PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[eminence]

It was fairly recently legalized in my state and you'll see ads all over town as well, which is not great for the large college student population I don't imagine, really not the point in life they should be experimenting with that type of thing (though I don't have a ton of room to talk). Does feel like the house has softened a bit recently with all the money flowing into the system.

[Colbinii]

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.

It's bad (I never gamble).

I always find it hypocrisy when the Bill Simmons podcast or The Dunc'd On Podcasts have advertisements for "Need Gambling Help?" on the episodes but also have podcasts/episodes dedicated to gambling.

I guess they have their cake and eat it too, but it comes off as scummy to me.

[sp6r=underrated]

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.

It's bad (I never gamble).

I always find it hypocrisy when the Bill Simmons podcast or The Dunc'd On Podcasts have advertisements for "Need Gambling Help?" on the episodes but also have podcasts/episodes dedicated to gambling.

I guess they have their cake and eat it too, but it comes off as scummy to me.

Disclosure: I do occasionally bet.

Fully agree with you on the scumminess of sports personalities who advertise gambling then do a token "if you have a problem."

I actually have a lot of contempt for high paid performers who appear in gambling ads. I get no name actors trying to make it. Does Jamie Foxx really need cash? Why do the Mannings who've made hundreds of millions of dollars attach themselves to these products?

The most despicable part of gambling ads is they always feature the idea you win money gambling. Say what you will about Coca-Cola I've never seen them run an ad saying drink our product and you'll get six pack abs and have a lower chance of diabetes.

As for Bill Simmons, I enjoyed the early stages of his career. I have respect for some of project he's been creative director for. But his promotion of gambling is egregious even in comparison to the others. He argues it is a positive good.

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

It's bad (I never gamble).

I always find it hypocrisy when the Bill Simmons podcast or The Dunc'd On Podcasts have advertisements for "Need Gambling Help?" on the episodes but also have podcasts/episodes dedicated to gambling.

I guess they have their cake and eat it too, but it comes off as scummy to me.

Disclosure: I do occasionally bet.

Fully agree with you on the scumminess of sports personalities who advertise gambling then do a token "if you have a problem."

I actually have a lot of contempt for high paid performers who appear in gambling ads. I get no name actors trying to make it. Does Jamie Foxx really need cash? Why do the Mannings who've made hundreds of millions of dollars attach themselves to these products?

The most despicable part of gambling ads is they always feature the idea you win money gambling. Say what you will about Coca-Cola I've never seen them run an ad saying drink our product and you'll get six pack abs and have a lower chance of diabetes.

As for Bill Simmons, I enjoyed the early stages of his career. I have respect for some of project he's been creative director for. But his promotion of gambling is egregious even in comparison to the others. He argues it is a positive good.

Hm? What do you think ads like diet and zero are suggesting?

[sp6r=underrated]

It's bad (I never gamble).

I always find it hypocrisy when the Bill Simmons podcast or The Dunc'd On Podcasts have advertisements for "Need Gambling Help?" on the episodes but also have podcasts/episodes dedicated to gambling.

I guess they have their cake and eat it too, but it comes off as scummy to me.

Disclosure: I do occasionally bet.

Fully agree with you on the scumminess of sports personalities who advertise gambling then do a token "if you have a problem."

I actually have a lot of contempt for high paid performers who appear in gambling ads. I get no name actors trying to make it. Does Jamie Foxx really need cash? Why do the Mannings who've made hundreds of millions of dollars attach themselves to these products?

The most despicable part of gambling ads is they always feature the idea you win money gambling. Say what you will about Coca-Cola I've never seen them run an ad saying drink our product and you'll get six pack abs and have a lower chance of diabetes.

As for Bill Simmons, I enjoyed the early stages of his career. I have respect for some of project he's been creative director for. But his promotion of gambling is egregious even in comparison to the others. He argues it is a positive good.

Hm? What do you think ads like diet and zero are suggesting?

I have no love for soda companies but Diet/Coke Zero is implying you'll be at a lower risk for diabetes relative to consuming regular soda. I've also don't see soda ads that regularly show people getting ripped by drinking soda. This is normally, scummy corporate advertising.

By contrast all gambling commercials play up the idea you makemoney by gambling and lose money by not gambling. That puts gambling companies in my mind much closer to the old cigarette commercials

[falcolombardi]

since we were talking the other day about racial bias against black quarterbacks

how much do you think racial biases still cloud judgement of basketball players, or nationality biases for that matter or even any other kind of prejudice like play style biases or personality biases of certain kind?

i ask because when i got into basketball i didnt speak english so my first place to discuss basketball were spain basketball forums, and even as a teen i noticed how biased they were in favor of white amd European players

[sp6r=underrated]

since we were talking the other day about racial bias against black quarterbacks

how much do you think racial biases still cloud judgement of basketball players, or nationality biases for that matter or even any other kind of prejudice like play style biases or personality biases of certain kind?

i ask because when i got into basketball i didnt speak english so my first place to discuss basketball were spain basketball forums, and even as a teen i noticed how biased they were in favor of white amd European players

Racial still matter but since the NBA is almost monolithically black at the top end it expresses itself in different ways. It just isn't tenable to be an NBA fan and be totally biased against blacks the way it is with QBs in the NFL. I sometimes detect colorism when I see the top players.

With regards to QBs, I missed the conversation but I have an example to add. Maybe others gave it. If Ryan Tannehill was black he would get ripped as stupid everytime he's on the NFL and his athleticism would be discussed a lot more. You'd hear announcers say stuff like million dollar arm, good enough to be an SEC Tight end but just not smart enough to understand NFL defenses. Or could you imagine how good (insert 3rd string white QB) would be if you gave him Tannehill's athleticism

[falcolombardi]

since we were talking the other day about racial bias against black quarterbacks

how much do you think racial biases still cloud judgement of basketball players, or nationality biases for that matter or even any other kind of prejudice like play style biases or personality biases of certain kind?

i ask because when i got into basketball i didnt speak english so my first place to discuss basketball were spain basketball forums, and even as a teen i noticed how biased they were in favor of white amd European players

Racial still matter but since the NBA is almost monolithically black at the top end it expresses itself in different ways. It just isn't tenable to be an NBA fan and be totally biased against blacks the way it is with QBs in the NFL. I sometimes detect colorism when I see the top players.

With regards to QBs, I missed the conversation but I have an example to add. Maybe others gave it. If Ryan Tannehill was black he would get ripped as stupid everytime he's on the NFL and his athleticism would be discussed a lot more. You'd hear announcers say stuff like million dollar arm, good enough to be an SEC Tight end but just not smart enough to understand NFL defenses. Or could you imagine how good (insert 3rd string white QB) would be if you gave him Tannehill's athleticism

my impression is that for white players is harder for their defense and athletism to be recognized

while for black players their inteligence is less talked about

the standards for a black olayer to be called smart seem higher to me the same way that the standards for a white player to be recognized as athletic seem higher

[LAL1947]

Posting this thought in 3 messages because the images would make one post too long.

Part #1: 2021-22 Top 5 players generating the most high-quality looks for their teammates.

Read on Twitter

[LAL1947]

Part #2: 2021-22 Top 10 potential assists on open looks leaders.

[LAL1947]

Part #3: It is surprising to see the so-called "best passer" of all-time not listed in either the:

#1: Top 5 players generating the most high-quality looks for their teammates, or the
#2: Top 10 potential assists on open looks leaders.

If you're the best passer in the game and are not listed in category #1, surely, you should be in category #2, no? Especially if you have 31.4% usage. That accolade has always struck me as being an oxymoron because Lebron is not the best passer of All-Time... but is only called that because he passes well for a big guy.

It's as absurd as Tim Duncan being called the "Big Fundamental" simply because he had the basics right for a big guy. A player who was much more deserving of being called the Big Fundamental is Kobe Bryant, since he mastered every single skill in the game to a level that Duncan could only dream. By the way, this is not a nickname competition... the point is that wrongly given accolades and nicknames can wrongly add to the myth of past or current players. We don't call Kareem, MJ or Kobe the "Lord of the Rings" because that would be more appropriate for Bill Russell... although we could use that nickname on Robert Horry as a joke. The most appropriate nickname for Tim Duncan would've been the "Big Slow".

[Colbinii]

Part #3: It is surprising to see the so-called "best passer" of all-time not listed in either the:

#1: Top 5 players generating the most high-quality looks for their teammates, or the
#2: Top 10 potential assists on open looks leaders.

If you're the best passer in the game and are not listed in category #1, surely, you should be in category #2, no? Especially if you have 31.4% usage. That accolade has always struck me as being an oxymoron because Lebron is not the best passer of All-Time... but is only called that because he passes well for a big guy.

I disagree.

Passing Volume =/= Better passer

Passing to cutters in the lane for lay-ups aren't going to be listed in your data, even though those shots have a higher PPP than an open 3.

[Jaivl]

The most appropriate nickname for Tim Duncan would've been the "Big Slow".

[eminence]

"Big Slow" made me laugh.

But I do kinda agree with the general point that players get overrated a tad when they're outliers for their position/size.

[70sFan]

"Big Slow" made me laugh.

But I do kinda agree with the general point that players get overrated a tad when they're outliers for their position/size.

What other examples do you have? That's interesting topic actually, ignoring another LAL rant against Duncan (which is hillarious at this point).

[Colbinii]

"Big Slow" made me laugh.

But I do kinda agree with the general point that players get overrated a tad when they're outliers for their position/size.

What other examples do you have? That's interesting topic actually, ignoring another LAL rant against Duncan (which is hillarious at this point).

Chris Webber comes to mind

[70sFan]

"Big Slow" made me laugh.

But I do kinda agree with the general point that players get overrated a tad when they're outliers for their position/size.

What other examples do you have? That's interesting topic actually, ignoring another LAL rant against Duncan (which is hillarious at this point).

Chris Webber comes to mind

I think Webber is overrated more because of his flash, not because of the position he played. Another one is Arvydas Sabonis.

That said, I'd like to hear more non-passing examples.

[eminence]

"Big Slow" made me laugh.

But I do kinda agree with the general point that players get overrated a tad when they're outliers for their position/size.

What other examples do you have? That's interesting topic actually, ignoring another LAL rant against Duncan (which is hillarious at this point).

I probably need to expand a bit first. I don't generally think those types of players get overrated overall, but just in individual skill areas. People don't like adding the qualifier of 'for a big/small' every time when discussing a player (understandably), but then the line on what traditional skills fall to different sized people gets kind of blurred.

Kidd's rebounding and Dirk's shooting come to mind. Dirk is a strong shooter, don't get me wrong, but more into the very very good, fringe ATG category than GOAT level. Removing positional modifiers and Kidd is probably in the above average class of rebounder and not at all historically noteworthy.

Noting that being clearly better than your positional counterparts in certain skills is a great way to create impact, as long as you keep up in other areas.

[falcolombardi]

What other examples do you have? That's interesting topic actually, ignoring another LAL rant against Duncan (which is hillarious at this point).

Chris Webber comes to mind

I think Webber is overrated more because of his flash, not because of the position he played. Another one is Arvydas Sabonis.

That said, I'd like to hear more non-passing examples.

shooting in bigs is overated, specially before modern era

people talked a lot about arvydas 3 point shooting too, but his percentages would never allow him to take 3's today, brook López "snipership" is overstated because he is a center too although his percentages are a level above arvydas

handles in big interestingly enough may be the opposite, some big players with insane handles like magic, lebron or giannis dont have thay much credit for them (although some like durant do despite his handles being probably worse than all of the above)

[70sFan]

Chris Webber comes to mind

I think Webber is overrated more because of his flash, not because of the position he played. Another one is Arvydas Sabonis.

That said, I'd like to hear more non-passing examples.

shooting in bigs is overated, specially before modern era

people talked a lot about arvydas 3 point shooting too, but his percentages would never allow him to take 3's today, brook López "snipership" is overstated because he is a center too although his percentages are a level above arvydas

handles in big interestingly enough may be the opposite, some big players with insane handles like magic, lebron or giannis dont have thay much credit for them (although some like durant do despite his handles being probably worse than all of the above)

I think you went a bit too far with bolded, plenty of worse shooters than him took threes today.

I'd actually say that handles for bigs is a good example. Durant has been overrated in this case for a lot of time. The same applies to almost all bigs that have "great" flashy handles. Giannis is probably the only good ball-hanlding bigman whose handles are not overrated. His ability to protect the ball and to manipulate it through small spaces is really impressive, even though his handles still are the product of our era.