NBA: *Hypothetical All-Time Starting 5*

[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 at ude 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 les 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.

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.