SailorOfSilence102

4 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

"He was okay that one year when they were top 15 in a 30 team league" isn't the endorsement that you think it is, especially for a guy at a position that's supposed to serve as a team's defensive anchor.

 

If Gobert is fine - better than fine, certainly better than Towns - when he gets dragged out and has to guard the perimeter, then legitimately what do you need Towns for? He's always a step slow defensively. If his best offensive play comes around the rim, why does he camp the perimeter all the time? Because he's soft. It's 2023, big guys that shoot threes and underwhelm on defense pretty much grow on trees now. No reason to pay one of them $36M to be doing that, especially in a league where there's always a handful of foolish GMs infatuated with underachievers like Towns and probably willing to part with something more valuable.

 

 

Your words, not mine. Regarding fit issues, what the hell do you call last season?

 

 

 

I mean last year is pretty simple, Towns missed training camp due to illness, Gobert had back issues, and then Towns missed most of the year. It's hard to say the reason the Wolves had a bad offense last year was due to Towns and Rudy playing 15 games together, that's just kinda weird.

The top half is just kinda weird, having another fine perimeter defender who's long, in addition to a top 5 defender in the league, is a good thing ? That's not like...an overlap that can't exist together. Especially when one of those guys has consistently been an All NBA player when healthy. And Towns doesn't really camp on the 3 point line, he probably takes less shots there then he ought to given the spacing and effectiveness, he posts up and drives fairly often. Here's his shot profile from the last few years for context: https://3stepsbasket.com/player/karl-anthony-towns/shooting?season=nba24

Towns is 100 percent not above criticism, but trading a All NBA talent who so far has had no issues fitting with a future All NBA talent and a DPOY contender, is just kinda silly.

Wolves classic jersey's don't look as good as I was hoping on the actual court, the green really kinda falls right into the blue, and it doesn't really have contrast or stand out, and they look a bit bland as a result. Definitely good, but it's really on close ups and replays you can kinda see the green, which I thought stood out amazing on those promo pics. That said, on the broadcast, they got a ton of love from A-Rod, and it's been a bit more then 5 years, so hopefully a return to that look, or something like it, could come soon? I'm with the current set, but their a bit bland, and despite the (compared to the rest of Wolves history) relative success in them, don't seem to have been embraced much. I still think a grey + lime green is the way to go, like their current statement one, which I think is probably the 3rd best jersey in team history, but I don't think others agree, lol. 

On 11/15/2023 at 10:56 PM, who do you think said:

 

They're both lumbering centers who, defensively, can't guard the perimeter or really stay with anyone besides the other team's center. Gobert is a DPoY-level rim protector, while Towns sucks defensively and everything he is good at (mainly scoring and making excuses) is highly replaceable, especially considering the Wolves also have Naz Reid behind them. Maybe in 2003 the twin towers thing would have been optimal since that's how everyone else was operating, but not now.

 

(normally I hate the "today's NBA" argument, if only because it's typically made by the same kind of lazy idiots who kept spamming "paradigm shift" back during Tebowmania, but in this case it really is the reason)

 

 

This is kind of just nonsense, Towns is fine defensively on the perimeter, it's easily his best trait as a defender, just look at the 2022 Wolves. That team was a top 15 team defensively, with not really good defensive talent besides Vanderbilt and Pat Bev, and Towns played totally fine as part of a wall instead of a rim protector, which yeah he is bad at, but his speed (he's not a lumbering center, the guys best play offensively is a drive to the rim, lol) allows him to keep up fine in the perimeter. Gobert is also a totally fine, if not good defender on the perimeter, the fact that Terrance Mann hit 100 contested 3s against him where he had to also defend the paint because those Jazz teams had maybe one other plus defender on the roster, does not make him a bad defender, much less can't guard it.

Honestly, the hate for Towns is such personal biased, aesthetic based silliness. Outside of his subpar rim protection and foul issues, there's nothing about his game that is really bad, or wouldn't translate to a winning team, it's just kinda easy to see him as a choker because he's a goofy looking light skinned guy with a high voice, and ant as this DAWG KILLER nonsense because he kinda looks like MJ and has a ok mid range. It's nonsense for the most part, and since that Celtics game, Towns has been better then Ant, their both All Star, low All NBA guys, trading someone like that is just stupid, esp when there hasn't been issues with fit with Gobert so far!

On 10/13/2023 at 1:43 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

I've heard this stated, but it doesn't make logical sense to me. If you win17-2, it's just one win, which may have come with who knows who pitching for who knows why (dead arm due to get DFAd; a position player).

Is there something objective that demonstrates that to be the case? I've tried looking, but haven't found it.

It's more so related to the fact that team sports, a lot of the time, wins do come down to luck and certain things that can very easily go the other way, so the best way to consistently win is too limit that stuff, which more often then not comes down to winning by more. Stuff like the 17-2 wins, or 15-4 losses get smoothed out over the season, run differently is more like, are you consistently winning by like 3-5 in games you win, but losing games 1, or vice versa, and yeah, I think it's fair to say teams that consistently win by more are better then teams that don't. And we do have data from year to year with this stuff at the very least.

That said, I wouldn't want teams to be seeded like that. US sports league are very arbitrary with how playoffs, which is kind of the fun with it.

4 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

Yeah you can’t hate on the Suns for that pick. Ayton was not only a monster in college, but also was the star of the (semi) local powerhouse (frauds) college basketball team. That combo sort of made him a couldn’t pass kinda guy for the Suns. 
 

Who you can blame, though, is the Sacramento Kings for just straight up PASSING on Luka for Marvin Bagley.

Marvin :censored:ing Bagley. They did that. The Kings. Who are somehow still in Sacramento. For reasons. That I can’t explain. 

The most confusing part with Luka and the Suns is that they hired his old coach not too long before the draft. I actually get why they passed on him (it had been 10 since a euro guy went 1, a lot of recent high euro picks weren't working out, the Booker stuff, Ayton being great at Arizona etc), but I would say it did work out for them, at least in the sense of staying with Booker.

2 hours ago, HOOVER said:

I’m not sure what’s in the water around here lately, but until very recently, the Cowboys have been widely considered one of the most classic uniforms in league, being mentioned alongside the Packers, Raiders, Steelers, Chiefs, etc.  

 

Hive mind contrarianism. 

I feel like commenting on and clowning on the Cowboys mismatched uniform has been kind of a staple among uniform discussion for a while, it was one of the first things I remember like seeing when I (much more recently then most people here I'm aware) started looking at jersey discussion online. And like it is true to an extent, the mismatched colors, and kinda random elements do knock the set down a bit. I don't think most people think their awful as a result, but certainly a step below some of those other CLASSIC nfl jerseys, which is pretty reasonable I think.

Really like how the Wolves uniform came out. I've never super liked the original jerseys, mainly because they always looked a little too much like the 90s Mavs jerseys, but with the, undeniably, brighten green, it looks a lot better and more distinct. And for me the original logo has always been perfection anyway.

11 hours ago, Bomba Tomba said:

That doesn't sound right, but I don't know enough about the NBA to dispute it

It's definitely not, Shawn Bradley played for around a decade and was a starter on 3 different teams.

9 hours ago, tBBP said:

Speaking of thus, I see a lot of people put out a lot of lists...but the one thing I never hear anyone specify is their metrics...what is their criteria for ranking so-and-so above whoever else? 

 

All of which is to say: what's the litmus test here? (I don't think there are any wrong criteria; i just wanna hear more people substantiate their subjection with something solid is all.)

So much of it is just kind of based on random stuff to be honest, which is understandable, the vast majority of people don't watch basketball like that, and are subjective too a ton of bias. I think it's a lot of based around longevity, peak, accolades, media stuff/narrative, winning (but only if the person counts it lol), and than a lot of nebulous stuff, like Killer Instinct. A lot of those have issues, and I think there's a lot of players who get underrated by that measure (Dirk vs KG are often put pretty close to each other, despite the fact that KG was just kind of better at Basketball than Dirk in almost everything besides outside shooting, KG just had 0 help in his prime and Dirk always had solid supporting casts), but it generally works, it's really only when it really gets into the stuff that you can just make up about someone and say that's why their better than another player, which is just silly imo.

LeBron clears Kobe in everyway for the record besides Mama Mentality which is nonsense, though I guess Kobe is a better tough shot maker. 

Vikings have two hall of fame quality defensive tackles who wore 93 and iirc it's both not retired and has been issued out since Kevin Williams retired lol.

5 hours ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

Love the Vikings' throwback but am genuinely surprised everyone's clamoring to have them as the primaries. I think the Vikings have one of--if not the--best modern look in the league. I can't think of a team ahead of them whose look isn't traditional or at least mostly traditional (Bucs)

Yeah, their great uniforms and I actually kinda forgot how much I liked them, but I find the reaction kinda perplexing, I wouldn't ever claim people just like them "Cus Their Old", but I don't really see how their an improvement over the current ones, or that the current ones are ones they need to move away from. The throwbacks are kinda dated to an extent, and the Vikings aren't really regarded as a classic franchise like that, I think just having them as occasional alts is perfectly fine. 

I won't comment on the Suns owner, but I do kinda get this move in a way I don't compared to the Raptors with Nick Nurse, or even the Bucks and Bud. He's a great coach, but everything with Ayton, and just the general vibe of the team after that Dallas loss, which I know isn't just his fault, Sarver deserves a lot of the blame for running the org like that, just kinda seemed like a major move internally had to be done. Whether it was Monty's firing, or moving on from CP3/Ayton, I think something had to change. 

29 minutes ago, JayMac said:

Washington Football Team was a terrible name. The only way that would have worked was if that was the team's name from inception. Commanders is boring but it is much better than WFT.

I feel like part of the reason people liked it, besides the the Quirky element, was that it kinda gave people the chance to just look at Washington's uniform set without the baggage, and despite the changes that made it look more like a practice jersey, see that they have a really good color scheme and uniform design.

Even though I really have no love for Chicago, I do kinda get it, ultimately what would stripping them of 1st round picks from a few years in the future have done ? It seems like SA is so prevalent within hockey, at literally every level (so it's not just a "If it has competitive disadvantages they'll be more strict about it and try and curb it"), that stripping picks wasn't gonna do a whole lot. It sucks that the Kyle Beach stuff happened, it sucks that SA is literally everywhere in hockey, I don't like the fact that Chicago won, but I don't know, I can't feel like they shouldn't have even been in the lottery.

7 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Now that I actually do pop over to Ridleylash's home base and see the Moral Clarity Brigade firing off "don't drop the soap" and other such rape jokes, I don't feel quite as guilty.

People nowadays kinda have this idea as like, and I hate saying this, that redditors are "Liberal SoyJaks" or whatever, but honestly a vast majority of reddit was and still is, insanely reactionary outside of a few pet issues, and I wouldn't say SA is included there, it's mostly just about like blizzard games or something.

I always thought it was strange that the Hornets went from CHH to CHA when they came back, at least on basketball ref. I definitely prefer CHA, but CHH is probably a bit better then NOH lol.

That's fair, and I understand. I wasn't trying to impose on anyone or on a forum, especially one that I'm new too, I was just curious about the wording and terminology. Sorry to anyone who wanted the gender option to stay. 

On 4/28/2023 at 9:40 AM, IceCap said:

I've never once said it was. I've even mentioned the southern teams that have been successes. 

 

If you're going to get on my case for my response to another poster maybe actually read my takes on the subject before you start assuming what my positions are. 

Yeah, that's fair, I was having a really bad manic episode that day (Posting at 4 am is never a good sign), and was really cranky and upset to a level that wasn't necessary. I'm sorry, and in the future I'll try to disengage when I get like that, it's  problem with me on forums. I was kinda avoiding this thread for a little cause I knew I let that show too much.

7 hours ago, IceCap said:

My main point of contention is that his take "to ignore the Sunbelt would be shortsighted" is kinda tone deaf. The Sunbelt's been the focus for thirty years. 

I mean, I don't think that's fair to what they said, and I don't even think that's what they were saying completely anyway ? A lot of northern hockey fans, well understandably so, do frequently throw out the idea that it was ridiculous for the NHL to ever be in the south, that most of those teams need to pack it up immediately and move to a safer market, and just generally have a lot of contempt for southern hockey whether the teams or the fans, or the idea that hockey even needs to be popular where ice doesn't even exist. I think all those things are fair, I agree with a couple, I'm freaking Minnesotan, but the emotions do get so high and with these like decade long frustrations that sometimes it goes from understandable and rational, to silly and belligerent, and you should recognize that the southern expansion hasn't been a complete fail, and that there isn't anything. That doesn't mean that what's going on in Arizona is good, that doesn't mean that Quebec shouldn't have a team, that doesn't mean the NHL should keep chasing markets once it's cleared it failed like Atlanta. 

I guess I just thought it was silly to go off on a post that, basically had the same bullet points as yours, over one thing, that's not even like, completely wrong, or even that strong of a statement.

2 hours ago, IceCap said:

Here's the problem. The league HAS been looking at the sunbelt, almost exclusively, since the mid 90s. This "if you don't look at the Sunbelt you're short sighted gotta grow the game!" mentality has been the SOP for thirty years now.

So you gotta stop acting like a victim when the long term fans of the game say "enough is enough, how about you focus on the people who actually spend money on your product?" 

 

I know @spartacat_12 would have you believe that everyone here wants to move Dallas and Tampa to Saskatoon and Yellowknife, but we ing don't. We want to move the Coyotes, a team that's been an abject failure in their current market for thirty years, to Quebec City. A market that has a NHL caliber arena and a loyal fanbase. 

 

That's hardly spiting the sunbelt ffs. 

 

We had people here- former mods even- who mocked anyone who wanted the Jets back because "Winnipeg lost their team the market failed."

 

Meanwhile Atlanta may get a third crack at it?  that. Gary Bettman threatened to move the Jets 2.0 at their introductory press conference and won't even give Quebec City the time of day but sure. The Coyotes can play in a rec centre and Atlanta can get another try. 

 

And you wonder why northern hockey fans are fed up? 

I agree with most of what you said, but I feel like CDCLT didn't really say anything you didn't say, so I don't really get the tone of this post, they seem to agree with all of what you said. 

Yeah, to an extent I know everyone complains about the refs in every sport, but it's super frustrating when it feels like the last 3 goals came off penalties that just weren't there. Gus looked shaky and Ottinger played out of his mind, so it kinda is what it is, but god, that last Folingo penalty, so stupid.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I've never even considered for a moment that the Broncos looked that noticeably like the Bears. The uniform color use and logos are nothing alike, and even the colors themselves, in addition to the hierarchy of them being different, aren't that like super similar ? The Broncos shade of blue is a bit brighter, the Bears shade of orange is a bit more faded whereas the Broncos is super saturated. I really don't think it's a problem.

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

 

I'm waiting for you to name one single thing where the A's staying in Oakland has an advantage to the team relocating to [insert any city in the northern hemisphere here].

Surely you can see the difference between thinking that moving to Vegas, which has a some problems, both presently, and in future in terms of question marks for long term sustainable of (likely) 4 pro teams, is bad, without thinking the team should stay in Oakland. Ideally they would've, as they've been the most successful there and had a good fanbase despite the cheapness, but ultimately it didn't work out, and they'll need to move, but that doesn't make Vegas the right choice, or if you think Vegas is a bad choice that doesn't mean you think staying is. That's just silly.

37 minutes ago, officeglenn said:

 

This is a fair critique, and I appreciate you bringing it to our attention. Looking at the back end, we can add and delete options from that particular profile field. Here's what I'm thinking to change it to, but I'll open it up here for feedback:

• Female
• Male
• Non-binary
• Prefer not to say

 

Also, would people like to see a "pronouns" field added?

 

Thank you for the response, those options look good (though, I do like the tongue and cheek aspect of Not Telling lol), and I think a pronouns option makes sense. 

I apologize if moderators here don't like this sort of thing, but I was editing some stuff on my profile, and I noticed the gender options don't make a whole lot of sense. I don't wanna make a big stink out of this, I am just trying to give a suggestion or two, but I don't quite understand why Transgender Male/Female are separated from just Male/Female, well another option is just Gender Non Conforming. Personally, I would prefer if Male/Female were just that, no need to specify if the user is Trans, but I also get that a lot of times in life you need to specify what your assigned sex at birth is and that it's fairly standard. But what I don't get is why the option is GNC, as, well there are some people who identify as that, it's much more of a description then it is the proper term for people who are Non-Binary, which is what I assume Non Conforming is the stand in for a 3rd gender option. I think if you're going to go with more legal standard terms, then you should use Non-Binary (or Third Gender or even just an X).

Again, I am not trying to cause a big stink over this, it's just something I found interesting and potentially worth changing if moderators here are interested in such a thing.

19 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

unpopular opinion, but I hope the Athletics brand is retired when they move to LV, and that they start over.

 

They're so far removed - both time wise and geographically - from the Connie Mack / Jimie Foxx team, and even time wise from the '70s era, that it no longer has any brand equity.  Had they remained in Phila, then even the name could be explained as being historic, but 3 cities later?  Not so much.  And especially in Las Vegas - it just doesn't fit.

 

I'm not saying to retire the whole franchise and treat LV like an expansion team... though I wouldn't be opposed to it.  I don't think the Phila A's have retired numbers (since numbers weren't a thing for a while) but I don't see why a team in LV needs premium numbers like Dave Stewart's and Ricky Henderson's out of circulation.

 

I don't know, yeah the A's have moved around a lot, like a fair bit, but it's not like their the (NFL) Cardinals or anything, their a really historic franchise with a lot of history.  I know they've been a bit of a punching bag this year and the last, and the ownership for so long has been awful, but I would hate if the A's branding went away, their one of the classic baseball teams, it would be a huge loss if a team that has always had a large footprint in baseball history kinda became a thing of the past. I don't think they should consider changing any part of the branding outside of a LV here and there.