NBA OFF TOPIC THREAD

[tlance]

and here again is your original comment from bayless' comment. You were at least correct in saying neither accomplishment deserved an asterisk - never mind you went to great lengths to defend Riley saying Lakers' win deserved one - but it's clear the Dodgers accomplishment was made tougher by the change in playoff format. Zero reason for an asterisk when accomplishment is made tougher. You've had some time to think about it...come up with any example in sports before this where someone suggested an asterisk for a tougher accomplishment?

I wanted to reply separately for this one.

I just did 2 google searches. List of NBA champs and list of MLB champs and looked at the Wikipedia lists.

Guess what? Both lists contained footnotes when something was out of the ordinary. Like in baseball when they played a best of 9 World Series or they had the shortened seasons in the NBA.

That was all I was referencing. That is it. Nothing more. Making the asterisk interchangeable with the footnote. And I have explained this multiple times while you continue to ignore it.

Again, my original quote has absolutely nothing to do with “difficulty”.

But keep inventing other narratives if you must.

 

[dtgold88]

Yep Indy looks really good and they play in a shitty division. They should be around 10 or 11 wins

agree shitty division, but might want to look at rest of schedule. Brutal.....

TN X 2, Steelers, Bmore, GB and @LV

 

[dtgold88]

I wanted to reply separately for this one.

I just did 2 google searches. List of NBA champs and list of MLB champs and looked at the Wikipedia lists.

Guess what? Both lists contained footnotes when something was out of the ordinary. Like in baseball when they played a best of 9 World Series or they had the shortened seasons in the NBA.

That was all I was referencing. That is it. Nothing more. Making the asterisk interchangeable with the footnote. And I have explained this multiple times while you continue to ignore it.

Again, my original quote has absolutely nothing to do with “difficulty”.

But keep inventing other narratives if you must.

No one is talking about asterisks as footnotes for being "out of ordinary". Asterisks everyone but you seems to get are used to imply something might have been easier than it should have been.

what is most comical is you make this argument but also say "I don't think there should be an asterisk"

I should sit back and let you fight with yourself. Go ahead and have the last word.

 

[bksballer89]

agree shitty division, but might want to look at rest of schedule. Brutal.....

TN X 2, Steelers, Bmore, GB and @LV

I still see 10-11 wins. They're a good team with one of the best defense in football (3rd in yards allowed per game & 5th in points allowed per game.

If Phillip Rivers doesn't throw his ridiculous INT then they're a 10-11 win team.

I think they split with GB and Bal and split their 2 games with Ten. Win at least 3 of the other 5 (HOU 2x, Raiders, Pit, and Jags)

 

[dtgold88]

My reply here had nothing to do with Pat Riley. Nor did my point here have anything at all to do with the difficulty of the title runs.

And you accuse me of “being all over the place”?

LOL.

Typical dtgold. Don’t listen to what the other person is actually saying, just make shit up.

yes...you are all over the place. No need to make anything up.

you - Lakers don't deserve an asterisk
you - Makes excuses for Riley for saying they deserved an asterisk
you - Dodgers do not deserve an asterisk
you - if either deserves one Dodgers do more because format changed

First 2 clearly imply you are all over the place. Last 2 are just absurd as the team whose goal was made harder to reach certainly does not deserve the asterisk.

yes, I do get what you are attempting to say by using footnote versions but most think of asterisks used in sports because the goal was made easier. Not harder.

typical tlance having a meltdown because someone dares not agree with him.

 

[dtgold88]

I still see 10-11 wins. They're a good team with one of the best defense in football (3rd in yards allowed per game & 5th in points allowed per game.

If Phillip Rivers doesn't throw his ridiculous INT then they're a 10-11 win team.

I think they split with GB and Bal and split their 2 games with Ten. Win at least 3 of the other 5 (HOU 2x, Raiders, Pit, and Jags)

I'm not implying it cannot happen so don't get me wrong. Just like I'm not implying the Browns wont win the 10 you said they should.

But I believe Pitt and Bmore are losses along with 1 TN for Indy. GB and LV tough as well, and don't know what to make of Houston. are they as bad as they've looked so far or can they play more like they did last year with watson leading them (lean they just might not be a good team this year).

I think Indy goes 9-7 with a decent shot at 10-6. I'd like to think same for Browns but their D really concerns me.

 

[trojanfan12]

No one is talking about asterisks as footnotes for being "out of ordinary". Asterisks everyone but you seems to get are used to imply something might have been easier than it should have been.

This, imo, is the problem. I don't recall an asterisk necessarily being a negative thing until Lebron went to Miami and people started wanting to put an asterisk on those titles because he "stacked the team". They were always more neutral.

To me, an asterisk is nothing more than a way to point out that there was something different about that season. Maybe the 9 game World Series that MLB used to have that is now 7, interrupted by war, strike/lockout shortened seasons and currently, the pandemic. Things like that.

The point, imo, isn't to state whether the path to a title was made easier or more difficult, it's just to show that it was not a "normal" season. It's why you wouldn't attach an asterisk to, for example, the Raptors title because the Warriors lost their 3 best players to injury. Injuries are a "normal" part of the game. Losing that many top players to injury may not be "normal", but injuries are and it certainly wasn't the only title effected by them.

So, imo, attaching an asterisk to titles won this year, would be appropriate to point out the circumstances under which the games were played and the titles won. But as far as being used to "lessen" the accomplishment...that's just stupid. But, there are a lot of stupid people who will do just that.

So, in short, I guess that asterisks are just another thing that we can blame Lebron for. lol

 

[Wamu]

Um, if your defense holds the other team to 16, I think you gotta look elsewhere for what went wrong.

You didn't watch the game did you? Dammit I don't want to defend Mayfiled, but you've left me no choice. The Raiders had the ball for 37:43 (is that his fault?). He's been playing with a cracked rib. The teams # 1 rb, wr, te & didn't play**. I'll be the first person to criticize Mayfield when he deserves it. And while he didn't play good on Sunday, weather sucked and a number of dropped passes (are the dropped passes his fault?), this loss isn't soley on him.

** How many teams would be successful if their QB is playing through an injury and doesn't have his # 1 rb, wr & te?

 

[trojanfan12]

You didn't watch the game did you? Dammit I don't want to defend Mayfiled, but you've left me no choice. The Raiders had the ball for 37:43 (is that his fault?). He's been playing with a cracked rib. The teams # 1 rb, wr, te & didn't play**. I'll be the first person to criticize Mayfield when he deserves it. And while he didn't play good on Sunday, weather sucked and a number of dropped passes (are the dropped passes his fault?), this loss isn't soley on him.

** How many teams would be successful if their QB is playing through an injury and doesn't have his # 1 rb, wr & te?

These are all good points and certainly true. But, imo, that's part of the problem here. It seems that it's never Baker just played bad. There's always a laundry list of excuses to explain away why he played bad. Why it's not his fault.

Additionally, he's been in the league long enough, has enough weapons and has enough starts under his belt that he should be showing signs of being able to overcome those kinds of things if he's truly worthy of his draft status.

I'm not saying he's a bad quarterback, he's not. I think he's a starting quality QB, but he's not a guy who's really going to elevate other players like an elite quarterback.

I think that the Browns could win a lot of games and maybe even a Super Bowl with him as QB. Heck, there are worse QB's than Baker who have Super Bowl rings. Guys who's biggest contributions were that they stayed in their lane and just didn't screw things up. If the Browns do start having playoff success I don't think it will be because Baker led them to it.

It won't be as bad as a guy like Dilfer...but it won't be as good as a Brady, Wilson, etc. either.

 

[tlance]

This, imo, is the problem. I don't recall an asterisk necessarily being a negative thing until Lebron went to Miami and people started wanting to put an asterisk on those titles because he "stacked the team". They were always more neutral.

To me, an asterisk is nothing more than a way to point out that there was something different about that season. Maybe the 9 game World Series that MLB used to have that is now 7, interrupted by war, strike/lockout shortened seasons and currently, the pandemic. Things like that.

The point, imo, isn't to state whether the path to a title was made easier or more difficult, it's just to show that it was not a "normal" season. It's why you wouldn't attach an asterisk to, for example, the Raptors title because the Warriors lost their 3 best players to injury. Injuries are a "normal" part of the game. Losing that many top players to injury may not be "normal", but injuries are and it certainly wasn't the only title effected by them.

So, imo, attaching an asterisk to titles won this year, would be appropriate to point out the circumstances under which the games were played and the titles won. But as far as being used to "lessen" the accomplishment...that's just stupid. But, there are a lot of stupid people who will do just that.

So, in short, I guess that asterisks are just another thing that we can blame Lebron for. lol

Exactly.

Which is the exact point I was trying to make.

 

[tlance]

yes...you are all over the place. No need to make anything up.

you - Lakers don't deserve an asterisk
you - Makes excuses for Riley for saying they deserved an asterisk
you - Dodgers do not deserve an asterisk
you - if either deserves one Dodgers do more because format changed

First 2 clearly imply you are all over the place. Last 2 are just absurd as the team whose goal was made harder to reach certainly does not deserve the asterisk.

yes, I do get what you are attempting to say by using footnote versions but most think of asterisks used in sports because the goal was made easier. Not harder.

typical tlance having a meltdown because someone dares not agree with him.

BS.

Typical you claiming someone else is being “irrational” because you either:

1) aren’t bright enough to follow a pretty simple point of logic
2) just strive to create drama out of nothing

My guess is a little of both.

 

[tlance]

These are all good points and certainly true. But, imo, that's part of the problem here. It seems that it's never Baker just played bad. There's always a laundry list of excuses to explain away why he played bad. Why it's not his fault.

Additionally, he's been in the league long enough, has enough weapons and has enough starts under his belt that he should be showing signs of being able to overcome those kinds of things if he's truly worthy of his draft status.

I'm not saying he's a bad quarterback, he's not. I think he's a starting quality QB, but he's not a guy who's really going to elevate other players like an elite quarterback.

I think that the Browns could win a lot of games and maybe even a Super Bowl with him as QB. Heck, there are worse QB's than Baker who have Super Bowl rings. Guys who's biggest contributions were that they stayed in their lane and just didn't screw things up. If the Browns do start having playoff success I don't think it will be because Baker led them to it.

It won't be as bad as a guy like Dilfer...but it won't be as good as a Brady, Wilson, etc. either.

The problem is that people like Wiggy set the expectation bar impossibly high.

So just doing his job isn’t nearly enough in the minds of a lot of critics.

 

[Wamu]

These are all good points and certainly true. But, imo, that's part of the problem here. It seems that it's never Baker just played bad. There's always a laundry list of excuses to explain away why he played bad. Why it's not his fault.

Additionally, he's been in the league long enough, has enough weapons and has enough starts under his belt that he should be showing signs of being able to overcome those kinds of things if he's truly worthy of his draft status.

I'm not saying he's a bad quarterback, he's not. I think he's a starting quality QB, but he's not a guy who's really going to elevate other players like an elite quarterback.

I think that the Browns could win a lot of games and maybe even a Super Bowl with him as QB. Heck, there are worse QB's than Baker who have Super Bowl rings. Guys who's biggest contributions were that they stayed in their lane and just didn't screw things up. If the Browns do start having playoff success I don't think it will be because Baker led them to it.

It won't be as bad as a guy like Dilfer...but it won't be as good as a Brady, Wilson, etc. either.

My bad. I forgot any legit injuries that happen to the Browns aren't a valid excuse for anything. You probably blame him for the Raiders having the ball for more than 37 minutes.

It's always easy to trash a player you don't like. In this case while Mayfield had a bad game not everything was his fault in that loss. Shit I can't believe I'm defending him. Not the way I expected to start things. Like I've said before, wasn't happy my team drafted that jackass in the first place.

"these are all good pints and certainly true. But IMO that's part of the problem here"

Damn right the injuries were part of the problem. I don't care what QB is being talked about. Take away his # 1 rb, wr, & te and there will be some problems. Or do you disagree that a QB missing his main weapons is only an issue for the Browns and wouldn't be an issue for any other team?

 

[trojanfan12]

The problem is that people like Wiggy set the expectation bar impossibly high.

So just doing his job isn’t nearly enough in the minds of a lot of critics.

Yeah, I'm starting to see him as the Lonzo Ball of the NFL. Lonzo is a starting quality point guard and a team can have a lot of success with him as their starting PG.

But he'll never be the guy who leads the team to that success as you would expect him to be given his draft status and the hype that he came into the league with.

 

[trojanfan12]

My bad. I forgot any legit injuries that happen to the Browns aren't a valid excuse for anything. You probably blame him for the Raiders having the ball for more than 37 minutes.

That's what you got out of that? That, and because "I don't like him"? Point out where I've said I don't like him.

Do better.

 

[trojanfan12]

Or do you disagree that a QB missing his main weapons is only an issue for the Browns and wouldn't be an issue for any other team?

I've seen Russell Wilson take the Seahawks to the playoffs with practically no weapons.

This season, with some weapons, he has them at 6-1 despite having one of the worst defenses in the league.

So yes, a QB can overcome those things if he's good enough. So far, Baker hasn't been.

 

[Wamu]

That's what you got out of that? That, and because "I don't like him"? Point out where I've said I don't like him.

Do better.

Hey I don't agree with what you're saying. You wanna keep this discussion going that's fine. But no matter what you say it won't change my mind.

 

[trojanfan12]

Hey I don't agree with what you're saying. You wanna keep this discussion going that's fine. But no matter what you say it won't change my mind.

Disagreeing is fine.

But that was some made up bullshit that you posted.

 

[Wamu]

I've seen Russell Wilson take the Seahawks to the playoffs with practically no weapons.

This season, with some weapons, he has them at 6-1 despite having one of the worst defenses in the league.

So yes, a QB can overcome those things if he's good enough. So far, Baker hasn't been.

I always get a great laugh outta anyone that tries to compare Mayfield to the top QB's in the league. Mayfield ain't Wilson. He's of of the best QB's in the league. And Mayfield isn't anywhere near his level.

 

[bksballer89]

But that was some made up bullshit that you posted.

No surprise there