The Term "Sidekick" Needs to be Bushed ASAP

[QuintessentialBM]

Especially when it applies to basketball. It implies that main star needs to bail out his support, when usually that player is the second best player on the team AND the star DOES NOT WIN without him. More often than not, the support player bails out the star on the big stage.

"Sidekick" implies "SCRUB!"

shyt is nowhere near accurate.....

 

[KOBE]

It's only negatively used when describing one player.

No one talks about the sidekick between Magic/Kareem, Pippen is applauded for being a sidekick, Wade's sidekick history is barely talked about, and no one's said anything about Curry's sidekick status. Why? Because being the second best player on a championship team isn't a knock unless you're an idiot.

 

[Tide Run This]

The whole one guy can win narrative needs to end you can blame the skip Bayless types that started this lame shyt.

 

[QuintessentialBM]

It's only negatively used when describing one player.

No one talks about the sidekick between Magic/Kareem, Pippen is applauded for being a sidekick, Wade's sidekick history is barely talked about, and no one's said anything about Curry's sidekick status. Why? Because being the second best player on a championship team isn't a knock unless you're an idiot.

I know this.... The shyt is infuriating regardless of who someone is talking about.

I cannot and do not take anyone seriously who calls a productive player who does his job a "sidekick."

 

[QuintessentialBM]

The whole one guy can win narrative needs to end you can blame the skip Bayless types that started this lame shyt.

I don't like Skip and I never believed that shyt anyways... As far as basketball goes, you need about 7-9 players that do their job consistently to win.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Basketball media is probably the worst media in sports. They demean everyone and truly appreciate no one. It's pretty sad

 

[QuintessentialBM]

Basketball media is probably the worst media in sports. They demean everyone and truly appreciate no one. It's pretty sad

It has gotten worse with each passing decade.

 

[threattonature]

Basketball media is probably the worst media in sports. They demean everyone and truly appreciate no one. It's pretty sad

I disagree. Not with the basketball media being horrible. But I feel they either overly praise or overly demean everyone. If a player loses they place all blame on that player and if a team wins all credit goes to the star and ignores everybody around him. Like last year with the Cavs win and the story being Lebron carrying them to a win as if Kyrie wasn't right next to him dropping 40 in multiple games during their comeback. It really needs to go back to speaking on teams instead of individual players which is why I think the Warriors rise is a great thing.

 

[Young Fab]

It's only negatively used when describing one player.

No one talks about the sidekick between Magic/Kareem, Pippen is applauded for being a sidekick, Wade's sidekick history is barely talked about, and no one's said anything about Curry's sidekick status. Why? Because being the second best player on a championship team isn't a knock unless you're an idiot.

Cause every player you listed doesn't have Stans tryna convince everybody that that player is better than Michael Jordan.

 

[Young Fab]

The whole one guy can win narrative needs to end you can blame the skip Bayless types that started this lame shyt.

Agreed, Skip & Stephen A. Smith the worst thing to happen to sports media.

 

[Draje]

It's only negatively used when describing one player.

No one talks about the sidekick between Magic/Kareem, Pippen is applauded for being a sidekick, Wade's sidekick history is barely talked about, and no one's said anything about Curry's sidekick status. Why? Because being the second best player on a championship team isn't a knock unless you're an idiot.

I agree but then the problem arises because people will argue that rings are the only true barometer but then argue that not all rings are worth the same.

People wanna ignore context when it benefits the player they like but ignore it if doesn't coincide. Pippen has 6 rings but are they worth more than Kobe's 5 or Shaq's 4? No because the context of those rings are different.

I think all championships should be discussed in context. Duncan's 03 championship was ungodly impressive and I weigh it more highly than say KG's ring. Lebron's 1st ring was one of the most impressive I've seen (Losing Bosh for a good chunk, elimination Game 6 performance, Wade getting his knee drained, how good OKC looked that year, etc)

But I still agree with what you say.

 

[blackzeus]

The whole one guy can win narrative needs to end you can blame the skip Bayless types that started this lame shyt.

Didn't Kobe score 82 points for the win in Toronto? Ain't no "I" in team but there is an "M" and an "E"

 

[KOBE]

Cause every player you listed doesn't have Stans tryna convince everybody that that player is better than Michael Jordan.

The vast majority of Kobe stans don't say that. A higher percentage of Lebron stans do just that.

Not to mention this is a strawman and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Marc Spector]

Sidekick wouldve never been popularized as a slur had Kobe stans never held "durrr 5 rings!!" as an argument over everyones head.

Sidekick as a slur for Kobe and Kobe fans shytting on everyone on the 3 peat lakers not named Kobe are two arguement topics that are a direct result of the "Rings=your place and skill rating in NBA GOAT hierarchy" fallacy.