Reply With Quote
Magic, Jordan, LeBron, Timmy, Hakeem.
Good lord, probably the worst take in the history of ST. I'm not even sure where to begin, so I won't.
Magic, Jordan, LeBron, Timmy, Hakeem.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
+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.
Anyway my team
Nash
Wade
Bird
Lebron
Olajuwon
Magic Jordan Lebron Bird Duncan
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 le.
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.
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.
Considering I said in the original post to name a superstar who led multiple teams to les, yes it matters. Role player "cancers" and superstar "cancers" are two completely different things.
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 les 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.
none of this had pretty much any relevance to the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to type it out though.
People didn't enjoy playing with Mike either. Obviously their at udes 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?
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.
You heard about what he did with the Spurs?
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.
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.
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
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 should obtain yet another new account and open several threads to complain about it/me
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.
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.
Your point is? I think this has already been addressed.
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
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
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
I would certainly not invite you both for a beer
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.
That cancers can win championships. You asked for examples, I produced two even with the unnecessarily restrictive superstar criteria.
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.
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.
You said it was unquestionable. It is questionable.
Reread my posts, no where did I bash Kobe. I bashed your circular logic and your assertion that no cancer ever won a championship.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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions