PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

Moderators: PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, penbeast0, trex_8063

falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 8,470
And1: 5,987
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1181 » by falcolombardi » Mon Jan 31, 2022 4:54 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
MisterHibachi wrote:I'm not a baseball fan and don't know much about the history of the sport but a guy like this not being in the Hall of Fame seems insanity. I don't even know what the NBA equivalent of this would be.

Read on Twitter

Achievement and era wise, this is leaving out Jordan.

Every time people bash the basketball Hall I shake my head because the baseball HOF - often held up as the gold standard - is the one with true problems.

The voters there do all sorts of things that make no sense from a perspective of what a Hall of Fame museum is for.

1. Valuing immensely raw cumulative stats over superstars or champions. A guy who no fan cares about who just plays long enough will get in.

2. Making “first ballot” a thing to the point where there are some voters who basically never end up voting for the greats of the game - they get in in first ballot with non-unanimous votes.

3. And no worst of all holding a purity line in the steroid era that doesn’t make because a) there have always been known cheaters in the hall, b) they are still voting steroid users in just not the faces of steroids, c) the MLB looked the other way for so long that a guy like Bonds started using in order to compete with those he knew were juicing, and thus when voters hold the line they essentially censor the history of the highest quality (and last popular) era.

There’s no sport I know of where tradition and culture has gotten more ass backwards than baseball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


you are the first person i see that shares my view on basketball hof >>> baseball hot

people are so focused on scarcity/exclusivity they (imo) dont realize how good they have it not having to worry that all time legends will be left out cause the voters didnt like him, dont like that he retired at 32, etc

say whatever you want about hall of very good, at least we dont have to worry about the arguably greatest player of all time being left out for arbitrary voter whims not liking him
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 8,470
And1: 5,987
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1182 » by falcolombardi » Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:00 am

i randomly Stumbled upon and old article of a professional league banning taller players

and that reminded me that once upon a time there was serious consideration, at least among media, about whether it would be a good idea to ban the talk players from nba to give smaller players a chance and they interviewed a lot of basketball coaches among others (SI has the article from back then for free onlin, is really old)


most disagreed, some actually agreed. others suggested rule changes that deprioritized height

but one of the interviewees thst made the best points was the one pointing out that in reality and contrary to what most people would think, nba giants or ultra long and lanki dudes were not actually built for most sports and it was actually shorter athletes who had the advantage in most of them

is actually true when you analize that basketball bodies are far from ideal for most disciplines and sports where more Compact (football, contact sports) or relatively shorter (soccer, gymnastics, some athletism disciplines) bodies and their better cordination and mobility give a bigger advantage than being 7 foot

that it would be unfair for all sports to be made for people 6'3 or shorter and not have anythingh for the really talk people to Excel at

it seemed to me a really great defense against the common criticism of basketball for being a excluyent game that is so much about height

i think basketball, swimming, volleyball are the sports that definitely help these kind of body types the most

although it has always been a wonder of me what really long players with good mobility like durant or giannis could do as soccer goalkeepers

here is the SI article

https://vault.si.com/.amp/vault/1957/01/14/the-question-should-there-be-a-height-limit-on-basketball-players
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,254
And1: 4,868
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1183 » by Dutchball97 » Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:26 am

falcolombardi wrote:i randomly Stumbled upon and old article of a professional league banning taller players

and that reminded me that once upon a time there was serious consideration, at least among media, about whether it would be a good idea to ban the talk players from nba to give smaller players a chance and they interviewed a lot of basketball coaches among others (SI has the article from back then for free onlin, is really old)


most disagreed, some actually agreed. others suggested rule changes that deprioritized height

but one of the interviewees thst made the best points was the one pointing out that in reality and contrary to what most people would think, nba giants or ultra long and lanki dudes were not actually built for most sports and it was actually shorter athletes who had the advantage in most of them

is actually true when you analize that basketball bodies are far from ideal for most disciplines and sports where more Compact (football, contact sports) or relatively shorter (soccer, gymnastics, some athletism disciplines) bodies and their better cordination and mobility give a bigger advantage than being 7 foot

that it would be unfair for all sports to be made for people 6'3 or shorter and not have anythingh for the really talk people to Excel at

it seemed to me a really great defense against the common criticism of basketball for being a excluyent game that is so much about height

i think basketball, swimming, volleyball are the sports that definitely help these kind of body types the most

although it has always been a wonder of me what really long players with good mobility like durant or giannis could do as soccer goalkeepers

here is the SI article

https://vault.si.com/.amp/vault/1957/01/14/the-question-should-there-be-a-height-limit-on-basketball-players


While height is important for goalkeepers (there are pretty much no elite goalies under 6 feet), being too tall can be a disadvantage as well. Some of the tallest top level goalies are 6'5 Donnaruma and 6'6 Courtois. Being taller than this doesn't really help much for high placed shots since they can already reach the top corners reliably but the extra length does mean that it takes longer for them to reach the ground for low placed shots. Guys like Giannis and Durant wouldn't be ideal as goalies for that reason.

I'd look at hyper athletic guys in that 6 feet to 6'6 height bracket like Ja Morant, Zach LaVine and Anthony Edwards.

I do think it lends more credibility to the idea it isn't a bad thing for basketball to be a sport where extremely tall people can thrive. Soccer is already accessible for many different heights. Messi is only like 5'6 - 5'7 but Ibrahimovic is around 6'5 and dominated as well. Considering every height in between has a lot of representation in the sport that covers the majority of the adult male population already.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,813
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1184 » by HeartBreakKid » Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:27 am

I like the basketball hall of fame. I think if you're like one of the best players in the world for a decent while, isn't that enough to be celebrated? Dunno why it has to be saved for the Larry Bird's of the world.
LAL1947
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,383
And1: 2,620
Joined: Dec 28, 2018

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1185 » by LAL1947 » Wed Feb 2, 2022 7:48 pm

Can the experts on this board please consider this for their next topic?

George Mikan in his time period vs Tim Duncan in his time period.

Who was better and/or more dominant against their peers in their time?

And can we please start examining dear ole Timmy D's career under the same microscope that we examine the careers of his betters? Betters such as MJ, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Magic, etc? I mean it... same standards, same lenses, same everything. I get that even the awkward, gawky lugs of this world need a champion, and Timmy D is theirs... but FFS... we need common standards.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 31,775
And1: 19,892
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1186 » by Colbinii » Wed Feb 2, 2022 7:59 pm

LAL1947 wrote:Can the experts on this board please consider this for their next topic?

George Mikan in his time period vs Tim Duncan in his time period?

Who was better and/or more dominant against their peers in their time?

And can we please start examining dear ole Timmy D's career under the same microscope that we examine the career's of his betters? Betters such as MJ, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Magic, etc? I mean it... same standards, same lenses, same everything. I get that even the awkward, gawky lugs of this world need a champion, and Timmy D is theirs... but FFS... we need common standards.


Here ya go baby.

Colbinii wrote:My top 3
2003 Tim Duncan
2013 LeBron James
2000 Shaquille O'Neal

Spoiler:
The Case for The Big Fundamental



2003 Tim Duncan was one of the greatest NBA seasons of all-time. The combination of elite offense with GOAT-level defense makes this season worthy of consideration for one of the highest impact [and best] seasons not only in the modern-era but of all-time. Although Timmy is routinely regarded as a top 10 player of all-time, many contributors on this board don’t see his peak in the same light as most other “top 10 contenders”. I hope with a deep-dive into this spectacular season others can see just how great Tim Duncan was in 2003.



This season starts as a follow-up to what many believe as Tim Duncan’s “real peak”, circa 2002. Duncan came off a productive regular season in 2002 and a great playoff run which resulted in an unfortunate [for non-Laker fans] end in only the Western Conference Semi-Finals where Duncan showed why he was worthy of the MVP trophy by outplaying the dynamic duo of Shaq and Kobe. While Duncan and the Spurs lost in 5 games to the eventual NBA-Champions, the ever-silent Tim Duncan put on a showcase while missing his career-long running mate David Robinson to injuries while his second option Tony Parker experienced major growing pains as a 19-year old Rookie. Duncan showcased an ability in 2002 to carry an offensive load many doubted while still being the best defender in the league.



2003 Featured a new strategy for Popovich, Duncan and the rest of the San Antonio Spurs. After David Robinson’s body ended 2002 on the pavement the Spurs decided to rest Robinson during the season [78 GP in 2002, 64 in 2003] while actively grooming Tony Parker and featuring him more offensively as he buds into an NBA-level Point Guard. Knowing the aforementioned changes, the Spurs decided to “run it back” with a similar roster while bolstering the bench with the addition of Steve Kerr to add much needed spacing and a veteran presence; an aspect Antonio Daniels failed to deliver on in 2002. Ultimately this deal doesn’t show up in the box-score as Kerr was a DNP for a majority of the playoffs [averaging a mere 4.6 MPG in 10 games] while young players like Tony Parker (20), Manu Ginobili (25) and Stephen Jackson (24) took on larger roles on both ends of the court.



Enough story time, let’s look at the numbers.



Regular Season Stats:

Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV

Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV

Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18

Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP

On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off



Post Season Stats:

Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV

Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV

Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24

Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP

On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off



Statistical Comparison (Put in Spoiler Jacob)

RS Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV

PS Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV

RS Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV

PS Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV

RS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18

PS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24

RS Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP

PS Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [+5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP

RS On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off

PS On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off



When doing a side-by-side comparison it is quite evident [and clear] that Duncan performed even greater in the post-season than he did during his MVP-level Regular Season. This alone should be a tell-tale sign that Duncan performed at his highest level against the highest level of competition. Duncan’s ability to be an elite playmaker from the post in combination with his elite rim protection has never been duplicated since the merger. Only 4 other times has a player averaged 5+ Assists and 3+ Blocks in a series: 1977 Walton and 2002 Tim Duncan and then two other times in 3 game series from Chris Webber and Bob Lanier. Duncan’s gigantic scoring advantage over Walton [24.7 PPG on +5.8 TS% vs 18.2 PPG on +1.6 TS%] makes Duncan’s run one of the most statistically unique Playoff Runs in NBA History.



Looking back at the 2003 season as a whole the league was in a slow, grindy and defensive era. With League Average Offensive Rating at 103.6, True Shooting Percentage at 51.9% and Pace at 91 Possessions/Game the game was at it’s apex for defense [Post-Merger] while yet to adapt to the space provided by the 3-point line. This resulted in the post being cluttered offensively and big men to have a great impact on the defensive end.



The Spurs figured out how to capitalize on the Slow and defensive minded era; Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan was utilized in a way to generate 3 point shots and specifically the corner 3. The Spurs led the league in Percentage of Corner 3’s taken with 40% of their 3 point shots being corner 3’s. This was in large part due to the driving ability of a young Tony Parker [still 20 years old] and the gravity which Duncan encompassed offensively. The second most important part of the Spurs offense was the ability to generate lay-ups; again generated by the ability of Duncan’s passing from the high-post, low-block and free-throw area.



The Spurs offense in the post-season, with the catalyst Tim Duncan, was able to play the type of game [Spurs Ball] in all of the series they played in. The Pace in their 4 series were 90.8, 90.4, 92.6 and 87.8 [FWIW the Spurs Pace for the season was exactly 90.0, the average of the 4 series being 90.4]. This was in large part because of Tim Duncan’s ability to control the game as a PF/C; a rarity in the history of the NBA.

When the Spurs were unable to play at the exact pace they wanted they were able to adapt and outplay their opponents at what they did best; specifically the Nets and Mavericks. As you may know, the 2003 Mavericks and 2003 Nets were each the best in the league at one aspect of the game. The Mavericks were the best offense in the NBA while the Nets were the best Defense in the NBA. Ultimately both teams were dismantled by the Spurs by their own game.



Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

Nets: 98.1 Drtg played at the Spurs pace [91.6 RS, 87.8 PS] which took away the ability to run with Jason Kidd, one of the most dynamic playmakers in the open-court in NBA History. The Nets were unable to stop the Spurs as the Spurs eclipsed the 98.1 Drtg the Nets had in the regular season [Spurs put up 100.0 Ortg] but the slower pace affected the Nets greatly, posting a mere 93.3 Ortg in the lopsided; 6 game series.



When the Spurs had the opportunity to close out series they did so on Duncan’s back [in his backpack, which had a smaller back-pack in it, then a third back-pack inside of that with 37-year old David Robinson and Tony Parker squished in there like a Matryoshka Russian Doll].

During the span of 5 potential “Elimination Games”, the Spurs and Tim Duncan went 4-1, with the only loss coming to Dallas.

Duncan Stats: 22.8/16.4/6.8 with 3.6 BLK, 2.8 TOV



Duncan’s ability to close out elimination games with his scoring, rebounding, shot-blocking and playmaking [While taking care of the ball] is a combination of skill and talent that no other all-time great has combined throughout a single post-season. The fact the Spurs had no “easy series” says a lot about the run Duncan put on. An average SRS of 4.15, the lowest being 1.56 and highest being 7.90 shows how Dominant Duncan was. The ability for Duncan and the Spurs to adapt and play the best offense in the league in one series and then the best defensive team in the next series shows a chameleon-like team minus the skittish-ness.



NBA Finals Deep-Dive:

While the Spurs and Nets faced off in the 2003 Finals the biggest match-ups were Parker/Kidd and Collins/Duncan. The Nets were going to win if Collins could help keep Duncan in check [Collins is an all-time great post-defender] or if Kidd could run up-and-down the floor. While I highlighted earlier in my post about the Spurs [and Duncan’s] ability to slow down the Nets by eliminating transition opportunities, one often major aspect to the series was Collins inability to stay out of foul trouble while guarding Tim Duncan [and Kenyon Martin].



Kenyon Martin fell into Foul Trouble in Games 1, 2, 4, 5 while Collins fouled out in Game 3 and was routinely in foul trouble throughout the series. This was, in large part, due to Duncan’s post-presence [averaging 9 FTA/G and a 49.5% FTR].



FWIW, Jason Collins was absolutely dominant in the post-season as a defender. In his 529 minutes on the court the Nets posted a 92.2 Defensive Rating [Absurd] but in his 446 minutes on the bench the Nets were a measly 106.1 [A difference of 13.1 Points per 100]. I understand it is a small sample size, but the fact remains that Jason Collins was a key part for a Nets victory in 2003 and Duncan single handedly took him out of the game [as well as Kenyon Martin].



Individual Offensive/Defensive Ratings: I know many people love these, I have been more interested in these statistics lately [in part because of E-Balla calling me out on not understanding them fully] and re-analyzing them with-in the statistical landscape and scope. They often line-up with my personal eye-test [though I do wear glasses] and they happen to capture a good part of the game.

Duncans in the 2003 NBA Finals: 109 Ortg/83 Drtg [Net + 26]

Jordan 1991: 125/102 [Net +23]

James 2012: 117/109 [Net +8]

Shaq 01: 115/101 [Net +14]



Scoring: Duncan was able to score 27.5% of his teams points in the post-season.

Jordan 1991: 30.8%

LeBron 2012: 28.0%

Shaq 01: 32.8%


While Duncan’s scoring isn’t as impressive as some of the other notable candidates for “GOAT PEAK”, his scoring is not far off. Considering the major defensive advantage Duncan has on the other candidates listed above I see little to no reason for these players to be considered over Duncan in the grand scheme of things.
tsherkin wrote:Locked due to absence of adult conversation.

penbeast0 wrote:Guys, if you don't have anything to say, don't post.


Circa 2018
E-Balla wrote:LeBron is Jeff George.


Circa 2022
G35 wrote:Lebron is not that far off from WB in trade value.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 8,470
And1: 5,987
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1187 » by falcolombardi » Wed Feb 2, 2022 8:16 pm

LAL1947 wrote:Can the experts on this board please consider this for their next topic?

George Mikan in his time period vs Tim Duncan in his time period?

Who was better and/or more dominant against their peers in their time?

And can we please start examining dear ole Timmy D's career under the same microscope that we examine the career's of his betters? Betters such as MJ, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Magic, etc? I mean it... same standards, same lenses, same everything. I get that even the awkward, gawky lugs of this world need a champion, and Timmy D is theirs... but FFS... we need common standards.


mikan arguably dominated his era the most out of anyone in history including jordan, russel, lebron

comparing duncan in era dominance to mikan is not the slam dunk you think it is
LAL1947
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,383
And1: 2,620
Joined: Dec 28, 2018

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1188 » by LAL1947 » Wed Feb 2, 2022 8:21 pm

falcolombardi wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:Can the experts on this board please consider this for their next topic?

George Mikan in his time period vs Tim Duncan in his time period?

Who was better and/or more dominant against their peers in their time?

And can we please start examining dear ole Timmy D's career under the same microscope that we examine the careers of his betters? Betters such as MJ, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Magic, etc? I mean it... same standards, same lenses, same everything. I get that even the awkward, gawky lugs of this world need a champion, and Timmy D is theirs... but FFS... we need common standards.


mikan arguably dominated his era the most out of anyone in history including jordan, russel, lebron

comparing duncan in era dominance to mikan is not the slam dunk you think it is

Maybe not... but let's start there... and work our way down, shall we? It really strikes me that the people who laud Timmy D as being a GOAT, or who say he was better than Shaq/Kobe don't hold him under the same microscope that they do players who were better than him. All I want is common standards applied to all... that too much to ask for? :P

Here's another example: how about we compare Giannis' or Jokic's production to Timmy's rather than to Kobe's? Duncan, Jokic, Giannis are all bigs... and I think if the latter two continue to produce as they are... then they will knock Duncan out of the All-time Top 10 rather than someone like Kobe, Hakeem or Shaq.
User avatar
eminence
RealGM
Posts: 15,849
And1: 10,753
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1189 » by eminence » Wed Feb 2, 2022 8:24 pm

Mikan's in era dominance does dwarf anyone else. He was Russell and Wilt rolled into one.

Anywho, any other track followers here? Despite the DNF I was super impressed by Mu in the mile a couple of days ago. Not yet, but she's looking like a serious threat to be arguably the first ever to be world class from 400-1500.
I bought a boat.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 28,534
And1: 23,518
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1190 » by 70sFan » Wed Feb 2, 2022 9:05 pm

Don't feed a troll guys.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 59,843
And1: 15,538
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1191 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Feb 3, 2022 1:46 am

LAL1947 wrote:Can the experts on this board please consider this for their next topic?

George Mikan in his time period vs Tim Duncan in his time period.

Who was better and/or more dominant against their peers in their time?

And can we please start examining dear ole Timmy D's career under the same microscope that we examine the careers of his betters? Betters such as MJ, Kobe, Lebron, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Magic, etc? I mean it... same standards, same lenses, same everything. I get that even the awkward, gawky lugs of this world need a champion, and Timmy D is theirs... but FFS... we need common standards.


Mikan was more dominant up until 51. From 52-54 his impact is more like Duncan I think, he got passed by some people on offense but was the best defensive player.
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 8,470
And1: 5,987
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1192 » by falcolombardi » Thu Feb 3, 2022 1:49 am

me: you mean black qb's were controversial in the 60's and earlier right?....right?


No I was talking about the 70s and 80s. It’s why I got to enjoy watching a hall of fame QB like Warren Moon dominate the CFL for 5 years because he played the “wrong position”.


me: jesus....so people in the freaking 80's were still like "are black peopke smart enough to throw balls in the air?


I mean, that happened more recently than the 80s...

Rush Limbaugh's -- who was inexplicably an ESPN and NFL on-air personality at the time -- and others' racist comments about Donovan McNabb immediately come to mind, but a lot of black QBs at that time were looked down upon. This was less than 20 years ago. I'm a more casual NFL fan nowadays, but it didn't seem like those type of QBs really were viewed as "legitimate" as other QBs until 2010ish or so.


this is a convo i had in another thread

was it really THAT bad? i mean, i have heard jokes that football coaches were the most conservstive people in the world but i thought they meant punt memes, not this

the idea of a hof level quarterback having to go to the equivalent of the G-league because he was black and thought to not be able of playing quarterback....in the 80's.... blows my mind

that it apparently still happened in the 00's with Mcnabb and sportcenter hired racist loonies like linbaugh to talk sports? what the hell was that?
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,795
And1: 19,492
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1193 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Feb 3, 2022 2:03 am

falcolombardi wrote:me: you mean black qb's were controversial in the 60's and earlier right?....right?


No I was talking about the 70s and 80s. It’s why I got to enjoy watching a hall of fame QB like Warren Moon dominate the CFL for 5 years because he played the “wrong position”.


me: jesus....so people in the freaking 80's were still like "are black peopke smart enough to throw balls in the air?


I mean, that happened more recently than the 80s...

Rush Limbaugh's -- who was inexplicably an ESPN and NFL on-air personality at the time -- and others' racist comments about Donovan McNabb immediately come to mind, but a lot of black QBs at that time were looked down upon. This was less than 20 years ago. I'm a more casual NFL fan nowadays, but it didn't seem like those type of QBs really were viewed as "legitimate" as other QBs until 2010ish or so.


this is a convo i had in another thread

was it really THAT bad? i mean, i have heard jokes that football coaches were the most conservstive people in the world but i thought they meant punt memes, not this

the idea of a hof level quarterback having to go to the equivalent of the G-league because he was black and thought to not be able of playing quarterback....in the 80's.... blows my mind

that it apparently still happened in the 00's with Mcnabb and sportcenter hired racist loonies like linbaugh to talk sports? what the hell was that?


Worse than that really. Consider:

1. imho, the most talented player in the history of the game, who won MVPs near a decade removed playing entirely different ways - first as a scrambler than as a more classic passer - still isn't in the Hall, and there's a good chance young football fans don't even know who I'm talking about. (Randall Cunningham) Goes to show that even when a player beats the odds and demonstrates his groundbreaking superiority, there's a skepticism that permeates discussions that manages to convince itself that not-very-important things (longevity issues due to obvious injury dangers) are more important than being the ultimate spearhead.

2. Do we really think Kaepernick has his career ended by kneeling during the Anthem if he's white? In this case, I used to be less upset about this because I know that it's just a real thing that a non-superstar player who causes controversy can be seen as more of a distraction than he's worth, but there's just no way an Aaron Rodgers creates the same kind of politically polarized firestorm if he does what Kaepernick did.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 31,775
And1: 19,892
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1194 » by Colbinii » Thu Feb 3, 2022 5:49 am

falcolombardi wrote:me: you mean black qb's were controversial in the 60's and earlier right?....right?


No I was talking about the 70s and 80s. It’s why I got to enjoy watching a hall of fame QB like Warren Moon dominate the CFL for 5 years because he played the “wrong position”.


me: jesus....so people in the freaking 80's were still like "are black peopke smart enough to throw balls in the air?


I mean, that happened more recently than the 80s...

Rush Limbaugh's -- who was inexplicably an ESPN and NFL on-air personality at the time -- and others' racist comments about Donovan McNabb immediately come to mind, but a lot of black QBs at that time were looked down upon. This was less than 20 years ago. I'm a more casual NFL fan nowadays, but it didn't seem like those type of QBs really were viewed as "legitimate" as other QBs until 2010ish or so.


this is a convo i had in another thread

was it really THAT bad? i mean, i have heard jokes that football coaches were the most conservstive people in the world but i thought they meant punt memes, not this

the idea of a hof level quarterback having to go to the equivalent of the G-league because he was black and thought to not be able of playing quarterback....in the 80's.... blows my mind

that it apparently still happened in the 00's with Mcnabb and sportcenter hired racist loonies like linbaugh to talk sports? what the hell was that?


It was definitely Iike this--even worse.

Look what is still happening in the sport. Extremely low minority coach rate and the joke of a rule [Rooney Rule] and now look what is happening with Flores.
tsherkin wrote:Locked due to absence of adult conversation.

penbeast0 wrote:Guys, if you don't have anything to say, don't post.


Circa 2018
E-Balla wrote:LeBron is Jeff George.


Circa 2022
G35 wrote:Lebron is not that far off from WB in trade value.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,813
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1195 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Feb 3, 2022 6:15 am

It was like that for sure.

I think some of it is also related to a lot of black QBs being "dual threats", and running is not how you play QB or whatever. But past 7 or 8 years or so people realized that's pretty dumb... Sports are really conservative, too much ego involved to change things.

Blacks not being QBs was very much a thing though even if they were good passers. I'm not old and it was a thing when I was in highschool. I noticed people say you never see white corners in the NFL which is generally true, but I think what is even more interesting is you never see black punters or kickers.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,795
And1: 19,492
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1196 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Feb 3, 2022 8:16 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:It was like that for sure.

I think some of it is also related to a lot of black QBs being "dual threats", and running is not how you play QB or whatever. But past 7 or 8 years or so people realized that's pretty dumb... Sports are really conservative, too much ego involved to change things.

Blacks not being QBs was very much a thing though even if they were good passers. I'm not old and it was a thing when I was in highschool. I noticed people say you never see white corners in the NFL which is generally true, but I think what is even more interesting is you never see black punters or kickers.


I think what we see in general in cultures is that non-dominant groups tend to become established in certain niches, and within those niches, they have much opportunity, while in others they don't.

I'm a teacher, and in education it's long been a place where women can thrive. And while there was a time where it was hard for a woman to rise in management, now it's not. Not saying it's "easy" in the sense that it doesn't take skill, nor am I saying that women don't have unique challenges to overcome (though men in education have their own challenges), but the path toward hierarchical success is well-trodden for women in education in a way it isn't in many other hierarchical domains.

I think these are just things we all need to expect and look out for.

One more point: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has written about the historical truth that at one point Blacks were seen as inferior in athletics, and especially in team athletics. It was assumed that if something required intelligence, then whites would always beat Blacks, and this provided some motivation among Blacks to prove they could thrive in these activities.

But then what happened is that there was a moving of the goalpost. Once Blacks proved they could thrive in athletics, then that was re-narrated as "Blacks are strong of body so of course they'd excel in athletics, but they can't thrive in intellectual domains."

It is something worthy of getting angry about, but on a philosophical level, this is just what humans do. At the school I teach, that is largely Asian, periodically we find out about students making statements along the lines of assuming that non-Asian students (including whites, which is interesting given that most of the teachers are white), are just dumber than Asians. It's not right, but we shouldn't really expect the students to avoid these type of conclusions entirely when their experience points in a certain direction.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 8,470
And1: 5,987
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1197 » by falcolombardi » Thu Feb 3, 2022 8:24 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:It was like that for sure.

I think some of it is also related to a lot of black QBs being "dual threats", and running is not how you play QB or whatever. But past 7 or 8 years or so people realized that's pretty dumb... Sports are really conservative, too much ego involved to change things.

Blacks not being QBs was very much a thing though even if they were good passers. I'm not old and it was a thing when I was in highschool. I noticed people say you never see white corners in the NFL which is generally true, but I think what is even more interesting is you never see black punters or kickers.


I think what we see in general in cultures is that non-dominant groups tend to become established in certain niches, and within those niches, they have much opportunity, while in others they don't.

I'm a teacher, and in education it's long been a place where women can thrive. And while there was a time where it was hard for a woman to rise in management, now it's not. Not saying it's "easy" in the sense that it doesn't take skill, nor am I saying that women don't have unique challenges to overcome (though men in education have their own challenges), but the path toward hierarchical success is well-trodden for women in education in a way it isn't in many other hierarchical domains.

I think these are just things we all need to expect and look out for.

One more point: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has written about the historical truth that at one point Blacks were seen as inferior in athletics, and especially in team athletics. It was assumed that if something required intelligence, then whites would always beat Blacks, and this provided some motivation among Blacks to prove they could thrive in these activities.

But then what happened is that there was a moving of the goalpost. Once Blacks proved they could thrive in athletics, then that was re-narrated as "Blacks are strong of body so of course they'd excel in athletics, but they can't thrive in intellectual domains."

It is something worthy of getting angry about, but on a philosophical level, this is just what humans do. At the school I teach, that is largely Asian, periodically we find out about students making statements along the lines of assuming that non-Asian students (including whites, which is interesting given that most of the teachers are white), are just dumber than Asians. It's not right, but we shouldn't really expect the students to avoid these type of conclusions entirely when their experience points in a certain direction.


your last point is why i think is important to teach than correlatión is not causation

is entirely possible that X race does better or worse than Y race, but it doesnt mean they are inherently smarter or some bull like that
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 50,795
And1: 19,492
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1198 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Feb 3, 2022 8:45 pm

falcolombardi wrote:
your last point is why i think is important to teach than correlatión is not causation

is entirely possible that X race does better or worse than Y race, but it doesnt mean they are inherently smarter or some bull like that


Yup, and more broadly, why I think we've done a horrible disservice to society by not seriously teaching epistemology as part of standard pedagogy.

It's not that people in the past were more capable to drawing their own correct conclusions, but in the age of the internet it's being exposed how worthless it is to prioritize the teaching of established fact over epistemological process. We've got people running around right now who were taught correct Newtonian physics who now have become convinced that the Earth is flat. This is a thing that would be impossible if the students actually understood how Newtonian physics became a dominant paradigm, but when it's just a bunch of formulae that students are forced to use, it isn't actually real to (many of the) students, and thus there is know epistemic immunity from things that should be seen as ridiculous from the start.

Worse, we're clearly seeing a profound resentment from former students put in this position. They aren't just drifting toward Flat Earther mindset because they have no real epistemic foundation, they actually have a gradient away from what they were taught in school because of whatever negative feelings (insecurity, failure, etc) they associate with their prior learning experience, and they feel a sense of pride and accomplishment at the sense of "knowing better than the experts".

Of course, in the end, a minority of people choosing a physics paradigm that was considered obviously ridiculous by leading minds thousands of years ago isn't a big deal in and of itself, but when we see similar trends propagated in more everyday-life domains, well, it's cost countless lives in just the last two years.

These epistemic issues aren't the only issue with children's education by any means, and I'm not sure I'd say they are the biggest issue with education right now...but they are a much, much bigger deal than they were before the existence of the internet. In our modern society, anyone who leaves school without a good epistemic foundation is likely to get infected with false knowledge and become a vector of the disease themselves soon after.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
prolific passer
Analyst
Posts: 3,702
And1: 1,280
Joined: Mar 11, 2009
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1199 » by prolific passer » Wed Feb 9, 2022 3:53 am

Just got done watching all of us are dead on netflix. Pretty good.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 17,215
And1: 8,555
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1200 » by sp6r=underrated » Wed Feb 9, 2022 5:39 pm

Am I the only one alarmed at the high number of gambling ads/discussions you now see during sports broadcasts?

I've noticed when I watch League Pass games almost all the ads either encourage me to gamble or warn me about problem gambling. At first I disgregarded this due to the audience for League Pass. League Pass will inevitably have a higher percentage of gamblers.

But I've also noticed it on non-league pass broadcasts. I almost never watch SportsCenter but started recently. A massive percentage of the broadcast was devoted to gambling discussions. Same with sports radio discussions. The partnerships between all of the networks and sportsbooks is off the charts. I read somewhere FanDuel paid 30 MILLION to be the exclusive sportsbook for the Pat McAfee Show. They wouldn't pay that much if the gambling discussions weren't effective at getting people into betting

I'm not at the point were I'd say smart phone betting should be banned again. But all of these ads/discussions are a canary in the coal mine. The percentage of sports watchers that bet has gone up and the percentage of problem gamblers almost assuredly had to have gone up as well.

Return to Player Comparisons