Which Statements Do You Agree With?

[The Real Dalic]

Definitely not 7. I don't care about their politics. I turn on the game just to watch the game. If you want to be an activist, great for you. But do it on your own time and not while we just want to watch a game to escape things like politics for a couple of hours.

[tmorgan]

Regarding #1…

There’s zero doubt in my mind the league is more athletic and more skilled than ever. More tall ball handlers and shooters, more insane leapers, more creative play in general.

However… that doesn’t make them better basketball players or make it better basketball as a whole. Perhaps it’s just my personal bias, but i enjoy seeing players with less burst but more craftiness succeed, and it’s getting harder in a league in which athleticism and flash reigns supreme.

You could say I’m really happy my team drafted Cade, I guess. Always loved watching Paul Pierce more than Dominique Wilkins, for example.

[BallerTalk]

#7 - This never bothers me and I hate the shut up and dribble mentality, people should be able to use their voice for good

My push back against this is the old saying, "your freedom ends where my nose/ears begin". People can use their voices as much as they want to, but others should not be forced to listen to them especially if they feel the voices are not being used to do actual good.

First, that's not quite how the saying goes.
Second, you know that means you have the freedom to move around, not that the speaker should shut up, right?
If public appeals for justice and equality offend you, you have the right to change the channel, but not to demand they stop voicing their concerns.

[ReaLiez]

1 Agreed
2 Society as a whole is soft so that naturally trickles down to the players
3 Seattle and hopefully a second Canadian city
4 and 5 Disagree theyre worse now .. traveling and calling technicals for taunting has made the league less enjoyable
6 Disagree I judge the players liability on their skills on the court
7 Use your voice to influence and always advocate for a better society against oppression of any kind
8 and 9 Disagree
10 see #5


Sent from my SM-A326W using RealGM mobile app

[Pachinko_]

Refs are actually really, really good. It's the NBA rules, written and unwritten, that are really **** confusing.

"Oh this is definitely a foul/travel, except when it's the play offs, or a tight game, or the last shot of the game, or an MVP with the ball, or the League has changed the rule recently, or there is a different interpretation issued by the League..."

**** off, the poor guy has to tick off a whole checklist before calling anything.

[J_T]

Refs are actually really, really good. It's the NBA rules, written and unwritten, that are really **** confusing.

"Oh this is definitely a foul/travel, except when it's the play offs, or a tight game, or the last shot of the game, or an MVP with the ball, or the League has changed the rule recently, or there is a different interpretation issued by the League..."

**** off, the poor guy has to tick off a whole checklist before calling anything.

I disagree. The refs have different standards, even when something is pretty clear. As a group they are inconsistent and that makes them bad, as a group. Could they be trained to be better and more consistent? Sure. But there seems to be no interest for that.

[Pachinko_]

82 games is definitely a watered down product.

You plan to buy tickets to a game and you need an NBA specialist consultant to tell you if you should bother or skip this game because the main guy will be resting due to an ingrowing hair on his chin, or at least one of the teams will be tanking/disinterested/coasting or simply exhausted from schedule/travel/injuries.

But, people seem happy with the watered down product and keep buying RS tickets so all good I guess.
I just feel sorry for them.

[Pachinko_]

I disagree. The refs have different standards, even when something is pretty clear.

I don't think things are clear. You get people telling you you can hold the ball with one hand and go the length of the court without dribbling, because unless you grab the ball with both hands you don't technically have "possession". And instead of the League shutting down all this crap and issuing a clear instruction, they keep fiddling and finetuning and letting people get away with stuff, which only fuels the confusion. I've never seen so many fans confused as to what is a travel as NBA fans, honestly in other leagues they are not, and that starts from clear definitions.

Just my opinion anyway.

[pipfan]

82 games is definitely a watered down product.

You plan to buy tickets to a game and you need an NBA specialist consultant to tell you if you should bother or skip this game because the main guy will be resting due to an ingrowing hair on his chin, or at least one of the teams will be tanking/disinterested/coasting or simply exhausted from schedule/travel/injuries.

But, people seem happy with the watered down product and keep buying RS tickets so all good I guess.
I just feel sorry for them.

That's why I think dropping 6 games would help a lot-and force teams (through an agreement) not to rest players anymore. It is very bad for business long term, especially when ticket prices are so high.

[-Luke-]

I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9. The rest I don't necessarily disagree with, but I'd need to think more about it.

Note that when I agree with 2, that doesn't necessarily mean I think the NBA should add more clubs. It just means there's enough talent to do that.

[tbhawksfan1]

Voted yesto everything but 9. Should eliminate back to backs though. When you consider travel too, back to backs make no sense. Stop resting players. Not injured; you play. If their bodies can't handle the rigors anymore; retire

[Saberestar]

7- I would be all for anything about justice and equality. What is head-scratching to me, something I'd call black racism is so OK in US society. Can you imagine someone saying "we need more white coaches," "we need more white teachers and cops," "I like to support white kids and give them good start to life" or "I support all the white bussinesses" and being aplauded for it?

Before you get mad at me. First of all, my english is bad, not using it too often, so I hope what I wrote is similar to what I meant. Second, I live in country that never had slaves, never had any colonies, never killed former inhabitants (ok, our ancient ancestors probably DID, but so long ago there aren't any written evidence), so in my country we don't have that feel of guilt to minorities.

My message is that we all need GOOD teachers, GOOD cops, GOOD supervisors, politicians... regardless of their colour.

Wich country is that one?

[Maf]

7- I would be all for anything about justice and equality. What is head-scratching to me, something I'd call black racism is so OK in US society. Can you imagine someone saying "we need more white coaches," "we need more white teachers and cops," "I like to support white kids and give them good start to life" or "I support all the white bussinesses" and being aplauded for it?

Before you get mad at me. First of all, my english is bad, not using it too often, so I hope what I wrote is similar to what I meant. Second, I live in country that never had slaves, never had any colonies, never killed former inhabitants (ok, our ancient ancestors probably DID, but so long ago there aren't any written evidence), so in my country we don't have that feel of guilt to minorities.

My message is that we all need GOOD teachers, GOOD cops, GOOD supervisors, politicians... regardless of their colour.

Wich country is that one?

Heart of Europe- Czech Republic. On the other side we were occupied A LOT.

[rtiff68]

Does anybody who said “yes” to 7 realize that there are two parts to it?

“…and it’s good for business?”

Everybody who has commented on it has basically said “yes, because racism bad.” It’s a little more nuanced than that. Personally, I don’t think it’s good for business, whether you think an athlete’s political stance is right or wrong. Politics are polarizing, and when you openly campaign for one side, you risk alienating the other, and both sides spend money.

Also, while I can’t stand the “shut up and dribble” nonsense, I equally can’t stand people who believe that because they are experts and/or elite at one thing, they are automatically experts/authorities on everything (I’m looking at you, Kyrie).

[HumbleRen]

I agree with

1.
2.
5.
7.
9.

[Salieri]

1.- The qualities needed to shine in today's league are a bit more skill-based than in other eras. Nowadays, learning to shoot is a must unless you have some otherworldly ability that teams value a lot. Yeah, you could argue that low post skills are losing importance relative to 30 or 40 years ago, but we have some outstanding low post players today, so it's not like it's a forgotten art. Plus, players are asked to be smarter on defense today. All the defensive rotations and switching means players are required to read the play and take care of the entire rival team, not just their man. It's not an absolute, as there's always been smart players who could rotate and adjust. But nowadays, a good man defender with tunnel vision is considered a bad defender. So yeah, overall I agree that players are more skilled than ever. And it's only logical, as the game evolves and new, more efficient strategies are found and implemented, players adapt to them without forgetting what worked in the past. The average player today is more well rounded and skilled, I agree.

2.- Absolutely not. Just because the game of basketball is less violent now than before, it doesn't mean players are softer. That's a stupid notion, players will react to the environment and demand a foul if they know they've been fouled according to the current rules. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true: I believe MANY players from the past would melt under the constant scrutiny current players are subject to. With social media and the new dynamic under which celebrities are seen (and judged), many players from past eras wouldn't survive the lack of privacy and the need to polish their public persona.

3.- I'm torn on this one. On one side, I wouldn't mind expanding to 32, as it makes for a perfect number for elimination tournaments such as the playoffs. On the other side, see 8 and 9.

4.- The refs are what they've always been: the best in the world. Are they still bad in the eyes of some fans? Fine. But I don't think reffing perfectly a game of basketball would be a fun event to watch. Plus, many of the refs' shortcomings and flaws are by design. It's the league's fault for having a rulebook that they willingly ignore. If the league doesn't want to enforce double dribbling or carrying, why is it in the rulebook? Word the rule differently or get rid of it altogether. Also, I don't think the tendency to give star treatment is born at the refs level. They are employees and they do what they're told. Again, responsibility falls upon the league. So no, I don't think refs are bad. I do think, however, they have always been the same quality wise, they've just been asked different things in different eras.

5.- Not for me. Not much to add here, this is a totally subjective question, and I like how the game is played today. There's room for post play, perimeter play, iso play, passing, driving... I don't know, I just like it. I do miss the emphasis on offensive rebounding, but analytics have proven it's a bad tactic. So it's understandable that it's not seen as much.

6.- Nope. Again, see point number 2. We don't truly know what stars of the past were like, so it's unfair to claim today's stars are more unlikable. Stars of the past could perfectly be sociopaths, wife beaters or cokeheads and barring a major scandal, nobody would know. If people complain about LeBron, KD or Kyrie being unlikable, I'd love to hear their opinion on Karl Malone. Let's not even talk about Warren Jabari or John Brisker, hell incarnate.

7.- Absolutely. The ultimate irony would be that, in the era of the internet when every idiot has a voice to spew their stupidity, basketball players weren't allowed to speak their minds. I might not agree with whatever idiocy Kyrie feels like sharing concerning the vaccine or the shape of our planet, but denying him the right to talk nonsense would be orders of magnitude worse. Censorship is NEVER the solution, whereas dialogue is most of the time.

8.- I think the game is more demanding now than ever, and I'd bet the average heartbeat rate after playing 8 minutes is higher than ever before. But the number of games is still the same. As a result, we find more and more players finding the limit in their bodies in a bad way. Conditioning and training techniques have improved too, but I don't know if they are up to par with the physical demands of modern NBA. This is only an impression of mine and if I'm wrong I should be easily refuted with real data, but yeah I think players get injured more often than before. Maybe I'm wrong, as I said, but that's what my impression is.

9.- Yeah, fully agree on this one. There are way too many regular season games. It's almost always been like this, but that doesn't mean it's the correct formula. Fewer games would mean fewer injuries, more importance to each RS game played and, dare I say it, a better fandom (more people would watch more games instead of just the ones their teams play). The only obstacle for implementing this is less money for the NBA, so I don't think it will ever happen. Money is king in any business, and the NBA is no different.

10.- I'm undecided on this. On one side, yeah I'd like to see current players try to dribble and launch a fastbreak with the same rules they did in the 60s and 70s, maybe that way people would stop mocking the skills of those old players. On the other side, the game is played pretty freely nowadays and I do like watching the huge strides of a Giannis during a fastbreak or a smart screen by an Adams or a Green, rules be damned. In any case, I would agree that the gameplay needs to be more coherent with the rulebook: either allow moving screens and carrying the ball on the run, or enforce those rules. But right now, it's very inconsistent and that leads to frustration among all fanbases because every team will fall victim to the creative interpretation of the rulebook. That's not fair.

Every response was my first impression, and I don't rule out the possibility of me ignoring a critical point of view and talking out of my behind

[Pachinko_]

7- I would be all for anything about justice and equality. What is head-scratching to me, something I'd call black racism is so OK in US society. Can you imagine someone saying "we need more white coaches," "we need more white teachers and cops," "I like to support white kids and give them good start to life" or "I support all the white bussinesses" and being aplauded for it?

Before you get mad at me. First of all, my english is bad, not using it too often, so I hope what I wrote is similar to what I meant. Second, I live in country that never had slaves, never had any colonies, never killed former inhabitants (ok, our ancient ancestors probably DID, but so long ago there aren't any written evidence), so in my country we don't have that feel of guilt to minorities.

My message is that we all need GOOD teachers, GOOD cops, GOOD supervisors, politicians... regardless of their colour.

Wich country is that one?

Probably one that didn't have an opportunity to.

[Warriorfan]

Thanks for putting this thread. IMO right points to list. Been on this board a long time and overall views would different than the posters 10yrs ago

[pipfan]

I think the "softer" one is overall-the players used to try and play 82 games-lots of stars did it. Nowadays, it seems like no one does. Plus, guys played more minutes. I never remember thinking MJ, Stockton, Malone or other stars seemed tired during the playoffs.

As for the injury one-is there a way to test that theory. I think it is true, but have no way of knowing so

[Harry Garris]

#7 - This never bothers me and I hate the shut up and dribble mentality, people should be able to use their voice for good

My push back against this is the old saying, "your freedom ends where my nose/ears begin". People can use their voices as much as they want to, but others should not be forced to listen to them especially if they feel the voices are not being used to do actual good.

Secondly, who decides what is "good" and where does it stop? Case in point, I have nothing against what Lebron posts on his Twitter because I do not read it. His tweet saying "#You'reNext" targeting an innocent police office could have been considered a criminal act (if anyone had acted against that officer after reading his tweet)... and I hope Lebron feels suitably ashamed of himself for posting something so wrong (I don't think he does)... but he has a right to post whatever he wants on his personal platform, and society (or the law) should deal with his tweets as they see fit. If Lebron had said what he said on a league-owned platform though (for example: in a stadium prior to a game), forced me to listen to it, (and worse) if I had to agree with him in the moment due to fear or public pressure, that would be shameful and similar to living in days of fascism/nazism.

The extent of the NBA's social justice messaging up to this point has been athletes choosing of their own free will to engage in rallies or marches during their off time, a few commercials, and some vaguely political statements on the back of their jerseys instead of their last name. I get that people disagree with the message but this stuff has been... really tame.

My question for those who disagree strongly with the NBA and act like their favorite sport is now ruined is: which of these initiatives is so threatening that it makes you feel as if we're on the brink of the NBA participating in a fascist takeover of what you're allowed to watch for entertainment?