|
United States4471 Posts
In reading analysis on Lin to get an idea of how he did in HOU, I came to the general conclusion that Beverley doesn't seem to deserve his reputation as an elite defender. The numbers don't support it, and he generally rated out about the same as Lin. It appears to be a case where people are being fooled by how he defends (i.e. all-out hustle and effort) without paying attention to his actual on-court impact. When you then include the fact that he doesn't contribute much at all on offense apart from offensive rebounding, it starts to look like HOU might have a significant problem at the PG spot next season.
P.S. Unrelated to the above, I've never liked Beverley as a player. I respect his hustle and effort, but his approach to the game is reckless and obnoxious. You can argue that there's no faulting a player for trying his best all the time, but there's a point at which hustle and effort don't justify the risks he's creating by playing that way. At some point, a player has to consider how his play might affect the other players on the court, such as causing injury. An example would be undercutting airborne players or diving at players' knees.
I don't think he purposely tried to injure Westbrook the first time, or that it was THAT reckless of a play. However, him doing the same thing on the first game against Westbrook after his recovery is bushleague BS, as was the play where he tried to grab the ball from behind Westbrook by wrapping his arms around Westbrook's head later that same game. At that point, he's just being a reckless asshole who is trying to make a show of himself. It's not about the team anymore, but about him maintaining his reputation. A lack of regard for other players is also deplorable, no matter the motivation behind it.
|
The problem with Lin was that he got hurt and his productivity dropped. He was putting up really good numbers early on iirc. Fans just started scapegoating him because the last year of his contract was $15 mil and he got called overrated. He's actually solid when healthy. Guy is very athletic too.
|
United States4471 Posts
The problem with the Stephen A thing is that he did a poor job of articulating what he was trying to convey, which left the door open to misinterpret what he was saying in a very offensive manner on a very sensitive topic. I do think that what Ace said was what Stephen A was trying to say, but he did a piss poor job of it and left room to interpret it badly. He didn't do a good job of explaining it afterward either with his series of tweets.
I think Beadle overreacted and chose to interpret Stephen A's comments in the most extreme way possible. Her tweet about how Stephen A's comments somehow suggesting that she shouldn't wear a miniskirt for fear of provoking violence against her was a huge stretch as there was nothing he said that could be interpreted as saying that women provoked violence by dressing a certain way. She, like many others, heard the word provoke/provocation and blew her lid without really paying attention to the context of the comment.
There is definitely a lot wrong with how domestic violence is treated by our society when it comes to perception of victims, but this situation is not a good one to pick to fight that battle. The pro-Beadle side (from what I read) is taking too extreme of a position on the issue, which is just going to paint them as irrational. Stephen A said some foolish and stupid things on the topic, but he's hardly an example of the problems we have on this issue.
|
Yeah, he shouldn't have touched the topic at all, it's too sensitive for someone non-expert to casually talk about it in mass media like that. From a purely pragmatic point of view he may have a point, but from a theoretical point of view that speech of his was too much on the rape culture-esque side. He probably meant "trigger" instead of "provoke", but he got caught for it, like me trying to slip a set shot against a 6'7 guy ;D
I think the punishment is deserved (although I wouldn't call it "well-deserved" :D), if only to teach him not to touch the hot stuff. Non-sport hot stuff, that is.
|
Now if only they'd stop commentating on all the other social issues they have no business commenting on.
|
There's a lot wrong with what what SAS said. It doesn't matter that she spat at him etc. He should not do what he did. Period.
Now SAS didn't defend rice in that regard. But his argument is odd. She didnt deserve to be assaulted but if she didn't spit on him she doesnt put herself in a position to be assaulted? That's a BS argument and Beadle was right to call him out. She's not being a bitch for calling a spade a spade. It's victim blaming.
|
I don't think you understand the argument or why Beadle should also be suspended.
It does matter that she spat on him. It does not matter that she is a woman. When you assault someone you can not be surprised if they retaliate. Just because society has a rule that says "men should not hit women" it doesn't mean these men are going to follow it. You shouldn't be provoking ANYONE to violence.
What Beadle did was take what Stephen A said and put it on the level of blaming the victim and taking it into rape culture. That is not what he was speaking about. Simmons got suspended for criticizing a colleague in public and Beadle did worse and gets off lightly. Double standards.
|
I can't comment on the suspension thing with beadle... I'm not sure of the history you mention.
SAS's argument is still wrong imo and it implies she got what was coming to her (regardless of gender).
People should not assault eachother. That's the end of it. She shouldn't spit at him and he shouldn't do what he did even if he was "provoked". Abd the fact there's an obvious power disparity between the two makes Rice's actions worse.
|
No, be careful. He is NOT saying that. Please, read this carefully. He is not advocating that a woman deserves to be hit because she provoked the situation. I repeat, read this again.
What he is saying is when you provoke someone, do not be surprised when they retaliate. If you are a woman not all men care that society says they shouldn't hit you - they WILL get violent. Hence, do not go putting your hands on another person.
Majority of people are in agreement that Rice's actions are worse (based on the video we saw with her head hitting the ground). Just about everyone is surprised he only got 2 games although I heard the reason is because the NFL has access to the full tape and a lot more happened that absolves him of a lot of blame. But abstract out and think of this as Person A and Person B and not simply a man/woman dispute. That is coloring the discussion a certain way and not giving Smith's argument the correct context.
|
United States4471 Posts
On July 31 2014 08:59 RowdierBob wrote:
There's a lot wrong with what what SAS said. It doesn't matter that she spat at him etc. He should not do what he did. Period.
Now SAS didn't defend rice in that regard. But his argument is odd. She didnt deserve to be assaulted but if she didn't spit on him she doesnt put herself in a position to be assaulted? That's a BS argument and Beadle was right to call him out. She's not being a bitch for calling a spade a spade. It's victim blaming.
I think what SAS was trying to get at is that women should be aware that there are some bad men out there who will be violent towards them, and that women should be wary of doing anything that would "provoke" such bad men into violence. He makes sure to repeatedly say that he doesn't condone or excuse such men for being violent towards women and that there is no excuse for men to be violent towards women, so I don't think that he intended to place blame on women who "provoked" these types of bad men. His biggest problem is the use of the word provoke, which suggests initiation or being the main cause.
If I were to try to make an analogy, I believe his point was something akin to advising people to drive extra careful late at night to avoid drunk drivers. It's not excusing the drunk drivers in any way for what is inexcusable behavior or blaming the potential victim for not looking out for drunk drivers, but instead warning people that there are idiots out there that they need to be extra careful to avoid under certain circumstances. It's not a good analogy and I'm just assuming that's what SAS was trying to get at, but it's what I got from the context of his long, unorganized diatribe.
Further, I think SAS gets in trouble when he said that "we" need to discuss or look at what women are doing in terms of provoking violent behavior from men. At that point, he's shifting the focus onto the behavior of the women victims, which, without any further explanation, could easily be seen as accusatory or critical. I think he should have been more careful and made sure that he was coming off as suggesting that we talk about ways women can avoid or protect themselves from violence, as opposed to ways to not provoke it.
|
United States4471 Posts
By the way, let's try to limit how far we go on this topic. Maybe a few more posts at most. I'd prefer not to have this thread derailed into what is largely a non-NBA topic.
|
But so what?! It's strawman in the first degree.
Of course provoking someone can elicit a violent reaction. But that doesn't make said reaction justifiable.
What's smith saying then. Ok, great, people can react violently when provoked. Well duh. But it doesn't justify any subsequent reaction and that's the slippery slope smiths comments imply when he says don't put yourself into a position to provoke/assault someone in the first place.
|
Yeah, good idea cyric... Too OT.
Sooo K Love is apparently 99% going to Cavs. Is Flip dumb enough to accept a deal not containing Wiggins?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the strict logical implications can be misleading because the audience isn't going to care about what he actually said and just treat it as a side picking game.
|
On July 31 2014 09:42 RowdierBob wrote:
Yeah, good idea cyric... Too OT.
Sooo K Love is apparently 99% going to Cavs. Is Flip dumb enough to accept a deal not containing Wiggins?
Idk at the beginning g of all this we said there was no way the cavs give up wiggins. The thing about love is he's definitely leaving at the end of the year and everyone knows it so they can lowball you with the knowledge you either have to give in or let him walk for nothing. And if love really has expressed so much interest in Cleveland the. The cavs could just say they'd wait if flip insists on more
|
Im more suprised that so many people care about something so ridiculous. Yea SAS fucked up this time, but who cares.
|
On July 31 2014 09:50 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 09:42 RowdierBob wrote:
Yeah, good idea cyric... Too OT.
Sooo K Love is apparently 99% going to Cavs. Is Flip dumb enough to accept a deal not containing Wiggins? Idk at the beginning g of all this we said there was no way the cavs give up wiggins. The thing about love is he's definitely leaving at the end of the year and everyone knows it so they can lowball you with the knowledge you either have to give in or let him walk for nothing. And if love really has expressed so much interest in Cleveland the. The cavs could just say they'd wait if flip insists on more
Carmelo situation all over again. The difference here is the Cavs fear the Warriors coming to their senses and trading Klay Thompson for Love. Otherwise waiting and getting Love in FA would be "easier".
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if love's agent puts it out there that he'll only resign in cleveland like it's been reported (though by SAS) then they might get him without wiggins. but who knows this story has changed version so many times it's not worth following until something concrete happens
|
i agree with SAS. dont press no buttons when you know damn well you shouldnt press them. especially true to couples.
only referring to the act of provoking someone. not about anything after that.
|
On July 31 2014 09:41 RowdierBob wrote:
But so what?! It's strawman in the first degree.
Of course provoking someone can elicit a violent reaction. But that doesn't make said reaction justifiable.
What's smith saying then. Ok, great, people can react violently when provoked. Well duh. But it doesn't justify any subsequent reaction and that's the slippery slope smiths comments imply when he says don't put yourself into a position to provoke/assault someone in the first place.
There is no slope. The sensibility is a 99% analogy to "lock your car". But Steven a is still dumb, because every male who graduated college knows that the pc police flip out about pointing to obvious stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
