|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
its one thing to just have different opinions and values etc. i get it.
what i want to clearly say lol is that lbj is all about the stats and grabbing all these awards and accolades. he is doing this at the expense of winning rings, or i should say more rings. it is what it is at this point i mean hes almost out of th league and hes a laker. hes going for kareems totals. sure hell take more rings if he can get it of course. but his motivation is much less about the rings than EVERYONE else he is being compared to. mj kobe magic larry were all obsessed with winning and being the best. lbj is obsessed with simply the image of being the best. its very different. hes a very different person than the other guys. if you were to watch them day to day minute by minute, you would see a stark difference between lbj and the others. the others would have a lot more similarities. he would stand out. it would be so clear if you had like a full 24/7 video of one week in the life of him and the others. he doesnt win more rings because he is very specifically less obsessed about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | lakurluv wrote: | When discussing the who's better than who topic and asking players that are of the same age and era, those players will more likely lean on the side of the guy they've played against! It only makes since...
The old saying goes... "If you knew better, you'd do better" and in retrospect, if you never played against or experienced the "Black-Mamba" or "KG" or "Shaq" and you played in LeBron's era; more thank likely you'd side with LeBron. |
There is another aspect of this, which conflicts in part with what you say. Players, and people in general, are drawn to an image and style of play that they would like to be able to match. Jordan’s image and style of play appealed to a lot more people than, say, the style of Barkley. To some extent, this applies to Kobe. Kobe comes a lot closer to what players would like to be than Lebron, Duncan, or Harden, for example. This is fine, as long as you realize that there is a tension between style and effectiveness. Exhibit A for this is Iverson. Exhibit B is Westbrook. Kobe is far less extreme, but nonetheless when you hear players talk, you can hear the envy of his style.
Bill James wrote about this in the context of baseball. Writers would start to question whether Nolan Ryan was really all that great of a pitcher. The players would shoot them down because they were all so awed by Ryan. They knew that what he did was really, really difficult. But he was still barely a .500 pitcher for his career, and he did not play for terrible teams. |
I think players are closer to fans in looking at this in an emotional way than people think.
Playing against someone can skew their perception either way; they can admire a player more, or their opinion can be skewed by irritation or jealousy.
And definitely, players, like fans, often prefer style over effectiveness.
That's all fine. It just strains credibility when it's assumed that players opinions have greater nuance and understanding than anyone else. The ability to play the game often doesn't translate into an ability to analyze and explain the game. |
To be fair, stats are the only way analysts can often participate in the discussion. Most have never played the game at a high level. Many cannot even understand the different offensive/defensive tactics employed by players. In some ways, it's like asking a high school student to look at a PhD thesis. They just won't catch a lot of the depth beyond a surface-level discussion.
Everyone is emotional in their analysis. Stats give a way to certain people to push their own opinions, since there is a nice, whole number which is easy to compare against each other. In many ways, this is better than saying "Player A has a tougher mentality than Player B" because it's more objective, but at the same time, a complex game like basketball cannot be boiled down to set of statistics. Otherwise, I could have someone design a simulation to accurately predict the exact outcomes of games. Those who have tried (e.g. 538) have largely failed.
I realize I'm being wishy-washy, but the point is that stats are important to discuss, because it's the only objective metric we have. But at the same time, there are other things stats cannot capture (e.g. the defensive gravity a player draws opening up shots for their teammates, how well a player executes a certain defensive role, etc). Both are just pieces of a larger discussion. But analysts use stats because quite frankly, that's all they can understand.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
I haven't seen many analysts or commentators who think stats are the be-all end-all or who don't realize that they don't capture absolutely everything about a basketball game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | To be fair, stats are the only way analysts can often participate in the discussion. Most have never played the game at a high level. Many cannot even understand the different offensive/defensive tactics employed by players. In some ways, it's like asking a high school student to look at a PhD thesis. They just won't catch a lot of the depth beyond a surface-level discussion. |
You don't read a lot of analysts, do you? There are some that meet your description, for sure. SAS falls into this category, though he doesn't cite a lot of stats. However, as a general rule, the worst analysts you will see are ex-players. This is true in all sports. Just because some coach has taught you what to do does not mean you understand the big picture or what is or is not a good tactic. The TNT "Players Only" broadcasts are evidence of this. Some of the guys have a clue, but others fall into the classic ex-jock mindset of "it's all about heart and determination."
For the most part, the people who belittle stats are the people who don't understand them or the people whose subjective beliefs are contradicted by the stats. The pro sports leagues have moved past all of that. Increasingly, so have the people who watch pro sports. We saw this in baseball, and now we are seeing it in the NBA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miggz23
Star Player
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 6911
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | SuperboyReformed wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Kobesystem wrote: |
Analysts/pundits love Lebron because it pays more money to love the current generation than to revere the past. |
I disagree with that. Pundits are in the business of getting attention, and you can get as much or more of a reaction by ripping into guys as you can praising them.
To me, Lebron's popularity with analysts is pretty simple: In an age where statistical analysis is becoming more important, he has great stats -- and he's backed up those stats with a lot of winning. |
not a lot of rings tho |
Different people have different ideas of how many rings count as "a lot."
Some people put a lot of weight on the high ring counts of Russell, MJ, Magic, Kobe and Duncan; some people feel that once you get past two or three championships, the additional rings aren't that big a deal in terms of ranking players.
I can understand both points of view. |
Why do people make it sound like Lebron don't have many accolades? Like he only got 1 title. Also last time I checked, winning titles is a team achievement.
Kobe:
5 Titles
2 Finals MVP
1 MVP
Lebron:
3 Titles
3 Finals MVP
4 MVP |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| miggz23 wrote: | Why do people make it sound like Lebron don't have many accolades? Like he only got 1 title. Also last time I checked, winning titles is a team achievement.
Kobe:
5 Titles
2 Finals MVP
1 MVP
Lebron:
3 Titles
3 Finals MVP
4 MVP |
That's a rabbit trail. Run down it if you want. If you want to belittle Kobe, you say that three of those titles were due to Shaq. If you want to belittle Lebron, you talk about 3 of 7 or whatever it is. You won't persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| miggz23 wrote: |
Why do people make it sound like Lebron don't have many accolades? Like he only got 1 title. Also last time I checked, winning titles is a team achievement.
Kobe:
5 Titles
2 Finals MVP
1 MVP
Lebron:
3 Titles
3 Finals MVP
4 MVP |
People have no trouble diminishing or discounting any data point that contradicts what they believe.
Rings aren't that important because they're a team accomplishment. Awards aren't important important because that's just who the media likes. Stats aren't important because they don't tell the whole story. The eyeball test isn't important because you just see what you want to see.
Etc., etc., etc.
I see no reason to get worked up about it. When people do stuff like this, they aren't engaging in analysis; they're doing promotion for their pov. But everyone realizes it. It's preaching to the choir. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | ^
I haven't seen many analysts or commentators who think stats are the be-all end-all or who don't realize that they don't capture absolutely everything about a basketball game. |
Well nobody is going to say "only stats matter and nothing else." But most use it as the primary form of argument since it's the main thing they understand.
For instance I will rarely hear the argument that Kobe was more effective against a Box and 1 defense than LeBron, and then have someone pull out the number of times that Kobe went against that scheme versus LeBron, the average pace adjusted DRTG of the 5 man lineups in those situations, and then reach a conclusion accordingly. Instead someone will cite PPG or maybe a career ORPM and justify that Kobe was a greater offensive threat.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern.
Last edited by bfc1125roy on Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | To be fair, stats are the only way analysts can often participate in the discussion. Most have never played the game at a high level. Many cannot even understand the different offensive/defensive tactics employed by players. In some ways, it's like asking a high school student to look at a PhD thesis. They just won't catch a lot of the depth beyond a surface-level discussion. |
You don't read a lot of analysts, do you? There are some that meet your description, for sure. SAS falls into this category, though he doesn't cite a lot of stats. However, as a general rule, the worst analysts you will see are ex-players. This is true in all sports. Just because some coach has taught you what to do does not mean you understand the big picture or what is or is not a good tactic. The TNT "Players Only" broadcasts are evidence of this. Some of the guys have a clue, but others fall into the classic ex-jock mindset of "it's all about heart and determination."
For the most part, the people who belittle stats are the people who don't understand them or the people whose subjective beliefs are contradicted by the stats. The pro sports leagues have moved past all of that. Increasingly, so have the people who watch pro sports. We saw this in baseball, and now we are seeing it in the NBA. |
What's an analyst to you? I'd call Players Only former players, not analysts. I doubt most analysts understand the stats either, and could tell me what DRPM or VORP is specifically, other than a very high level definition.
There's a difference between criticizing stats as a whole and understanding the scope of each stat. No singular stat can rank a player, or even capture the full extent of their offensive or defensive contributions. In fact, if you actually ask those who created those stats, they wouldn't even suggest you do that.
Basketball is a game played with complex methodologies that numbers cannot describe. The fact that player that forces the adjustment of a defensive scheme multiple times throughout a game won't be recognized by a number directly, but those who understand the depth of what's going on will be able to identify that factor.
When I use stats, I prefer something like Synergy numbers, rather than holistic metrics like RPM and RAPM. That's because I can at least boil down to how many possessions did Player A guard Player B on, how effective was Player B on those possessions in comparison to when others were guarding him. Were those PnR possessions, isolations, etc. It at least allows me to drill down into specifics, and that's when I think stats have a lot of value.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23936
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | To be fair, stats are the only way analysts can often participate in the discussion. Most have never played the game at a high level. Many cannot even understand the different offensive/defensive tactics employed by players. In some ways, it's like asking a high school student to look at a PhD thesis. They just won't catch a lot of the depth beyond a surface-level discussion. |
You don't read a lot of analysts, do you? There are some that meet your description, for sure. SAS falls into this category, though he doesn't cite a lot of stats. However, as a general rule, the worst analysts you will see are ex-players. This is true in all sports. Just because some coach has taught you what to do does not mean you understand the big picture or what is or is not a good tactic. The TNT "Players Only" broadcasts are evidence of this. Some of the guys have a clue, but others fall into the classic ex-jock mindset of "it's all about heart and determination."
For the most part, the people who belittle stats are the people who don't understand them or the people whose subjective beliefs are contradicted by the stats. The pro sports leagues have moved past all of that. Increasingly, so have the people who watch pro sports. We saw this in baseball, and now we are seeing it in the NBA. |
I thought Mark Jackson showed a great example of this in the last Warriors game. He complimented and then quickly downplayed the Warriors ball movement and said to give him a guy who he can give the ball to at the end of the game to get him a hoop. In other words, coaching is meaningless, let your star outduel their star. That simple comment should have erased all confusion about why Mark is no longer coaching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | To be fair, stats are the only way analysts can often participate in the discussion. Most have never played the game at a high level. Many cannot even understand the different offensive/defensive tactics employed by players. In some ways, it's like asking a high school student to look at a PhD thesis. They just won't catch a lot of the depth beyond a surface-level discussion. |
You don't read a lot of analysts, do you? There are some that meet your description, for sure. SAS falls into this category, though he doesn't cite a lot of stats. However, as a general rule, the worst analysts you will see are ex-players. This is true in all sports. Just because some coach has taught you what to do does not mean you understand the big picture or what is or is not a good tactic. The TNT "Players Only" broadcasts are evidence of this. Some of the guys have a clue, but others fall into the classic ex-jock mindset of "it's all about heart and determination."
For the most part, the people who belittle stats are the people who don't understand them or the people whose subjective beliefs are contradicted by the stats. The pro sports leagues have moved past all of that. Increasingly, so have the people who watch pro sports. We saw this in baseball, and now we are seeing it in the NBA. |
What's an analyst to you? I'd call Players Only former players, not analysts. I doubt most analysts understand the stats either, and could tell me what DRPM or VORP is specifically, other than a very high level definition.
There's a difference between criticizing stats as a whole and understanding the scope of each stat. No singular stat can rank a player, or even capture the full extent of their offensive or defensive contributions. In fact, if you actually ask those who created those stats, they wouldn't even suggest you do that.
Basketball is a game played with complex methodologies that numbers cannot describe. The fact that player that forces the adjustment of a defensive scheme multiple times throughout a game won't be recognized by a number directly, but those who understand the depth of what's going on will be able to identify that factor.
When I use stats, I prefer something like Synergy numbers, rather than holistic metrics like RPM and RAPM. That's because I can at least boil down to how many possessions did Player A guard Player B on, how effective was Player B on those possessions in comparison to when others were guarding him. Were those PnR possessions, isolations, etc. It at least allows me to drill down into specifics, and that's when I think stats have a lot of value. |
Now you’re saying that the guys who have Ph.D. theses aren’t analysts. I’m not sure what your point is, other than that you don’t like holistic stats. I have no problem with granular stats, but you run into the forest/trees principle. The forest matters.
You also seem to have disdain for analysts in general. We went through this in baseball. What does Theo Epstein know about baseball? These stat guys just understand numbers and know nothing about baseball. We know how that turned out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | For instance I will rarely hear the argument that Kobe was more effective against a Box and 1 defense than LeBron, and then have someone pull out the number of times that Kobe went against that scheme versus LeBron, the average pace adjusted DRTG of the 5 man lineups in those situations, and then reach a conclusion accordingly. Instead someone will cite PPG or maybe a career ORPM and justify that Kobe was a greater offensive threat. |
You'll rarely hear anyone make an argument like that because few people want to listen to stuff like that. That level of detail and minutiae is more suitable for a blog that specialized in advanced sports analytics than, say, a newspaper or cable station that is addressing a mass audience.
A really good analyst is someone who can simplify the complex and get to the point in a succinct and compelling way. It's OK for the ideas to be complex, but the presentation and language should be simple.
Bill James is really good at that, for example, which is why he is so popular. He presents complex ideas in a simple way, so people feel smart when they read him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | To be fair, stats are the only way analysts can often participate in the discussion. Most have never played the game at a high level. Many cannot even understand the different offensive/defensive tactics employed by players. In some ways, it's like asking a high school student to look at a PhD thesis. They just won't catch a lot of the depth beyond a surface-level discussion. |
You don't read a lot of analysts, do you? There are some that meet your description, for sure. SAS falls into this category, though he doesn't cite a lot of stats. However, as a general rule, the worst analysts you will see are ex-players. This is true in all sports. Just because some coach has taught you what to do does not mean you understand the big picture or what is or is not a good tactic. The TNT "Players Only" broadcasts are evidence of this. Some of the guys have a clue, but others fall into the classic ex-jock mindset of "it's all about heart and determination."
For the most part, the people who belittle stats are the people who don't understand them or the people whose subjective beliefs are contradicted by the stats. The pro sports leagues have moved past all of that. Increasingly, so have the people who watch pro sports. We saw this in baseball, and now we are seeing it in the NBA. |
What's an analyst to you? I'd call Players Only former players, not analysts. I doubt most analysts understand the stats either, and could tell me what DRPM or VORP is specifically, other than a very high level definition.
There's a difference between criticizing stats as a whole and understanding the scope of each stat. No singular stat can rank a player, or even capture the full extent of their offensive or defensive contributions. In fact, if you actually ask those who created those stats, they wouldn't even suggest you do that.
Basketball is a game played with complex methodologies that numbers cannot describe. The fact that player that forces the adjustment of a defensive scheme multiple times throughout a game won't be recognized by a number directly, but those who understand the depth of what's going on will be able to identify that factor.
When I use stats, I prefer something like Synergy numbers, rather than holistic metrics like RPM and RAPM. That's because I can at least boil down to how many possessions did Player A guard Player B on, how effective was Player B on those possessions in comparison to when others were guarding him. Were those PnR possessions, isolations, etc. It at least allows me to drill down into specifics, and that's when I think stats have a lot of value. |
Now you’re saying that the guys who have Ph.D. theses aren’t analysts. I’m not sure what your point is, other than that you don’t like holistic stats. I have no problem with granular stats, but you run into the forest/trees principle. The forest matters.
You also seem to have disdain for analysts in general. We went through this in baseball. What does Theo Epstein know about baseball? These stat guys just understand numbers and know nothing about baseball. We know how that turned out. |
When did I say anything about needing a Ph.D thesis? You're putting words in my mouth. I don't have a Ph.D or any graduate degree for that matter and I understand almost every advanced stat in great depth. I'm just saying many analysts don't really know much about them. And it's stupid to use numbers you don't really understand. That is what they will teach you in Stats 101.
I don't have a disdain for analysts in general. You're definitely misinterpreting my tone. The world "analyst" doesn't mean much to me, as pretty much anyone with Internet access can call themselves that nowadays. Plus, with today's soundbite driven media, clicks drive profits, which often results in the sacrifice of meaningful content.
Having not played basketball at a professional level, I had to learn a lot of the information I have from different sources to understand the game at a deeper level. I myself regularly read a lot of content from "analysts" to obtain this knowledge, but I do have a hierarchy for who's content I respect more. I tend to prefer those with more experience to some degree, such as former NBA scouts, analytics directors, etc, versus those who rely on primarily prose with some stats mixed in, like a Bill Simmons or Zach Lowe, or those who rely almost entirely on numerical arguments, like the writers at 538.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | For instance I will rarely hear the argument that Kobe was more effective against a Box and 1 defense than LeBron, and then have someone pull out the number of times that Kobe went against that scheme versus LeBron, the average pace adjusted DRTG of the 5 man lineups in those situations, and then reach a conclusion accordingly. Instead someone will cite PPG or maybe a career ORPM and justify that Kobe was a greater offensive threat. |
You'll rarely hear anyone make an argument like that because few people want to listen to stuff like that. That level of detail and minutiae is more suitable for a blog that specialized in advanced sports analytics than, say, a newspaper or cable station that is addressing a mass audience.
A really good analyst is someone who can simplify the complex and get to the point in a succinct and compelling way. It's OK for the ideas to be complex, but the presentation and language should be simple.
Bill James is really good at that, for example, which is why he is so popular. He presents complex ideas in a simple way, so people feel smart when they read him. |
Well it depends on your audience, that's what a good writer will do, write to a target audience. But aiming too much for the "forest" and ignoring details leads to a vast amounts of pertinent information being ignored, and a very low level of discussion.
My point was not that a good discussion needs to employ analysis like that. But rather if we want to incorporate stats, we should do it at a more granular level. Using DRPM (for example) to rank defensive players might make the reader feel smart, but could potentially be misleading to the audience.
Also it depends on what we are trying to do. Are we trying to have the best discussion and make the best arguments, or are we trying to have mass appeal? Buzzfeed, for example, has a (bleep) ton of mass appeal, but content wise is severely lacking. Clicks drive profits, at the end of the day.
Furthermore, it isn't that hard to take the argument about the box and 1 I presented, and simplify it. All you would need to do is perhaps up level the discussion into different categories of defensive schemes (rather than specifics) and then use a few summary stats to show how one player performed better, with potentially an appendix with a more detailed methodology.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | Are we trying to have the best discussion and make the best arguments, or are we trying to have mass appeal? |
We are trying to be entertained. That's the whole purpose of sports and this forum.
You are entertained by really granular data. Many people aren't. That's cool. In your case, you just have to find people who want to discuss the topic in the way you want to. In the case of an analyst, he has to present the information in the way his audience wants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | When did I say anything about needing a Ph.D thesis? You're putting words in my mouth. I don't have a Ph.D or any graduate degree for that matter and I understand almost every advanced stat in great depth. I'm just saying many analysts don't really know much about them. And it's stupid to use numbers you don't really understand. That is what they will teach you in Stats 101.
I don't have a disdain for analysts in general. You're definitely misinterpreting my tone. The world "analyst" doesn't mean much to me, as pretty much anyone with Internet access can call themselves that nowadays. Plus, with today's soundbite driven media, clicks drive profits, which often results in the sacrifice of meaningful content.
Having not played basketball at a professional level, I had to learn a lot of the information I have from different sources to understand the game at a deeper level. I myself regularly read a lot of content from "analysts" to obtain this knowledge, but I do have a hierarchy for who's content I respect more. I tend to prefer those with more experience to some degree, such as former NBA scouts, analytics directors, etc, versus those who rely on primarily prose with some stats mixed in, like a Bill Simmons or Zach Lowe, or those who rely almost entirely on numerical arguments, like the writers at 538. |
Go back to your prior post. (I cut this one down because it is getting too long.) You were the one who used the term Ph.D. thesis. I am not putting words in your mouth. I am responding to what you said.
When you toss out Bill Simmons as an analyst, I must conclude that this is just a strawman argument. You seem to be conflating analysts with basketball writers. In other words, you think that basketball writers don't understand advanced metrics. In some cases, that is certainly true. In other cases, they will surprise you with how nuanced their knowledge of metrics can be. But if you read Bill Simmons, then you get what you deserve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | Are we trying to have the best discussion and make the best arguments, or are we trying to have mass appeal? |
We are trying to be entertained. That's the whole purpose of sports and this forum.
You are entertained by really granular data. Many people aren't. That's cool. In your case, you just have to find people who want to discuss the topic in the way you want to. In the case of an analyst, he has to present the information in the way his audience wants. |
I'm entertained by the best discussion, granular or otherwise.
When I write for the community, I boil things down pretty well, without sacrificing depth. You can read my topic on Williams and Lue's offensive schemes, which was well received, to get a teaser about that.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
