NBA Off Topic Thread

[bigeastbumrush]

Quote: Originally Posted by illwill10

Utah Jazz jersey that has been known about

It’s almost like they designed it for the visually-impaired.

[DieHardYankee26]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

Question I’ve been wanting to ask but it slipped my mind until I read some posts in the Finals thread: What are some clichès in Basketball you can’t stand hearing or just roll your eyes at whenever you read/hear them?

Anything to do with nerds or loyalty.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote: Originally Posted by DieHardYankee26

Anything to do with nerds or loyalty.

The Nerds will always be bad for Basketball.

ALWAYS!

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

Question I’ve been wanting to ask but it slipped my mind until I read some posts in the Finals thread: What are some clichès in Basketball you can’t stand hearing or just roll your eyes at whenever you read/hear them?

I really think my biggest one is the whole rings, insert this award, insert this NBA team selection. Especially when it comes to players separated by decades. And especially when how *insert whatever player* actually played is ignored.

Just using Steph as the example.. I cannot stand how him winning his 4th and grabbing his finals MVP has somehow vaulted him into some elite category. And I’m not arguing he does/doesn’t belong in whatever category people are talking, I just hate the logic that it’s THAT used to justify it for so many people.

Curry definitely had his best overall playoff run individually. But say Boston took game 6, and then won game 7. But Steph played at the exact same level, he didn’t like choke the games away for losses and play terrible. If Boston wins, someone from Boston gets that MVP, how does that make Steph Curry worse at basketball? It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Like I get it all overlaps to an extent and it all goes hand in hand to a certain degree. But to me somebody is either that good at basketball or they aren’t. Steph already had 3 rings, should have had a finals MVP already anyways, if you needed this extra to vault him into some category you didn’t already have him in then he’s probably not in that category.. I think this stuff is more relevant for guys who are “close”.. like you’re basically trying to nitpick, find the tie breaker, etc.

And maybe it’s more so people who already thought he was in that category trying to grab on to justification, but this type of talk is so damn loud immediately after every post season run no matter who it is like that most recent ring justifies whatever for that player. Next year Miami going to get over the hump and will be getting discussions of Jimmy sitting at the table with Kobe or some dumb ****.

And just to clarify, I’m not trying to rank Curry, say he belongs here or there or whatever. I’m just talking about the discussion in general and how it works ever single year. He’s just the current example is all.

[illwill10]

I don't really like the "Championship or bust" idea. Don't get me wrong, winning a title should always be the end goal. But, the whole "if you don't win a ring, the season is a failure" concept. I get it, if the expectations are that high and/or a team flops in the playoffs. But there's teams that would be happy with being a consistently good fun team for a 3-5 year stretch. You don't think Sacramento wouldn't want to have stretch like the Grit & Grind Grizzlies or We Believe Warriors. Where you're not seen as a title contender, but a good gritty fun playoff team that will be a tough out in a series.

[bigeastbumrush]

Quote: Originally Posted by illwill10

I don't really like the "Championship or bust" idea. Don't get me wrong, winning a title should always be the end goal. But, the whole "if you don't win a ring, the season is a failure" concept. I get it, if the expectations are that high and/or a team flops in the playoffs. But there's teams that would be happy with being a consistently good fun team for a 3-5 year stretch. You don't think Sacramento wouldn't want to have stretch like the Grit & Grind Grizzlies or We Believe Warriors. Where you're not seen as a title contender, but a good gritty fun playoff team that will be a tough out in a series.

Agreed.

I’d gladly take making the second round once or twice in a 3-5 year span of making the playoffs knowing full well that my team doesn’t have a championship roster or superstar player.

There’s just something different about how you feel about a season when your team makes the playoffs vs. not making the playoffs at all.

I’m cool with it as long as we don’t get swept lol. If you make it to the playoffs you gotta at least win one game to talk about.

[georgiafan]

The saying “it factor” or “he is just a winning player” basically just a term you throw to say you like a player when you can’t point to a on court reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[TMagic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

I really think my biggest one is the whole rings, insert this award, insert this NBA team selection. Especially when it comes to players separated by decades. And especially when how *insert whatever player* actually played is ignored. Just using Steph as the example.. I cannot stand how him winning his 4th and grabbing his finals MVP has somehow vaulted him into some elite category. And I’m not arguing he does/doesn’t belong in whatever category people are talking, I just hate the logic that it’s THAT used to justify it for so many people. Curry definitely had his best overall playoff run individually. But say Boston took game 6, and then won game 7. But Steph played at the exact same level, he didn’t like choke the games away for losses and play terrible. If Boston wins, someone from Boston gets that MVP, how does that make Steph Curry worse at basketball? It doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Like I get it all overlaps to an extent and it all goes hand in hand to a certain degree. But to me somebody is either that good at basketball or they aren’t. Steph already had 3 rings, should have had a finals MVP already anyways, if you needed this extra to vault him into some category you didn’t already have him in then he’s probably not in that category.. I think this stuff is more relevant for guys who are “close”.. like you’re basically trying to nitpick, find the tie breaker, etc. And maybe it’s more so people who already thought he was in that category trying to grab on to justification, but this type of talk is so damn loud immediately after every post season run no matter who it is like that most recent ring justifies whatever for that player. Next year Miami going to get over the hump and will be getting discussions of Jimmy sitting at the table with Kobe or some dumb ****. And just to clarify, I’m not trying to rank Curry, say he belongs here or there or whatever. I’m just talking about the discussion in general and how it works ever single year. He’s just the current example is all.

Well I think that just comes from it being the easiest/most simple way of measuring talent.

If we think about it, accomplishments are probably a pretty accurate and least biased way of comparing overall talent. It's only the most talented players that are winning championships, MVPs, etc.

The problem a lot of the time when these "debates" arise, is that there is no agreed upon standard for how these players are being compared to begin with. And people value certain things more than others which is no different than how we see people talk about basketball in general. Some people are "nerds". Some people default to accomplishments. Some will reference what their eyes are telling them. Different strokes.