Yeah, arguing over 6 specific points on a basketball forum over talking about whether arguments is arguable is definite lack of reading comprehension. Speaking of which, why are you still arguing with me? You have specifically said you do not want to debate with me in your first leading sentence. And I am well aware of the fact that you like to dictate what specifically an argument is about when it was you who respond to my post.
Yeah, and not reading the thread linked in my signature thus making the wrong conclusions further proved you lack reading comprehension, Dumbass. I should say why are you arguing with me? Maybe this thread needs to be about David Hassellhoff, it took a gif of him to shut you up in the other thread you wanted the last word in.
So the gist of your video is to demonstrate how Kobe have scored points without the help of doubles and triples off Shaq. Great! So what? How does that show that he is not the #2 on his team? Why are you bringing short random samples that are, in your own words, “no proof at all” into this? Stop wasting my time and get to the point of your original premise, and that is Kobe was not a sidekick to Shaq.
Dumbass, It shows he wasn't a sidekick. Jordan and Pippen were number 1 and number 2. So were Shaq and Kobe, But the gap is close with the latter. not with the former. You act as if all #1's are #2's are equal. they aren't. Huge bit of flawed logic on your part. Being number 2 in Kobe's case is not the degradation of him you want it to be, and that kills much of your argument.
Please feel free to skip over the FGM in my previous post as proof to Shaq being the top dog. Because we all know you are great at reading things.
See my quote above, there you go again, with your flawed logic, and we know you are the one that can't read. I proved that time and time again, and refuted you when you said I fail at reading comprehension.
A few minutes of video is a realistic and statistically significant sample for 3 years worth of games? Which planet did you came from?
With your amazing reading comprehension, it should be noted that the original point of this thread is not to argue whether Kobe was a sidekick to Shaq during the 3 peat, it is an established assumption, but the assertion is who is the best of all the sidekicks.
God you are stupid. Did you even see what the point of that video was? no, we know you didn't because you fail at reading comprehension. Of course it isn't a proof. It's a start. Bring on the next video, maybe it supports you. If you don't get it now, you are hopeless. I started the proof, you finish it. If you look at all their games together, you could prove Kobe was a sidekick. go back and read my posts again, you idiot, and don't bring any silly tangents. Bring on the next video and start the proof. that's the point, do I need to say it again?
I am not sure where you are going with this? Oh wait! You come up with your own rules, you can go on a random diatribe about something to do with nothing whenever you please.
Of course you have no clue where this is going, you fail at reading comprehension! I'm not making any rules, you just can't read and debate!
So after a whole bunch of something about nothing, you finally came back to topic. Russell is a good candidate depending on how you measure #2s. However, the Celtics were known for revolutionising the game through defense and fastbreaks, both of which relies on the defense and rebounding of Russell.
The fact that they relied on Russell for defense and rebounds still relegates him to a sidekick. First, Russell didn't get every rebound, or stop every center. Chamberlain ate him alive. No fast break when Wilt did his number on him. However, Bill had teammates that would outplay Wilt's teammates. Bill also had a coach that figured out the game years before any other coach did. Auerbach is the main reason Boston won. Not Bill Russell. John Wooden was the next coach that could build a dynasty. Then Red Holtzman.
Reply With Quote
this deserves its own thread
