[NBA] Comments that don't warrant a thread (MAR-TBD)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2
I mean, they started the season on a nice run and everyone seemed ready to fall all over themselves talking about how the Suns were better than the Kings now and how Devin Booker had taken that leap into superstardom and how Monty Williams was finally getting his chance to show the world how he was a good coach. And yet, here we are.
I mean, you could write this word for word about the King's last season, and we're even worse this season. We're not exactly in a position to look down on the Suns.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#5
I mean, you could write this word for word about the King's last season, and we're even worse this season. We're not exactly in a position to look down on the Suns.
To be fair to last season's team, our record then was much better than the Suns is now AND we came out of nowhere whereas the Suns have been the "When will the bad players get out of supposed superstar's way" team since Booker's rookie season.
 
#16
Fouls are within the confines of the rules.
They're not, otherwise you wouldn't be penalised for them. But it was a nice quip that garnered you a few likes. In any case, the point was that players and fans shouldn't be getting all butthurt just because someone does what Trae did. Getting all upset and flagrant fouling someone is pathetic.
 
#18
Yes, they are, because penalties are also part of the game. Otherwise, you would get thrown out of the game for committing fouls, and not merely "penalized." If fouls weren't part of the game, free throws wouldn't be, either.
You've now moved the goalposts from "within the confines of the ruleset" to "part of the game". I'm not saying fouls aren't part of the game. Disqualifications are also part of the game, that doesn't mean they're playing within the ruleset, unless you do all sorts of mental gymnastics to argue they are. Fouls are against the rules, obviously. I said players should defend Trae within the ruleset. A pretty clear-cut, simple point, that you couldn't resist arguing about. Brawls are also part of the game, but not part of the ruleset, hence penalised more heavily.

The original point was that if Trae putting it through their legs hurts the players egos that much, they should defend him better. Punking him for a skillful play (however unnecessary) is mentally weak. Of course you had to get all pedantic and try to point score.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#19
You've now moved the goalposts from "within the confines of the ruleset" to "part of the game".
No, I haven't. Fouls are within the confines of the rules. That's why they're written into the rules. Technically, penalties are, too, but you appear to feel some kind of way about me "getting all pedantic." Hard fouls are both "within the rules" and "part of the game." Brawls are not "part of the game," that's why brawling leads to an automatic ejection, and hard fouls do not.

I said players should defend Trae within the ruleset.
What you said was that players should stop Trae Young "within the confines of the rules," which they are absolutely doing. What you appear to have meant was, players should be required to stop Trae Young, without fouling him and, if they can't, they just have to eat it. I don't agree that they have to defend him without fouling; it would be ideal, but fouls are allowed for a reason. If they feel like it's worth giving up two points and possession to stop him from doing that, that's still within the rules.

The original point was that if Trae putting it through their legs hurts the players egos that much, they should defend him better. Punking him for a skillful play (however unnecessary) is mentally weak.
Your original point was reductive: play better defense, such brilliant analysis. If you can stop him in a way that doesn't get you thrown out of the game, then that's the way that you use. Trae Young is sure to try to nutmeg somebody again, the next time he thinks he has a chance to do so but, if he doesn't do it to Trevor Ariza again then, as far as Trevor Ariza is concerned, what he did worked.
 
#20
No, I haven't. Fouls are within the confines of the rules. That's why they're written into the rules. Technically, penalties are, too, but you appear to feel some kind of way about me "getting all pedantic." Hard fouls are both "within the rules" and "part of the game." Brawls are not "part of the game," that's why brawling leads to an automatic ejection, and hard fouls do not.


What you said was that players should stop Trae Young "within the confines of the rules," which they are absolutely doing. What you appear to have meant was, players should be required to stop Trae Young, without fouling him and, if they can't, they just have to eat it. I don't agree that they have to defend him without fouling; it would be ideal, but fouls are allowed for a reason. If they feel like it's worth giving up two points and possession to stop him from doing that, that's still within the rules.


Your original point was reductive: play better defense, such brilliant analysis. If you can stop him in a way that doesn't get you thrown out of the game, then that's the way that you use. Trae Young is sure to try to nutmeg somebody again, the next time he thinks he has a chance to do so but, if he doesn't do it to Trevor Ariza again then, as far as Trevor Ariza is concerned, what he did worked.
No, you've created a cut-off point which is automatic ejection. You do t get to decide that's where the line is drawn. Both fouls and brawls are penalised to different degrees because they are both against the rules. One is just accepted as a normal part of the game.

Your second paragraph is half true. I don't even have a problem with players fouling him if they're attempting to play defense, so maybe you're right to be pedantic as my original post didn't strictly demonstrate that. My problem is players hard fouling and acting indignant at him for doing it. Hard foul a certain basket, sure (which wouldn't be accompanied by indignance as it's purely to stop a bucket and not to preserve one's ego). But acting as if Trae is morally wrong for nutmegging them is BS.

My "analysis" might not be ground breaking, but it sure beats the infantile, egotistical "hard foul because I'm embarrassed" BS that you seem to think is something to be proud of. Your point boils down to "any means to end is justified". Hardly the stuff of intellectual greatness.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#21
No, you've created a cut-off point which is automatic ejection. You do t get to decide that's where the line is drawn. Both fouls and brawls are penalised to different degrees because they are both against the rules. One is just accepted as a normal part of the game.
The only person creating a "cut off" point is you, since your cut-off point is apparently "stop him without fouling, or live with it."

Your second paragraph is half true. I don't even have a problem with players fouling him if they're attempting to play defense, so maybe you're right to be pedantic as my original post didn't strictly demonstrate that. My problem is players hard fouling and acting indignant at him for doing it.
Acting indignant, as opposed to what?

My "analysis" might not be ground breaking, but it sure beats the infantile, egotistical "hard foul because I'm embarrassed" BS that you seem to think is something to be proud of.
I neither approve nor disapprove of Ariza's actions. I simply accept them for what they are.


Your point boils down to "any means to end is justified". Hardly the stuff of intellectual greatness.
My only "point" is that your premise is flawed. Nothing more or less than that. All that **** about being "butthurt," and "punking," and ego... you read all the rest of that stuff into it.
 
#22
The only person creating a "cut off" point is you, since your cut-off point is apparently "stop him without fouling, or live with it."
Not at all, I clarified my position in the last post. You've also moved the goalposts again, the cut-off point you created was "instant ejection" (a degree of severity of punishment) as though that is the only thing that qualify an act as outside the confines of the rules. This is going to be my last post on this, but it's amusing to watch the mental gymnastics.

My last post agreed that fouling whilst trying to actually defend is fine (a clarification from my original post), or even fouling to save a bucket, but to do it out of some sense of injustice is straight-up stupid. It's akin to flagrant fouling someone because they cross you up or hit you with a hesitation move. Imagine Ariza shoving someone because they got him with a spin move and then going after them. Bizarre. And then making the argument that "well, yeah, if Trae doesn't cross him up again because he's afraid of getting pushed into the first row then it's mission accomplished as far as Ariza is concerned", as if that's a reasonable position.

Acting indignant, as opposed to what?

As opposed to just playing, and reacting proportionally to a basketball move, which is to say not at all.



I neither approve nor disapprove of Ariza's actions. I simply accept them for what they are.
Sure seemed like you were justifying his response as proportionate earlier.


My only "point" is that your premise is flawed. Nothing more or less than that. All that **** about being "butthurt," and "punking," and ego... you read all the rest of that stuff into it.
There is no premise :rolleyes: My opinion is that players shouldn't be so butthurt that Trae nutmegged them, end of story. Man up, play defense, foul if you must, but stop acting like he just took a dump in your morning cereal and that you have a reason to complain. It's a basketball play.

I'll let you have the last word, your track record won't allow otherwise.
 
#23
Not at all, I clarified my position in the last post. You've also moved the goalposts again, the cut-off point you created was "instant ejection" (a degree of severity of punishment) as though that is the only thing that qualify an act as outside the confines of the rules. This is going to be my last post on this, but it's amusing to watch the mental gymnastics.

My last post agreed that fouling whilst trying to actually defend is fine (a clarification from my original post), or even fouling to save a bucket, but to do it out of some sense of injustice is straight-up stupid. It's akin to flagrant fouling someone because they cross you up or hit you with a hesitation move. Imagine Ariza shoving someone because they got him with a spin move and then going after them. Bizarre. And then making the argument that "well, yeah, if Trae doesn't cross him up again because he's afraid of getting pushed into the first row then it's mission accomplished as far as Ariza is concerned", as if that's a reasonable position.



As opposed to just playing, and reacting proportionally to a basketball move, which is to say not at all.




Sure seemed like you were justifying his response as proportionate earlier.




There is no premise :rolleyes: My opinion is that players shouldn't be so butthurt that Trae nutmegged them, end of story. Man up, play defense, foul if you must, but stop acting like he just took a dump in your morning cereal and that you have a reason to complain. It's a basketball play.

I'll let you have the last word, your track record won't allow otherwise.
Naise
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#25
They're not, otherwise you wouldn't be penalised for them. But it was a nice quip that garnered you a few likes. In any case, the point was that players and fans shouldn't be getting all butthurt just because someone does what Trae did. Getting all upset and flagrant fouling someone is pathetic.
This is just silly (aside from the nonjustified snark towards Mr. S£im). Fouls ARE part of the game. They're in the rules and everything. If not, coaches couldn't call on players to give an intentional foul. What Young did/does is bush league. You can choose to disagree but you're the one most likely in the minority about it.

Ariza did nothing different than what Chris Webber did once to John Stockton. Sent a message.

EDIT: In all honesty, I made my reply before I read subsequent posts but my comments still stand.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#26
Not at all, I clarified my position in the last post. You've also moved the goalposts again, the cut-off point you created was "instant ejection" (a degree of severity of punishment) as though that is the only thing that qualify an act as outside the confines of the rules. This is going to be my last post on this, but it's amusing to watch the mental gymnastics.

My last post agreed that fouling whilst trying to actually defend is fine (a clarification from my original post), or even fouling to save a bucket, but to do it out of some sense of injustice is straight-up stupid. It's akin to flagrant fouling someone because they cross you up or hit you with a hesitation move. Imagine Ariza shoving someone because they got him with a spin move and then going after them. Bizarre. And then making the argument that "well, yeah, if Trae doesn't cross him up again because he's afraid of getting pushed into the first row then it's mission accomplished as far as Ariza is concerned", as if that's a reasonable position.



As opposed to just playing, and reacting proportionally to a basketball move, which is to say not at all.




Sure seemed like you were justifying his response as proportionate earlier.




There is no premise :rolleyes: My opinion is that players shouldn't be so butthurt that Trae nutmegged them, end of story. Man up, play defense, foul if you must, but stop acting like he just took a dump in your morning cereal and that you have a reason to complain. It's a basketball play.

I'll let you have the last word, your track record won't allow otherwise.
1583219323625.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.