| Forum Index > General Games |
|
ecstatica
United States542 Posts
On February 18 2012 12:35 buickskylark wrote: that's prolly cause the ball wasn't in his hand as much. Excuse me? If you were riding it the way you claimed in a fan thread that somehow got buried after just 1 game, this isnt how you react to it. He looked similar to previous games midpoint yet somehow youre already turning?.. All I gots to say is - ahahahahaha | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On February 18 2012 12:46 buickskylark wrote: It's going to be very interesting to see how Lin and especially the media handles this loss. And then when they lose to the Mavs, o......my.......god. Shit = fan. If Knicks lose to those scrubs...  | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Zona
40426 Posts
On February 18 2012 12:32 Ace wrote: Very real possibility of the Knicks missing the playoffs It's already interesting that the Lin shift has led to Knicks making the playoffs now being assumed, and not making the playoffs will be the surprise. | ||
|
buickskylark
Canada664 Posts
On February 18 2012 12:53 ecstatica wrote: Excuse me? If you were riding it the way you claimed in a fan thread that somehow got buried after just 1 game, this isnt how you react to it. He looked similar to previous games midpoint yet somehow youre already turning?.. All I gots to say is - ahahahahaha no, the ball literally was not in his hand as much cause he was sitting on the bench. | ||
|
ecstatica
United States542 Posts
On February 18 2012 13:02 buickskylark wrote: no, the ball literally was not in his hand as much cause he was sitting on the bench. Im glad we established this was the only way to stop bleeding TOs (from your word) aka linning. Maybe with better TO ratio they have a chance? Aka Lin sits. In all seriousnes it isnt the TO number, its how he turns the ball. He looks so unrefined and fragile its not funny. | ||
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On February 18 2012 13:02 Zona wrote: It's already interesting that the Lin shift has led to Knicks making the playoffs now being assumed, and not making the playoffs will be the surprise. well I just double checked and they look like they'll be stuck in 8th. Cleveland actually would have had a real shot of getting 8th but Varajeo broke his wrist. But, the Knicks need to get 4th or 5th to avoid a likely 1st round sweep vs Miami/Chicago/Philly. Dark days ahead of Knicks fans. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On February 18 2012 13:08 Ace wrote: well I just double checked and they look like they'll be stuck in 8th. Cleveland actually would have had a real shot of getting 8th but Varajeo broke his wrist. But, the Knicks need to get 4th or 5th to avoid a likely 1st round sweep vs Miami/Chicago/Philly. Dark days ahead of Knicks fans. I hate the Varajeo injury. Secretly I wish there was a team with a Noah/Varajeo frontcourt. So much energy... I think it could work with a Nash or CP3 at point. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Kloisterman...my god. Dude said Jeremy Lin honestly has a chance to win the MVP award. /facepalm | ||
|
scaban84
United States1080 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On February 18 2012 13:51 Ace wrote: Just finished listening to Bill Simmons podcast with Chuck Kloisterman. Reminded me of why no one in their right mind takes his basketball "knowledge" seriously and why he's disliked in so many NBA circles. Kloisterman...my god. Dude said Jeremy Lin honestly has a chance to win the MVP award. /facepalm Klosterman is very smart. He's not as smart as he thinks but he is very smart. He's also more of an "anthropologist" or a cultural "historian" than an analyst. He was just saying how he believed people would vote if the Knicks' success continued. I don't think he truly believes that Jeremy Lin is an MVP caliber player. Also, you seem to dislike every sportswriter. Who is a good basketball writer? | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
As for guys I do like: Matt Moore, David Thorpe, Hollinger when he isn't talking about PER, Henry Abbott, Zach Harper and my current favorite Jonathan Tjarks. Those guys with the exception of Hollinger, and to a certain degree Moore since he seems to not understand statisitics too well, offer a great blend of the big picture of basketball most of the time. There are also a ton of lesser known but good writers I've read over the years I don't remember and some of them even have stuff on the true hoop blog. But guys like Stephen A Smith and Bill Simmons are usually the type that while entertaining, are only correct once every 4 months. And with Simmons it becomes VERY clear he doesn't watch the games or is literally just that stupid. ETA: How could I forget, Dan LeBetard is probably the best of the major sports writers. His radio show is funny but he actually asks shit that matters. He's wrong a bunch also but with him it's easy to see his rationalizations and that he actually wants to understand why basketball players win and lose. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
I think sensationalist writers have largely gone away. I mean, who still really thinks Bill Plashke or Buzz Bissenger or Rick Reilly are opinions we should respect? I think Simmons is fabulous. His articles are must read, even now. I suspect every (at least many) modern sports writers cite him as a major influence, from a stylistic stand point. As for his basketball knowledge, I disagree with you. He doesn't know as much as Thorpe, that's for sure. But his biases are no worse than Abbot's or Harper's. For the record, like Moore and Harper, I read them a lot on Hardwood Paroxysm. As a for instance, I thought the same thing as Simmons about Del Negro's (would it be weird if I just wrote Negro? Because I was about to before I caught that,) substitution patterns and rotations. They are weird. | ||
|
x2fst
1272 Posts
| ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
I also don't mind his bias. I know he's biased. In fact him being biased is actually what makes him good. Writing, and coming across from the point of view as a fan invested in the game is why he's better than a lot of boring sports writers. He puts his opinions out front for everyone to hear. The issue is when he starts confusing his opinion with fact - he gets embarrased in conversations with guys like Marc Steirn and Ric Bucher who really don't know shit themselves. If you remember, ESPN let Simmons do a Golden State game with Breen and Jackson last year I wanna say. He was SO bad and got roasted for it on Twitter because it was painfully obvious: he didn't know shit. Ever since then they have been careful with letting him on TV: no more games, no PTI appearances, podcasts only. ESPN knows he's super popular but they also know turning athletes and their camps against them is the last thing they want. When he did that podcast with Bob Ryan a good point was brought up: Teams these days try to protect their players from the media a lot more than back then. Why? Because the media is always looking for a way to turn on athletes just for a big story. Athletes are so self aware these days they have the media by the balls because they don't need ESPN, NBC, the NBA or any major newspaper to market them. Twitter, before that Facebook, before that Myspace and always the internet and wireless comms have made these entities less relevant. ETA: Also the really big guys like Lebron, Wade, Melo, Chris Paul, Kobe, Durant, Howard, Rose - they've got major backing from the giant shoe companies Nike and Adidas. Kobe is the perfect example of how an athlete can get killed by the media and come back and have them eating out of the palm of his hands: they need him much more than he needs them. On February 18 2012 14:30 x2fst wrote: zach lowe is prob the best Forgot about him, he's great too. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On February 18 2012 14:38 Ace wrote: Well him calling out Del Negro isn't exactly a major revelation - he's pretty bad because he didn't come from a coaching tree. But he really underrates the impact of coaching on the NBA level when everyone and their mom agrees - without good coaching you'll need an insanely good roster to win a title. I also don't mind his bias. I know he's biased. In fact him being biased is actually what makes him good. Writing, and coming across from the point of view as a fan invested in the game is why he's better than a lot of boring sports writers. He puts his opinions out front for everyone to hear. The issue is when he starts confusing his opinion with fact - he gets embarrased in conversations with guys like Marc Steirn and Ric Bucher who really don't know shit themselves. If you remember, ESPN let Simmons do a Golden State game with Breen and Jackson last year I wanna say. He was SO bad because and got roasted for it on Twitter because it was painfully obvious: he didn't know shit. Ever since then they have been careful with letting him on TV: no more games, no PTI appearances, podcasts only. ESPN knows he's super popular but they also know turning athletes and their camps against them is the last thing they want. When he did that podcast with Bob Ryan a good point was brought up: Teams these days try to protect their players from the media a lot more than back then. Why? Because the media is always looking for a way to turn on athletes just for a big story. Athletes are so self aware these days they have the media by the balls because they don't need ESPN, NBC, the NBA or any major newspaper to market them. Twitter, before that Facebook, before that Myspace and always the internet and wireless comms have made these entities less relevant. Forgot about him, he's great too. I did watch that game. And he reminded me of Tony Kornheiser on Monday Night Football. That's probably what he wanted to be, honestly. Simmons has one massive issue and that's intellectual depth. He will casually make claims and sweeping theories but whenever they're challenged, if you go deep enough, they often fall apart. I recall on a podcast with Klosterman, Klosterman asked him some kind of question regarding his image/identity vis-a-vis the current sports world. Simmons took this as Klosterman calling him a shill or something like that, when Klosterman was just trying to get meta with his impact. As for guys like Broussard, Woj, Stein, Michael A. Smith they're just reporters, not really writers. Their opinions are basically worthless, they just know the news before anyone else does. I think I'll always respect and like Simmons. I hope that doesn't make me blind to his flaws. And he was fine on PTI, he and LeBatard aren't that different. Also, Kobe is putting on an old guard on a scoring clinic tonight. | ||
|
buickskylark
Canada664 Posts
On February 18 2012 14:39 Daozzt wrote: I don't get why people think Lin making T/O's was the reason the Knicks lost. They chucked open shots all game long and missed them regardless of Lin being on the floor. There is literally no ball movement/penetration without him and everyone just stands on the perimeter looking clueless. The Knicks' 3 pt offense with Walker, Novak etc is just fucking sad to watch, and Lin was basically a blessing from god for them even though he does get a lot of T/O's. The Knicks will still probably make the playoffs though, I don't really see them getting passed up by any of the teams below them in the next 30 games, especially when Melo returns. Lin said himself that if you credit him with the 7 straight wins, you definitely need to credit him with the loss as well. 9 TOs is just awful, especially when they resulted in 18 or so points? But regardless of what he said, the whole team just came out flat and those missed FTs. My god. Are they one of the worst FT teams or what. Lin himself isn't very good either for a PG. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
