phillip]

What part about kobe being a cancerous little bitch did you not read?

I read it, but it must clearly be incorrect, because if he is so cancerous, I find it hard to believe he would have been able to win consecutive titles multiple times with completely overhauled squads. Can you show me a superstar player that was a cancer, that won more than 1 championship? Or even 1 championship, period?

[z0sa]

No, it's not incorrect, it's a difference of opinion, like I just fucking said. I didn't call your opinion incorrect, Kobe's great and has many fans for legit reasons. It doesn't mean I have to be one in this specific hypothetical cirumstance

[Phillip]

No, it's not incorrect, it's a difference of opinion, like I just fucking said. I didn't call your opinion incorrect, Kobe's great and has many fans for legit reasons. It doesn't mean I have to be one

I didn't ask you to be a fan, or to acknowledge Kobe's greatness. I simply asked you to prove how he is such a cancer, and prove how someone that is such a terrible, cancerous teammate, managed to be a superstar player on 5 championship teams. I also asked to show me someone who was a superstar player that was cancerous that had a large part in leading a team to championships?

[Phillip]

When someone is called a cancer, they completely divide a team to the point that they severely underperform. Kobe is called a cancer, but somehow was a major part of 5 championship teams. Something isn't adding up, and I simply would like a plausible explanation as to how this could be possible.

[z0sa]

Touche, I agree he is a beast like I said, but I think there are some major historical events pointing towards him being a cancer, including his earliest pre draft demands, his calling out of shaq/rape allegations, and his egotistical playstyle, which is obviously influenced by the media. I'm actually a pretty big Lakers fan for being SA born, I watched a lot of their games in 09 and 10, which is why I say it's merely a difference in opinion.

[Clipper Nation]

How old are you?
Old enough to know that Shaq, Horry, Fisher, MVPau, Bynum, and Odom led those teams to championships in spite of Kirby.

[djohn2oo8]

Magic
MJ
LeBron
Duncan
Hakeem

[Medvedenko]

Old enough to know that Shaq, Horry, Fisher, MVPau, Bynum, and Odom led those teams to championships in spite of Kirby.

You just answered my question. Also, as a clipper fan unless you're Billy Crystal you're young as fuck being a clipper fan now. Hence zero perspective. Coupled with almost 30k posts....sadness. :(

[CitizenDwayne]

Stockton
Ray Allen
Jordan
Dirk
Kareem

[Phillip]

Touche, I agree he is a beast like I said, but I think there are some major historical events pointing towards him being a cancer, including his earliest pre draft demands, his calling out of shaq/rape allegations, and his egotistical playstyle, which is obviously influenced by the media. I'm actually a pretty big Lakers fan for being SA born, I watched a lot of their games in 09 and 10, which is why I say it's merely a difference in opinion.

You still have not proven how he is such a terrible cancerous part of a team. What is your definition of a team cancer? If it is merely someone who some people may find it tough to get along with, and can act childish and egotistical (which is exactly how you are describing him), then it sounds like you are describing about 90% of superstars in NBA history, which then going back to the original argument of taking West and Gervin over him on an all time greats team, is absolutely asinine because he is a better basketball player than both of them in basically every phase of the game, proving that choosing such players would be merely making an emotional choice, as compared to a choice that has actual basketball reasoning behind it. Not that I would expect any less from a spurfan, tbqh considering every new player the spurs draft is immediately designated as Rodman 2.0, MJ 3.0, Lebron 4.0, and Wilt 5.0.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Michael Jordan
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson

Way to date yourself.

[Malik Hairston]

Way to date yourself.

Don't be a bitter old man, tbh..

[Leetonidas]

LeBron
Jordan
McGrady
Nowitzki
Duncan





tbh

[Phillip]

LeBron
Jordan
McGrady
Nowitzki
Duncan





tbh

phew that offense would be pretty rough to deal with

[spurraider21]

phew that offense would be pretty rough to deal with
Splitter neutralizes Dirk
Leonard negates LeBron
Playoffs eliminate Tmac

Duncan and Jordan would do a lot of the heavy lifting

[Jenks]

Thomas
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Chamberlain

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Don't be a bitter old man, tbh..

According to your player dating, youre older than me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Magic
Jordan
James
Duncan
Chamberlain

Robertson
West
Irving
Malone
Kareem

[ambchang]

When someone is called a cancer, they completely divide a team to the point that they severely underperform. Kobe is called a cancer, but somehow was a major part of 5 championship teams. Something isn't adding up, and I simply would like a plausible explanation as to how this could be possible.

Players who were known cancers but won at least one championship as an integral member
Earl Monroe
Rasheed Wallace
Dennis rodman

Players who had a questionable reputation who could conceivably divide a locker room but won at least one championship.
Mark Aguirre
Isiah Thomas
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Shaq
Payton
Mad max

I wouldn't go so far as to call the second group of players cancers but they most definitely were not the best influence in the locker room.

Players who divide a locker room can still win rings, it's the coaches job to reign them in and let the team shine onthe court. Phil Jackson and chuck daly were some of the best who ever did it.

[ambchang]

You still have not proven how he is such a terrible cancerous part of a team. What is your definition of a team cancer? If it is merely someone who some people may find it tough to get along with, and can act childish and egotistical (which is exactly how you are describing him), then it sounds like you are describing about 90% of superstars in NBA history, which then going back to the original argument of taking West and Gervin over him on an all time greats team, is absolutely asinine because he is a better basketball player than both of them in basically every phase of the game, proving that choosing such players would be merely making an emotional choice, as compared to a choice that has actual basketball reasoning behind it. Not that I would expect any less from a spurfan, tbqh considering every new player the spurs draft is immediately designated as Rodman 2.0, MJ 3.0, Lebron 4.0, and Wilt 5.0.

Kobe isn't better than west in all aspects of the game. I agree he is better than gervin in everything though.

West was a better orchestrator, shooter and clutch player.

[Cry Havoc]

The classic "a few homer spurstalk fans get overhyped about prospects and thus they're collectively a stupid fanbase" rebuttal. Nice.

[Venti Quattro]

When someone is called a cancer, they completely divide a team to the point that they severely underperform. Kobe is called a cancer, but somehow was a major part of 5 championship teams. Something isn't adding up, and I simply would like a plausible explanation as to how this could be possible.

Kobe's only fault is he acted like Jordan in the age of social media where the littlest of slights can be reported in a network of computers and be overblown by social media "pundits" who really have no idea what happened.

Jordan was a complete ass on and off the court, but he charmed the media so well that he looked like a god in front of everyone. Kobe is a wysiwyg ass on and off the court. But they both won multiple championships on stacked teams.

PS: I have never seen a fan base so asshurt towards Kobe as the Spurs fan base. I mean... nobody.

[Splits]

PS: I have never seen a fan base so asshurt towards Kobe as the Spurs fan base. I mean... nobody.

Non-apologetic. With pride.

[LnGrrrR]

Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
Dylan

[Franklin]

The end justifies the means imho. If someone led my team to one or multiple championships I'd surely not consider him a cancer. Some players may be called time bombs, they may be threats to your locker room atmosphere but good coaches will always find ways to make them contribute, they're double-edged swords at worst imho.

[AlexJones]

Splitter neutralizes Dirk
Leonard negates LeBron
Playoffs eliminate Tmac

Duncan and Jordan would do a lot of the heavy lifting

:lmao Good lord, probably the worst take in the history of ST. I'm not even sure where to begin, so I won't.

[Kuestmaster]

Magic, Jordan, LeBron, Timmy, Hakeem.

[Arcadian]

...

Why are you trying so hard to be a Kobe apologist? This little tangent you've gone on is irrelevant. The fact is that Kobe does not belong anywhere near this discussion about the best hypothetical team in history. Very few people would pick him. Many would pick Duncan. Let's just leave it at that.

[Phillip]

Players who were known cancers but won at least one championship as an integral member
Earl Monroe
Rasheed Wallace
Dennis rodman

superstars? i think not.

and I don't think Sheed or Rodman was ever a true cancer in that they divided lockerrooms up or people absolutely disgusted playing with them. they were weird, sure, but I think most people who played with them, enjoyed playing with them.

[Phillip]

Kobe's only fault is he acted like Jordan in the age of social media where the littlest of slights can be reported in a network of computers and be overblown by social media "pundits" who really have no idea what happened.

Jordan was a complete ass on and off the court, but he charmed the media so well that he looked like a god in front of everyone. Kobe is a wysiwyg ass on and off the court. But they both won multiple championships on stacked teams.

PS: I have never seen a fan base so asshurt towards Kobe as the Spurs fan base. I mean... nobody.

Exactly. A lot of players were complete jerks on and off the court, but they were never true cancers. It's just a fabrication of haters and spurfans. smh

[Phillip]

Why are you trying so hard to be a Kobe apologist? This little tangent you've gone on is irrelevant. The fact is that Kobe does not belong anywhere near this discussion about the best hypothetical team in history. Very few people would pick him. Many would pick Duncan. Let's just leave it at that.

I'm not a Kobe apologist by any means. I simply debated the fact that spurfans seem to think he is a cancer, which he clearly is not. Flawed mentality? Sure. Cancer? Not in the least bit.

I am also the very first person to go right back at Kobestans who think he is >>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ.

Also, very few spurfans would pick him. I think most people in general, would take him well before West or Gervin, considering he is an unquestionably superior basketball player to both. lol spurfans

[Phillip]

West was a better orchestrator, shooter and clutch player.

Meh, maybe a marginally better shooter, but did all those things in an era where no one played defense and the general level of athleticism was low. I have a hard time believing West could do all that creating and hit all those clutch shots with guys like Rodman, Pippen, Artest, Bowen, and other fantastic defenders the league has had since the 90s draped all over him.

[RsxPiimp]

superstars? i think not.

and I don't think Sheed or Rodman was ever a true cancer in that they divided lockerrooms up or people absolutely disgusted playing with them. they were weird, sure, but I think most people who played with them, enjoyed playing with them.

+1

Rodman had antics off the court but he never really hurt his team the way a cancer type of character normally would. He had a few incidents but overall I've never seen Rodman as being the reason his teams didn't succeed.

[RsxPiimp]

Anyway my team

Nash
Wade
Bird
Lebron
Olajuwon

[100%duncan]

Magic Jordan Lebron Bird Duncan

[ambchang]

superstars? i think not.

and I don't think Sheed or Rodman was ever a true cancer in that they divided lockerrooms up or people absolutely disgusted playing with them. they were weird, sure, but I think most people who played with them, enjoyed playing with them.

Does it matter if the player is a superstar or not? They divide a locker room, and that's it. By that definition, their impact is that they caused the team in having to deal with sideshows in an unnecessary manner. Whether they were a superstar or not is inconsequential because a locker room lawyer can do damage, regardless of whether they are a cancer or not.

Also, forgot about this one, Rick Barry. Total cancer, but a superstar who led his team to a title.

Earl Monroe was a legit superstar back in the day, and Rodman with the gun to his head in the parking lot move, and Rasheed with the constant chastising of some teammates does get old.

I love Rasheed, but he most definitely divides a locker room, and yet he was the missing piece to that Pistons championship team. A strong coach like Larry Brown or Carlisle reigned him in, much like how a strong coach like Phil Jackson reigned in Kobe.

There has been a number of players who stated that they do not enjoy playing with Kobe, and there are two players who decided to take less money and move away from the Lakers (Dwight and MVPau). They left when they have the chance and saw that the team has no chance in winning. Is it due to Kobe? We will likely never know (D12 hinted at it a few times, but I don't recall hearing him explicitly say that he doesn't want to play with Kobe). But why would Kobe benefit from the professional behaviours of others? Shaq still played his best in the playoffs and MVPau still gave his all, they are not petty enough to just mail it in and want to give effort in order to win. They are winning for themselves as well, and are mature enough not to mail it in to spite Kobe.

[ambchang]

I'm not a Kobe apologist by any means. I simply debated the fact that spurfans seem to think he is a cancer, which he clearly is not. Flawed mentality? Sure. Cancer? Not in the least bit.

I am also the very first person to go right back at Kobestans who think he is >>>>>>>>>>>>> MJ.

Also, very few spurfans would pick him. I think most people in general, would take him well before West or Gervin, considering he is an unquestionably superior basketball player to both. lol spurfans

Very few people pick Kobe because if you were to pick Kobe, you might as well pick MJ. Similar games, just that MJ is better in every single aspect, with less of the negatives around, with the exception of maybe long range jumpers.

I picked West because I think MJ will take away from the strengths of the other four, instead of adding to it. If I were to pick a team with 1 superstar SG + 4 scrubs, I would likely pick in the order of MJ, Kobe, West, Drexler, Gervin, in that order.

[Phillip]

Does it matter if the player is a superstar or not? They divide a locker room, and that's it. By that definition, their impact is that they caused the team in having to deal with sideshows in an unnecessary manner. Whether they were a superstar or not is inconsequential because a locker room lawyer can do damage, regardless of whether they are a cancer or not.

Considering I said in the original post to name a superstar who led multiple teams to titles, yes it matters. Role player "cancers" and superstar "cancers" are two completely different things.


Also, forgot about this one, Rick Barry. Total cancer, but a superstar who led his team to a title.

Awesome, so 1 superstar "cancer" out of hundreds of superstars was able to somehow pull it off? Seems to me that the odds of a superstar cancer leading teams to titles are slim to none, yet Kobe did it 5 times. Thus I rest my case that he must not be quite as bad of a cancer as you obsessive spurfans suggest, particularly yourself as a well-known unreasonable Kobe hater.


Earl Monroe was a legit superstar back in the day, and Rodman with the gun to his head in the parking lot move, and Rasheed with the constant chastising of some teammates does get old.

I love Rasheed, but he most definitely divides a locker room, and yet he was the missing piece to that Pistons championship team. A strong coach like Larry Brown or Carlisle reigned him in, much like how a strong coach like Phil Jackson reigned in Kobe.

:sleep none of this had pretty much any relevance to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though. :tu


There has been a number of players who stated that they do not enjoy playing with Kobe, and there are two players who decided to take less money and move away from the Lakers (Dwight and MVPau). They left when they have the chance and saw that the team has no chance in winning. Is it due to Kobe? We will likely never know (D12 hinted at it a few times, but I don't recall hearing him explicitly say that he doesn't want to play with Kobe). But why would Kobe benefit from the professional behaviours of others? Shaq still played his best in the playoffs and MVPau still gave his all, they are not petty enough to just mail it in and want to give effort in order to win. They are winning for themselves as well, and are mature enough not to mail it in to spite Kobe.

People didn't enjoy playing with Mike either. Obviously their attitudes weren't so terribly bad that it caused others to give the game less than their best, so who cares as long as you are winning?

[ambchang]

Meh, maybe a marginally better shooter, but did all those things in an era where no one played defense and the general level of athleticism was low. I have a hard time believing West could do all that creating and hit all those clutch shots with guys like Rodman, Pippen, Artest, Bowen, and other fantastic defenders the league has had since the 90s draped all over him.

Hypthetical arguments. I can also say that West would have better training, medicine and coaching in the modern day game as well. People act like athletes suddenly have a gene mutation the last 15 years and became astoundingly more athletic, when most of that "improvement" is based on advancements in sports medicine. West was playing against players who have access to the same sports medicine as he did, ditto Kobe, MJ, and Stromile Swift.

Kareem still produced at a very high level in his late 30s during the era of Jordan, Magic and Bird. He went up against players like Ewing and Hakeem and held his own. Those players in turn dominated the 90s, and played eye to eye with Shaq, then Shaq absolutely annihilated the 00s. Players like Kareem, Ewing and Hakeem would still very well in the 00s and 10s, and Kareem started his career in the late 60s.

Players like David Thompson and Dr. J, ultra athletic players even by today's standards, were putting up numbers of these ultra athletic superstars in today's game. Players who are not athletic at all, like Magic, Bird and Duncan, or even Randolph and the Gasol Brothers, or pre-injury Brandon Roy, were very productive in their days. My point is, athleticism has its place in the game for sure, but is generally overrated.

[ambchang]

+1

Rodman had antics off the court but he never really hurt his team the way a cancer type of character normally would. He had a few incidents but overall I've never seen Rodman as being the reason his teams didn't succeed.

You heard about what he did with the Spurs?

[ambchang]

Considering I said in the original post to name a superstar who led multiple teams to titles, yes it matters. Role player "cancers" and superstar "cancers" are two completely different things.

And I am saying you unnecessarily reduced the pool. The ends justifies the means.

Also, Earl Monroe and Rick Barry were legit superstars and legit cancers.


Awesome, so 1 superstar "cancer" out of hundreds of superstars was able to somehow pull it off? Seems to me that the odds of a superstar cancer leading teams to titles are slim to none, yet Kobe did it 5 times. Thus I rest my case that he must not be quite as bad of a cancer as you obsessive spurfans suggest, particularly yourself as a well-known unreasonable Kobe hater.

Flawed logic. You can say that of all the weird people in the NBA, Rodman is the only one who ever won 5 championships, therefore, he must not be weird. Out of all white players, Bird is the only one who ever won three straight MVPs, so he must not have won 3 straight MVPs. You are essentially defining what is a cancer based on the (lack of) accomplishments.



:sleep none of this had pretty much any relevance to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though. :tu

And winning 5 straight championships has nothing to do with being a cancer or not. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though :tu



People didn't enjoy playing with Mike either. Who cares as long as you are winning?

:sleep none of this had pretty much any relevance to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though. :tu

[Phillip]

Hypthetical arguments. I can also say that West would have better training, medicine and coaching in the modern day game as well. People act like athletes suddenly have a gene mutation the last 15 years and became astoundingly more athletic, when most of that "improvement" is based on advancements in sports medicine. West was playing against players who have access to the same sports medicine as he did, ditto Kobe, MJ, and Stromile Swift.

Kareem still produced at a very high level in his late 30s during the era of Jordan, Magic and Bird. He went up against players like Ewing and Hakeem and held his own. Those players in turn dominated the 90s, and played eye to eye with Shaq, then Shaq absolutely annihilated the 00s. Players like Kareem, Ewing and Hakeem would still very well in the 00s and 10s, and Kareem started his career in the late 60s.

Players like David Thompson and Dr. J, ultra athletic players even by today's standards, were putting up numbers of these ultra athletic superstars in today's game. Players who are not athletic at all, like Magic, Bird and Duncan, or even Randolph and the Gasol Brothers, or pre-injury Brandon Roy, were very productive in their days. My point is, athleticism has its place in the game for sure, but is generally overrated.

Meh I read about a quarter of this post and realized it too is somewhat irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the simple fact that Kobe is unquestionably superior as a basketball player to Jerry West. Even if you gave West edges in those areas you listed, they are marginal. Kobe is no slouch of a jump shooter himself, has proven to be able to do a wonderful job of running an offense and creating for teammates, and while overrated as a clutch player, is still a guy to be feared in clutch situations.

[spurraider21]

:lmao Good lord, probably the worst take in the history of ST. I'm not even sure where to begin, so I won't.
You should obtain yet another new account and open several threads to complain about it/me

[ambchang]

Meh I read about a quarter of this post and realized it too is somewhat irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is the simple fact that Kobe is unquestionably superior as a basketball player to Jerry West. Even if you gave West edges in those areas you listed, they are marginal. Kobe is no slouch of a jump shooter himself, has proven to be able to do a wonderful job of running an offense and creating for teammates, and while overrated as a clutch player, is still a guy to be feared in clutch situations.

You are having trouble keeping track of your original statement, which was Kobe was better than West in every single aspect, and I have proven that it is not true.

It is also nice that you can derive that after reading only a 1/4 of the post.

From a statistical standpoint, Kobe had a PER of 23.4 for his career, West had 22.9. In terms of WS/48, Kobe sits at .182, and West at .213. For his career, Kobe averages 25.5/4.8/5.3, while West sits at 24.8/6.1/5.3. So no, Kobe is not unquestionably the superior basketball player to Jerry West from a statistical point of view.

[Phillip]

And I am saying you unnecessarily reduced the pool. The ends justifies the means.

No, because we are making comparisons to Kobe. He is a superstar, so you compare superstars. No one compares the effectiveness of Michael Jordan to Luke Walton.


Also, Earl Monroe and Rick Barry were legit superstars and legit cancers.

Your point is? I think this has already been addressed.


Flawed logic. You can say that of all the weird people in the NBA, Rodman is the only one who ever won 5 championships, therefore, he must not be weird. Out of all white players, Bird is the only one who ever won three straight MVPs, so he must not have won 3 straight MVPs. You are essentially defining what is a cancer based on the (lack of) accomplishments.

Completely incorrect and twisted take on the matter and you know it.

People generally consider someone to be a cancer when they completely destroy team chemistry to the point that the team underachieves and is not winning as they should be. I have a hard time looking at a superstar player being a cancer when he helps lead 5 teams to championships, considering that is not an underachievement, but rather winning at the highest level possible.


And winning 5 straight championships has nothing to do with being a cancer or not. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though :tu

:sleep none of this had pretty much any relevance to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though. :tu

:clap so basically you don't know what you are talking about, and are just looking for any reason to trash on Kobe to the point that you cannot make any legitimate argument other than spout out nonsense, per the norm. Good to know :toast

[Phillip]

You are having trouble keeping track of your original statement, which was Kobe was better than West in every single aspect, and I have proven that it is not true.

It is also nice that you can derive that after reading only a 1/4 of the post.

From a statistical standpoint, Kobe had a PER of 23.4 for his career, West had 22.9. In terms of WS/48, Kobe sits at .182, and West at .213. For his career, Kobe averages 25.5/4.8/5.3, while West sits at 24.8/6.1/5.3. So no, Kobe is not unquestionably the superior basketball player to Jerry West from a statistical point of view.

:lmao statistical point of view

[Phillip]

Quite frankly, I don't even know why I am arguing with you, considering there is nothing on earth that will ever change your mind from being an extraordinarily unreasonable hater of Kobe. I'm done, and if it makes you feel better, you can claim the "W" on this one. Enjoy :toast

[100%duncan]

I would certainly not invite you both for a beer

[ambchang]

No, because we are making comparisons to Kobe. He is a superstar, so you compare superstars. No one compares the effectiveness of Michael Jordan to Luke Walton.

What defines a superstar? Why is being a superstar relevant to evaluating whether a player is/was a cancer or not? How about further reducing the pool to players who grew up in Italy? Kobe was raised in Italy, so might as well compare him to other players who grew up in Italy.


Your point is? I think this has already been addressed.

That cancers can win championships. You asked for examples, I produced two even with the unnecessarily restrictive superstar criteria.


Completely incorrect and twisted take on the matter and you know it.

People generally consider someone to be a cancer when they completely destroy team chemistry to the point that the team underachieves and is not winning as they should be. I have a hard time looking at a superstar player being a cancer when he helps lead 5 teams to championships, considering that is not an underachievement, but rather winning at the highest level possible.

Winning 5 instead of winning more is an underachievement. Struggling to make the playoffs with a loaded team is an underachievement. Losing 4-1 with 4 HoFers while jacking up shot after shot is underachievement.

I personally don't see Kobe as a cancer, but using your own definition, it sure seems like has a case.


:clap so basically you don't know what you are talking about, and are just looking for any reason to trash on Kobe, per the norm. Good to know :toast

In what way did I show I didn't know what I was talking about? How did you come to that conclusion?

I wasn't even trashing Kobe, and I am surprised that after that much back and forth, you didn't see it. Perhaps it had something to do with your attention deficit disorder where you have trouble reading a short paragraph, but my response was directly around no cancers ever won a championship, and the argument that winning 5 championships pretty much exempt anyone from being a cancer. No where in this thread did I say Kobe is a cancer.

[ambchang]

:lmao statistical point of view

You said it was unquestionable. It is questionable.


Quite frankly, I don't even know why I am arguing with you, considering there is nothing on earth that will ever change your mind from being an extraordinarily unreasonable hater of Kobe. I'm done, and if it makes you feel better, you can claim the "W" on this one. Enjoy :toast

Reread my posts, no where did I bash Kobe. I bashed your circular logic and your assertion that no cancer ever won a championship.

[Phillip]

I bashed your circular logic and your assertion that no cancer ever won a championship.

Just to clear this one point up, no where did I once say or assert that. I simply asked for examples. No assertion was made. :lol telling me to reread your posts when you didn't even read my post correctly :rolleyes

[ambchang]

Awesome, so 1 superstar "cancer" out of hundreds of superstars was able to somehow pull it off? Seems to me that the odds of a superstar cancer leading teams to titles are slim to none, yet Kobe did it 5 times. Thus I rest my case that he must not be quite as bad of a cancer as you obsessive spurfans suggest, particularly yourself as a well-known unreasonable Kobe hater.



Completely incorrect and twisted take on the matter and you know it.

People generally consider someone to be a cancer when they completely destroy team chemistry to the point that the team underachieves and is not winning as they should be. I have a hard time looking at a superstar player being a cancer when he helps lead 5 teams to championships, considering that is not an underachievement, but rather winning at the highest level possible.


Just to clear this one point up, no where did I once say or assert that. I simply asked for examples. No assertion was made. :lol telling me to reread your posts when you didn't even read my post correctly :rolleyes

Seems like you have to read your own posts as well.

And yes, I found two.

[Phillip]

Seems like you have to read your own posts as well.

And yes, I found two.

:wtf the first one I said AFTER you posted the examples of Monroe and Barry, stating that odds are extremely low that superstar cancers win championships. The second one was completely in regards to viewing Kobe as a cancer, and that I can't see him as a cancer when he has done so much winning. However I never once said that it has never happened or impossible in either of those bolded posts, or any other post for that fact.

Show me where I said that a superstar cancer has never won or cannot win championships.

[ambchang]

:wtf the first one I said AFTER you posted the examples of Monroe and Barry, stating that odds are extremely low that superstar cancers win championships. The second one was completely in regards to viewing Kobe as a cancer, and that I can't see him as a cancer when he has done so much winning. However I never once said that it has never happened or impossible in either of those bolded posts, or any other post for that fact.

Show me where I said that a superstar cancer has never won or cannot win championships.

Your entire premise is that Kobe is not a cancer, and that you asked for examples of cancers winning multiple, or even a single championship. Which is an assertion that cancerous superstars do not win championships, because that was used to prove your point that Kobe is not a cancer.

I pulled out Monroe (then later Barry) as examples, and the argument moved to the chance being slim to none (despite having at least one as an example, which in itself is already more than none), so the chance Kobe is a cancerous superstar is slim to none.

[Killakobe81]

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Michael Jordan
SF Scottie Pippen
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson

Stockton over Magic, Isiah or even CP3 ... LOL

[Killakobe81]

stupid cancer talk is stupid ...

[Phillip]

Which is an assertion that cancerous superstars do not win championships, because that was used to prove your point that Kobe is not a cancer.

Um, no. The only assertion made here, was by you asserting that was my point. I had put no thought into names of people who were cancerous superstars that won championships, but figured the number was incredibly low, if any. Yet not once did I make any statement that no one can or has done it. Point I was making, is that you cannot be a cancer yet somehow be a central figure in 5 championship runs. Funny how you can somehow read into things and decipher points that were never created (ex. me supposedly claiming its 100% impossible to win a championship with a "cancer" on the team), but cannot see the blatantly obvious point I was trying to make. :rolleyes

[Malik Hairston]

Stockton over Magic, Isiah or even CP3 ... LOL

Revising my list:

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Dwyane Wade
SF Kawhi Leonard
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson

[Infinite_limit]

Revising my list:

PG John Stockton
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kevin Durant
PF Kevin Garnett
C Tim Duncan

PG Steve Nash
SG Dwyane Wade
SF Kawhi Leonard
PF Dirk Nowitzki
C David Robinson
Bro, how young are you?

[Malik Hairston]

Bro, how young are you?

Approx 25, tbh..what does that have to do with anything, though?..

[Infinite_limit]

Approx 25, tbh..what does that have to do with anything, though?..
Just wondering. Every guy on your list played into the 2000s

[ambchang]

If he is such a cancer, how did the Lakers during his time manage to win 5 championships, spread across completely different collections of players?

I agree he has some attitude issues, shot selection issues, and that if he had fixed those issues, they could have probably won more championships, but his issues aren't nearly as bad or as severe as you idiots suggest. If he was so implosive to a team, there is no way on earth that he is an integral part of 5 championship teams, including a repeat and a three-peat. And let's not act like those teams had massive loads of talent and simply won despite him. They all were built around a high-low star duo, with a bunch of balanced, although not necessarily supremely talented role players. Without him, all 5 teams have severe struggles and deficiencies.

[/B]If a player is relied upon as heavily as he was, to be able to win those 5 championships, there is no way he could be this utter and complete cancer you all claim him to be. You can get away with a role player being a cancer perhaps, but not a player as significant as him. [/B]

Basically this means 1 of 2 things. 1) He is not that big of a "cancer" or 2) He is so incredibly good that despite being a "cancer", he can be so dominant that it overrides his cancerous tendencies, thus making those aforementioned tendencies irrelevant. Pick your poison.


I read it, but it must clearly be incorrect, because if he is so cancerous, I find it hard to believe he would have been able to win consecutive titles multiple times with completely overhauled squads. Can you show me a superstar player that was a cancer, that won more than 1 championship? Or even 1 championship, period?


Um, no. The only assertion made here, was by you asserting that was my point. I had put no thought into names of people who were cancerous superstars that won championships, but figured the number was incredibly low, if any. Yet not once did I make any statement that no one can or has done it. Point I was making, is that you cannot be a cancer yet somehow be a central figure in 5 championship runs. Funny how you can somehow read into things and decipher points that were never created (ex. me supposedly claiming its 100% impossible to win a championship with a "cancer" on the team), but cannot see the blatantly obvious point I was trying to make. :rolleyes

I am saying that your assertion is that Kobe is not a cancer, and the logic behind it is that no superstar has ever done what he did win a championship. This is a consistent flow of logic that you have used. If it is not, then what is point of bringing up the argument of superstar cancers? By saying Kobe won 5 championships, and no superstar cancers had ever won more than 1 championship, or even 1 championship, you are asserting that superstar cancers cannot win championships, and since Kobe did, he's not a cancer.

[Phillip]

I am saying that your assertion is that Kobe is not a cancer, and the logic behind it is that no superstar has ever done what he did win a championship. This is a consistent flow of logic that you have used. If it is not, then what is point of bringing up the argument of superstar cancers? By saying Kobe won 5 championships, and no superstar cancers had ever won more than 1 championship, or even 1 championship, you are asserting that superstar cancers cannot win championships, and since Kobe did, he's not a cancer.

Never once did I say that.

[Leetonidas]

phew that offense would be pretty rough to deal with

Tried to go for incredibly versatile on offense while still being an elite defensive squad with a lot of floor spacing. Dirk gets a lot of flak but in his prime was a good positional defender imho. The inside out game with Duncan would be sick. Always been a fantasy to see prime Dirk/Duncan on the same team.

[Leetonidas]

Just wondering. Every guy on your list played into the 2000s

Hard to put players on the all-time list you've never seen play really and it would look retarded for someone in our age range to be going with a Magic/Jordan/Bird/Kareem/Wilt lineup or something because most of us haven't seen all of them play and there's no point in pretending we have, tbh. Watching classic replays or Finals matches from there eras isn't the same and it's hard to to compare eras to the modern game

[ambchang]

Never once did I say that.

Then what is the point of bringing it up? For someone who is so insistent of brief and direct points in a thread, that sure is a pointless and thing to ask.

[Phillip]

Then what is the point of bringing it up? For someone who is so insistent of brief and direct points in a thread, that sure is a pointless and thing to ask.

I think this has already been addressed multiple times and you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's very plainly laid out in multiple posts. For someone who is so insistent of telling others to thoroughly read posts in a thread, that sure is a pointless (and?) thing to ask.

[ambchang]

I think this has already been addressed multiple times and you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's very plainly laid out in multiple posts. For someone who is so insistent of telling others to thoroughly read posts in a thread, that sure is a pointless (and?) thing to ask.

You laid it out, and the reason was to support your point that Kobe is not a cancer because superstar cancers do not win 5 championships.

[Phillip]

You laid it out, and the reason was to support your point that Kobe is not a cancer because superstar cancers do not win 5 championships.

What did I lay out?

[Infinite_limit]

Hard to put players on the all-time list you've never seen play really and it would look retarded for someone in our age range to be going with a Magic/Jordan/Bird/Kareem/Wilt lineup or something because most of us haven't seen all of them play and there's no point in pretending we have, tbh. Watching classic replays or Finals matches from there eras isn't the same and it's hard to to compare eras to the modern game
I'm 30 years old. Will then have to go with


Top Squad
PG: Stockton
SG: Jordan
SF: James
PF: Duncan
C: Shaq


B Team
PG: Nash
SG: Kobe
SF: Pippen
PF: Barkley
C: Hakeem



3rd Squad
PG: Payton
SG: Iverson
SF: McGrady
PF: Malone
C: Robinson



4th Squad
PG: Kidd
SG: Wade
SF: Anthony
PF: Rodman
C: Ewing



5th Squad
PG: Tim Hardaway
SG: Reggie
SF: Pierce
PF: Garnet
C: Yao


Honorable Mention:
Webber, Penny, Vince Carter

[spurraider21]

^:lol thats a lot of teams while not including Bird or Magic

[Infinite_limit]

^:lol thats a lot of teams while not including Larry Bird
Never saw in their prime Bird, Mullin or Clyde

[spurraider21]

i'll take the old-timers' word for it and go with kareem over yao, etc

[ambchang]

What did I lay out?

Kobe is not a cancer because he won 5 championships and no other cancerous superstar won 5 championships. You then challenged others to name a cancerous superstar who won multiple, or even one championship.

Even when shown of the example of Earl Monroe, you argued the chances are slim to none (when one was already shown).

[ambchang]

Never saw in their prime Bird, Mullin or Clyde

Bird was like a SF version of Duncan. Not overly athletic, but always seems to come up with the right play at the right time. His 1-1 defense was suspect, but he comes up with the key rebound, steals, blocks or defensive plays when needed. One of the best passers of all time. Phenomenal shooter, especially given the era he played in. Plays hard all the time, borderlining on dirty. True alpha. His peak was one of the greatest in NBA history. In the modern NBA (after ABA merger), only Jordan, Shaq and Lebron had a similarly dominant prime.

Mullin had a few really good years in the late 80s early 90s in the crazy Don Nelson run and gun days. He can run all day, and he's got extremely quick hands on defense. He's like a cross between Bird and Ray Allen. Mullin would be a very hot commodity in today's game. If Klay Thomson could get the max, Mullin would easily get his.

Drexler was overshadowed during his days, very athletic player, leader of those phenomenally entertaining Blazers in the late 80s early 90s (kinda like the early 00 Kings, but with less passing and more running). One of my favourite players to watch because of his smooth gliding games. Great court vision and ball handling for a guy his size, can score with the best of them but can also create for others. Just never got over that hump until he teamed up with his old buddy Hakeem in 95.

[Phillip]

no other cancerous superstar won 5 championships.

Never said that once. Get your facts straight.

[ambchang]

If he is such a cancer, how did the Lakers during his time manage to win 5 championships, spread across completely different collections of players?

I agree he has some attitude issues, shot selection issues, and that if he had fixed those issues, they could have probably won more championships, but his issues aren't nearly as bad or as severe as you idiots suggest. If he was so implosive to a team, there is no way on earth that he is an integral part of 5 championship teams, including a repeat and a three-peat. And let's not act like those teams had massive loads of talent and simply won despite him. They all were built around a high-low star duo, with a bunch of balanced, although not necessarily supremely talented role players. Without him, all 5 teams have severe struggles and deficiencies.

If a player is relied upon as heavily as he was, to be able to win those 5 championships, there is no way he could be this utter and complete cancer you all claim him to be. You can get away with a role player being a cancer perhaps, but not a player as significant as him.

Basically this means 1 of 2 things. 1) He is not that big of a "cancer" or 2) He is so incredibly good that despite being a "cancer", he can be so dominant that it overrides his cancerous tendencies, thus making those aforementioned tendencies irrelevant. Pick your poison.


I read it, but it must clearly be incorrect, because if he is so cancerous, I find it hard to believe he would have been able to win consecutive titles multiple times with completely overhauled squads. Can you show me a superstar player that was a cancer, that won more than 1 championship? Or even 1 championship, period?


Never said that once. Get your facts straight.

Way to cut off the other parts of the post.

[Phillip]

Way to cut off the other parts of the post.

But you keep saying I made a claim that I never once made, which is the reason we have even gone back and forth to begin with. You replied to me, focused entirely on proving me "wrong" over a claim that I never made (of course with ulterior motives to try to dismiss Kobe in any way possible, considering that's what 90% of your posts do anyways), completely missing the point of my post where you drew that fabrication of a claim from.

[Infinite_limit]

Bird was like a SF version of Duncan. Not overly athletic, but always seems to come up with the right play at the right time. His 1-1 defense was suspect, but he comes up with the key rebound, steals, blocks or defensive plays when needed. One of the best passers of all time. Phenomenal shooter, especially given the era he played in. Plays hard all the time, borderlining on dirty. True alpha. His peak was one of the greatest in NBA history. In the modern NBA (after ABA merger), only Jordan, Shaq and Lebron had a similarly dominant prime.

Mullin had a few really good years in the late 80s early 90s in the crazy Don Nelson run and gun days. He can run all day, and he's got extremely quick hands on defense. He's like a cross between Bird and Ray Allen. Mullin would be a very hot commodity in today's game. If Klay Thomson could get the max, Mullin would easily get his.

Drexler was overshadowed during his days, very athletic player, leader of those phenomenally entertaining Blazers in the late 80s early 90s (kinda like the early 00 Kings, but with less passing and more running). One of my favourite players to watch because of his smooth gliding games. Great court vision and ball handling for a guy his size, can score with the best of them but can also create for others. Just never got over that hump until he teamed up with his old buddy Hakeem in 95.
:toast Cool breakdown.

Obviously Bird but even Mullin have their own cult following. Maybe it's the race factor, whatever. But Clyde seems the guy most lost in the shuffle. Maybe it's because being the 2nd best positional player to Jordan will do that or maybe because of how soft spoken he is. Anyway I rarely hear people bring up Drexler anymore. Although Wilkins played SF, he was the superior player?

[ambchang]

But you keep saying I made a claim that I never once made, which is the reason we have even gone back and forth to begin with. You replied to me, focused entirely on proving me "wrong" over a claim that I never made (of course with ulterior motives to try to dismiss Kobe in any way possible, considering that's what 90% of your posts do anyways), completely missing the point of my post where you drew that fabrication of a claim from.

When did I ever day I focuses entirely on that claim?

[Phillip]

When did I ever day I focuses entirely on that claim?

Then what were you focused on?

[ambchang]

Then what were you focused on?

Your logical fallacy, in which cancerous superstars winning championships if a key point.

[Phillip]

Your logical fallacy, in which cancerous superstars winning championships if a key point.

Specificity please. As well as some proper spelling.

[ambchang]

Specificity please. As well as some proper spelling.

Specified multiple times.

Also when did I stated I focused entirely on that one claim? That's the second time I asked

[Phillip]

Specified multiple times.

Your specification was incorrect.


Also when did I stated I focused entirely on that one claim? That's the second time I asked

You can get your answer when I get my answer to when I asked you to show me where I claimed that its 100% impossible to win a championships with a superstar cancer on your team.

[ambchang]

Your specification was incorrect.



You can get your answer when I get my answer to when I asked you to show me where I claimed that its 100% impossible to win a championships with a superstar cancer on your team.

When did I ever say 100%?

I showed multiple times.

[Phillip]

When did I ever say 100%?

I showed multiple times.

How could you have not said 100% if you claim to have showed me multiple times where I said 100%?

[ambchang]

How could you have not said 100% if you claim to have showed me multiple times where I said 100%?

One is a question to you.

The other a response.

[Phillip]

One is a question to you.

The other a response.

That quite honestly doesn't make sense.

[ambchang]

That quite honestly doesn't make sense.

It does.

[Phillip]

It does.

Good for you. Glad it makes sense to someone at least.

[ambchang]

Good for you. Glad it makes sense to someone at least.

Bad for you. Sad it doesn't make sense to one person at least.

[Phillip]

Bad for you. Sad it doesn't make sense to one person at least.

It does. Only one.

[ambchang]

It does. Only one.

Agree. Only one doesn't understand.