-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NHL vs. NBA - which sport deserves to be cancelled?
- Thread starter Hollywood
- Start date
- Status
Mike Works
Member
YES, there IS. First of all, there's no "perhaps", soccer players are easily better conditioned than the average basketball professional athlete. I'm sorry Loki, some of the other claims you've made are certainly debatable on both sides, such as the creativity thing, but you're just wrong on this issue.Loki said:
Stick work doesn't count?? How the hell does stickwork not count? That's like saying anything basketball players do with their arms doesn't count as athletic creativity and improvisation. And even if we were playing on those terms, skating backwards is certainly more creative than walking backwardsLoki said:Mike, are you seriously stating that there's as much athletic creativity and improvisation in hockey as in basketball? Come on now; stick work doesn't count as "athletic creativity", btw.
How so? Hockey requires you to use more upper body than basketball does. In basketball all you need to use are your arms, and OCCASIONALLY your back when it comes to posting up. In hockey you need to use your arms just as much, when it comes to shooting and passing, but you also need to use your shoulders when it comes to checking and your entire upper body when it comes to blocking shots.I wasn't wholly serious with the "utilizes the entire body" comment-- I just wanted to point out that, well, it utilizes the entire body.
You think I'm weighing condition strenth on brute force? Hell no. There's a reason that hockey shifts usually lost a minute tops whereas basketball players can stay on the court for 3 quarters overall. In basketball, the majority of the game is spent standing around and positioning. Sometimes that requires running to a different position in order to get open or set a pick, and there are of course fast breaks, but after the transition, all you have to do is jog back to your side of the court.I have NO doubt that any hockey player is in better condition than I am, strength and endurance-wise, but I'd seriously doubt that the average hockey player was in better condition strength- (note: strength != "I can beat the shit out of you!"
In hockey, there is far less standing still. Since the game is in transition much more than basketball, there's so much more room/space to work with, and there's never as much solid possession (if a basketball player is holding onto the ball at the top of the 3 point line waiting for a play to develop, he can just stand there, the only time a hockey player can stand in place with the puck is behind his own net during a line change or at the point in a powerplay during a 5 on 3, and even then they're often pressured by the opposition). Then there's the whole skating factor. In soccer and hockey, you are forced to sprint on a continual basis. This is not the case for basketball.
Stating your opinion is cool, and stuff like saying that basketball is more individually creative is a good opinion to present, but saying that basketball athletes are better conditioned than hockey athletes is both laughable and wrong.
Your opinion is wrong. Seriously. I watch both sports and know a great deal about each. I'm not about to explicitly place one over the other in terms of average/required strength/endurance/etc, but hockey is AT LEAST on par with basketball. I don't think you understand how physical and completely draining hockey actually is, and I'm not talking about fights.Loki said:Mike, are you seriously stating that there's as much athletic creativity and improvisation in hockey as in basketball? Come on now; stick work doesn't count as "athletic creativity", btw.
I wasn't wholly serious with the "utilizes the entire body" comment-- I just wanted to point out that, well, it utilizes the entire body.
At any rate, I didn't post to argue; I just wanted to state my opinion.
Mike Works
Member
I think the individuality ties in with the accessability. A kid can watch Allen Iverson completely fake out a defender by dribbling the ball between his legs twice and then juking the third time, drive to the net, and do a reverse layup.Future said:
The very next day, that kid can attempt and pull off the same play. Short of dunking, kids can emulate a lot of moves that the best basketball players in the world do, even if it's just practicing by themselves. I can friggin do a no look behind the back pass. That's the beauty of it, because it's much harder to successfully pull off the move in the NBA, but the actual physical attempt of doing something like that is quite simplistic.
The thing with this complaint is, all too often, basketball games ARE decided near the end. Since goals come so rarely in hockey (and touchdowns in football), it's much easier to defend a lead. Basketball's a very different game, so even if you're down 20 points going into the 4th quarter, all you need is a hot streak, and the game comes down to the wire. I think the conception is just birthed because it's so easy to score points in basketball.Bat said:
I'd say that basketball is more accessable than football for sure, but you don't need a dozen people to play with, just like you don't need a dozen people in order to play basketball. You can play 1 on 1 in basketball and you can play 3 on 3 in football.
...what? Soccer's the most popular sport in the world.
michael000 said:
These comments make no sense to me. While there are obviously problems with hockey, the lockout is not a product of whether hockey is exciting or not... last year's Stanley Cup finals were fantastic (much better than the higher-rated Devils/Ducks cup of a year earlier), even though the ratings were horrendous in the U.S.
My opinion on both sports is that they both need work. Shorter seasons would be a good start. In fact, I think there's maybe some sort of mystical truth here that the quality and excitement of a sport is inversely proportional to the number of games in the regular season. It would really explain baseball.
I can watch basketball on occasion, but I haven't watched a lot since the early-mid 90s. Same goes with hockey. Until last playoffs, I hadn't watched a ton of hockey over the past few years.
I think b-ball's on the right track, with zone defense now (IMO) putting some more emphasis on better team play and more strategy. I think hockey could be on track if it stuck to a bigger crackdown on obstruction and worked to pick up the game overall (never mind actually using the whistles in the 3rd period, especially in playoff games). I'd love to see larger ice (but it won't happen) and smaller pads too. I also have no problem, and I'm not ashamed to say it, with killing fighting. There's always the argument about fighting sending a message, but I think 1 in 10 (or less) actually do it.
Shorter seasons for both sports. NFL is miles beyond both these leagues. Elite-level European football is above both these leagues (and I might even follow it religiously if it was easy to watch here). Is soccer more exciting? Debatable... but I think the games are important enough to players and fans that it seems there's something at stake every time they're on the pitch. How many times last season did your favorite NBA or NHL team phone it in? It's OK, there's 80 games. They can phone in a good half-dozen. A dozen if they've got some talent. The Rangers have been phoning in entire seasons for the past several years (it's OK, they still draw about 18,000 a game).
I think for everyone but the die-hards, 80-some games in a season is hard to follow. So you either follow, or you get left behind.
Bat said:
I'd like to see this list....
I'm not sure of any big-name wide receivers who are failed basketball players (at least who haven't played football as well). In terms of tight ends, there's no question these guys are good athletes, but they're no better than many of the other players on a football field. The real reason they're successful is because they've spent years working in a sport and developing excellent technique in positioning themselves to get the ball over or around some other guy. It's fantastic talent, it requires athleticism, but it is not athleticism on its own. That's why your Tony Gonzaleses and Antonio Gateses are excellent tight ends. EDIT: of course, you've got guys like Shannon Sharpe and Todd Heap (or ugh, Jeremy Shockey) who are/were excellent tight ends and came into the game as tight ends, nothing else.
cloudwalking said:
:lol This is the single biggest lie uttered by sports fans. You don't think today's current players were saying that a decade ago? Once you enter the real world of professional sports, you'll want a bigger piece of the pie...that's just a fact.
soundwave05 said:
Exactly. And as you said, calling clutch and grab as penalties is the key here. A stick or glove even brushes another player without the puck (or even with the puck), he's gone for two minutes. I'd still like to see bigger ice though, just cause there's far less room with the size of today's players on the current NHL surfaces.
Socreges said:soundwave, your post wasn't any more relevant to mine than the rest of the thread. Why reply to me? Did I hit a nerve?
The NHL isn't without its problems. That said, I ask everyone who constantly trumps up the 80s era as considerably better to watch the supposedly best games [Classic games on Sportsnet/TSN/etc]. The game was more liberal, but that does NOT make it necessarily much better.
:lol Er, wha?
More exciting = better. That's how normal fans tend to view things.
I suppose if you find defensive-oriented, clutch and grab, trap-infested orgies with 15-9 shot totals and 2-1 scorelines entertaining, then that style is better for you. For most normal people, such a brand of hockey is a complete and utter piece of shit, which is why the NHL has gone from being a league that was fast becoming a rival with the NBA a decade ago, to a league that gets outdrawn by poker, bowling, Arena football, dog shows, and 20 year old sitcom reruns.
The NHL has had this coming. People knew this shit was coming down FIVE FUCKING YEARS AGO, and they did fuck all about it. So fuck the NHL, fuck the PA, and fuck anyone who's got a problem with that. Those that profess to be hockey lovers should just watch junior hockey anyway. That won't happen in this berg, which is a Leafs first town of the highest order.
And entertainment wise, the NBA owns the NHL silly. Stars are allowed to be stars in this game, something the NHL hasn't figured out how to do in ten years (well, save for goalies). I can see 5 to 10 highlight plays a night in a NBA game, along with pretty jump shots and fastbreak action. These days the only guaranteed highlight in a NHL game is a fight. The few goals that are scored these days are sometimes ugly as hell, simply because today's goalies can't be fooled any other way with their improved techniques and oversized warrior equipment. And it's funny seeing people say NBA games only matter in the last five minutes, when most NHL games are 2-1 affairs and come down to the exact same thing. Most times 4 on 4 overtime hockey is the only time I'll see hockey the way it's meant to be played, and that's sad statement on the NHL game.
Kabuki Waq said:
Right, I guess people like Tie Domi and Donald Brashear are world class athletes because he throws a jersey over someone's head for thirty seconds. :lol
Comparing fitness levels is a game of apples and oranges. Generally top defenders play 30 to 35 minutes a game, while forwards play 20 to 25 minutes. In basketball top players across the board are averaging 35 to 40 minutes, and in some cases will go 44 or the full 48 minutes. Also athletes in any cardioviscular sport lose five to ten pounds, that's no big deal. Hell, race car drivers lose ten pounds during a race, which is why I maintain they are athletes (you're not gonna see someone looking like Warren Sapp driving in F1 or NASCAR). Nothing touches long distance cycling for cardio and physical conditioning anyway, so the argument in this thread is at best for second place (and a distant second at that).
BTW, I agree with Sickboy...the regular seasons in both the NBA and NHL are way too long. Neither league needs more then 72 games to sort their shit out.
Hoooollly shit
If you could read my posts more closely in the future and consider the context, that would be fantastic. I'd really like that.
I was replying to someone that said "faaaaaaar better". I disagree. I think the game in the 80s was better, but "not necessarily much better". You had a more liberal style of play, as I said, but the super tight game that we have now, while not without its problems, makes the finer details and chances more thrilling. In some ways it compensates and still excites.
I'm just glad I could provide you with an opportunity to entertain us with the same repetitive drivel that, frankly, we don't hear enough from you!
michael000
Banned
SickBoy said:
I'd be willing to argue that "excitement" is the cause of the lockout. Excitement of course can be looked at in different ways. While that series itself may have been exciting, to the general american public the game of hockey itself isn't exciting. That in turn will affect revenue (ticket/merchandising/tv). And money afterall is the cause of this whole lockout; shrinking revenues vs. escalating player salaries, a proposed salary cap, and how that salary cap will be affected by decreasing revenues. Very rough granted, but you don't certainly see the NBA with this problem.
Take all my comments on hockey with a grain of salt though. The only thing i like about hockey are penalty shots and fighting, things that are apparently frowned upon by hockey purists.
michael000 said:
That claim changes the context of your initial point, which was in response to the comment "NBA is boring to watch." So I assume we're talking about how exciting the very game is. In which case, while still a subjective judgment, regional tastes for the game and business realities are detached from how exciting a game is. Again, I have to mention baseball.
If money and ratings are all it's about, NBA is more exciting when it's played south of the border than it is when it's played in Canada. Yes, I know there is a case to be made for that given the Canadian team(s), but hopefully you see what I'm saying.
EDIT: And I should point out, my comment re: last year's Stanley Cup is that it was an exceptional series, but wasn't watched, even comparison to a much less exciting series.... which goes hand in hand with the idea that excitement and viewership are not linked in that manner.
Of course, I don't disagree that many Americans couldn't care less about hockey.
Mike Works
Member
The only thing I like about basketball is the dunk contest and Steve Nash, both of which are apparently frowned upon by basketball purists.michael000 said:
Seriously guys, it's cool if you defend the sport that you like and are knowledgable of, but please don't make claims about the other sport if you're not familiar with it at all. Hockey purists don't like fighting? Come on.
If that was the case, then we'd have 20 point comebacks happening all the time. In reality, there have only been a handful in NBA history. The only one that has ever happened in the playoffs, for example, is a 23 point deficit that the Celtics overcame (against New Jersey) in 2002. When Portland gave up a 15 point lead going into the 4th quarter during the 2000 playoffs, it was considered one (if not the) greatest collapse of all time. This stuff just doesn't happen as often as you'd like to believe.
Let's compare that with the NFL, where the scoring is much lower (obviously). Biggest playoff 4th quarter comeback there? 24 points, by the 49ers in 2003. That same day the Steelers had a 17 point (late 3rd quarter) comeback.
Often times basketball games might seem closer than they are simply because teams with a big lead put all their scrubs in. But the truth is that this last 5 minutes thing is a total myth.
Ummm, we're obviously talking about the popularity of professional sports in the US here, not worldwide. Hence, the relative healths of the national hockey and basketball leagues (NHL and NBA). Thus, my point is exclusively about American sports viewing habbits.
Perhaps I misworded it....not failed basketball players as much as players who played basketball early on, but found it possible/easier to excel in football professionally, like Randy Moss. Meanwhile, these new-style TE (who are big targets that can get seperation and go up for balls) are some of the most athletic players in the game. A great example is Antonio Gates, who is unquestionably one of the one or two most athletic guys on the San Diego Chargers. Here's a great article on Gates that really illustrates my point. :
That's the unique aspect about NBA basketball: you can't just be quick and strong, you also have to be tall and long. In all the other team sports, you only need to have one or two of those three (size, speed, strength) attributes, but the NBA is unique in that you need to have all three. And even those few players in the NFL that commentators drool over having all three (such as Moss) don't even have the size to be serious players on the NBA level (no matter how good they are in high school or in college).
As for a list of the most athletic players, I don't have such a thing. However, I do know that Lebron James, Kevin Garnett, Amare Stoudemire, Jason Richardson, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, and Dwayne Wade are probably on it.
Mike Works
Member
It's getting difficult to easily summarize my feeling on the notion that it all comes down to the fourth quarter/last five minutes in basketball. Very often, there will be less than a 20 point differencial in the scores. Since teams score points every single minute, that score can decrease very fast. To contast, it is much more difficult (obviously) to score in hockey. So if you're down by 2 goals with 10 minutes left in the game, I'd say you have less of a chance of coming back than if you were down 15 points with half of the fourth quarter left in basketball.Bat said:
Things often change so fast in basketball when it comes to momentum and score, it's a very back and forth game. Hockey (and football) are not nearly as much back and forth when it comes to the score, so if you're down by 4 goals in hockey halfway through the game, you're pretty much dead. If you're down by 30 points at half time in basketball, you still have a decent chance.
It's difficult to compare since the scoring systems and amounts are so different between the sports. But to a lot of people, myself included, it just feels like you're never out of the game in basketball unless the other team has a comfortable lead AND is consistently dictating the play. In hockey, if you're playing against a defensive minded team- of which there are a lot now- there are times when you'll feel like your team is dead even though they're down by just 1 goal with 20 minutes left.
Perhaps I misconstrued your statement, but you can't blame me considering you presented it like this:
That's clearly issuing the statement in the 'accessibility' quota. You then melded it into the sports viewing habits:
Which made it pretty confusing as to what you were talking about.
Socreges said:
Well I think it was faaaaaaaar better, so I guess agree with him. I'd certainly prefer that style to the sludge hockey we have now.
That said I moved here in '89, and I reckon the hockey from that era (89 to 94) was absolutley sublime. The perfect balance of offensive flow and physical play. It took five minutes of watching my first NHL game to fall in love with it, and that's coming from someone who had no designs to strap on a pair of skates myself (hell, I've never even attempted to skate). That era of hockey beats the living shit out of what we've seen the last decade. I honestly don't see it as an argument. But then this is based on what I prefer to see.
And please, spare me the "oh you're so repetitive!!" drivel...like the whole "OMG BASKETBALL'S ONLY FUN IN THE LAST TWO MINUTES!!!11" line that's been spewn throughout this thread is an original thought. This thread degenerated into a piss shooting, dick waving, shit talking contest on the first reply, so I'm simply following suit. You don't like it, ignore it. No skin off my ass.
Mike Works
Member
I think hockey was a lot more accessable to the masses back in the early 90's for sure, and it was a more open game. And I hate, fucking HATE obstruction, don't get me wrong.
But the product that was on the ice in 2005 was a much smarter game. I've been watching classic hockey series for a month now, stuff like Vancouver vs New York 94, Toronto vs Detroit 93, etc, and the majority of the play was just sloppy as fuck. If some of the players made the mistakes that they did in the past in today's game, they'd be benched and sent to the minors faster than Sean Avery eventually will.
It was fun to watch from a certain perspective, because there was often the chance of someone making a terrible pass in their own zone, and goalies didn't have much rebound control at all, but for hockey purists like Socreges and myself (I am NOT saying you aren't a hockey purist though), the product on the ice, minus the stupid fucking obstruction, is at the highest professional level it has ever been.
The players might not be as good as Gretzky or Orr, but the overall team game featured in the sport cannot be equalled. Maybe it's because of improved conditioning, coaching, or strategy, but I can safely say that you could take the 92 Penguins, 93 Habs, the 94 Rangers, or other teams in earlier eras, and they would be beaten by any of the top 10 clubs in the league.
But the product that was on the ice in 2005 was a much smarter game. I've been watching classic hockey series for a month now, stuff like Vancouver vs New York 94, Toronto vs Detroit 93, etc, and the majority of the play was just sloppy as fuck. If some of the players made the mistakes that they did in the past in today's game, they'd be benched and sent to the minors faster than Sean Avery eventually will.
It was fun to watch from a certain perspective, because there was often the chance of someone making a terrible pass in their own zone, and goalies didn't have much rebound control at all, but for hockey purists like Socreges and myself (I am NOT saying you aren't a hockey purist though), the product on the ice, minus the stupid fucking obstruction, is at the highest professional level it has ever been.
The players might not be as good as Gretzky or Orr, but the overall team game featured in the sport cannot be equalled. Maybe it's because of improved conditioning, coaching, or strategy, but I can safely say that you could take the 92 Penguins, 93 Habs, the 94 Rangers, or other teams in earlier eras, and they would be beaten by any of the top 10 clubs in the league.
soundwave05
Member
Mike Works said:
Eh, I dunno about that.
Gimme Mario Lemieux even from a few years ago with Jaromir Jagr and a good goalie, and I think they'd probably be the top team in the league.
Let alone that '92 squad which had a prime Mario on it.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
that's a very ignorant thing of you to say. which at this point doesnt surprise me cause you're always doing that. thinking that hockey si the end-all be-all and the other sports dont measure up or whatever.
um.......no. the other team would have to stop scoring and the other would have to make all their shots, dont you think? and since that doesnt happen...... seeing as there is this thing called defense. not to mention a boatload of other factors. tell me in allh onesty what was the last team you saw come back while down 20-30 points?
good idea. how 'bout you take your on advice?
OH HELL NO. :lol :lol
Mike Works
Member
How about you take the time to declare WHY it's ignorant. Just saying it's ignorant and walking away gives you no place to stand on the point whatsoever, and makes no case in your defense.evil solrac v3.0 said:
One team would not have to stop scoring and the other team would not have to score all their points. If the team down ends the third quarter by scoring 20 points opposed to 5, there you go, lead cut in half. And I can tell you I've seen more basketball games where teams have come back from 20 points down than I have hockey games where teams have come back from 4 goals down, and that says a lot considering how much of each sport I've watched in my lifetime.
how 'bout you whip out some fucking grammar....... normal sentences do not look like this........... it'd be neat if you actually presented reasoning for your opposing opinions too.......... you know, to actually further conversation in a thread instead of adding nothing?
Mike Works said:
I don't disagree with some of what you say. Basically, today's athletes are better now then they've ever been. I reckon the Lightning could beat Oilers eight times out of ten. I think the Patriots walk all over the 80's Niners. And Shaq takes Wilt Chamberlain at his peak and makes him his bitch. People look at Chamberlain as being the most dominant player ever, because he had nothing but a bunch of white dwarfs to play against. At his zenith he was 7'1, 275. Tim Duncan, a power forward, is 6'11 and 260.
I suscribe to the belief that modern athletes are simply better physically then the ones before, for a variety of reasons. Athletes are bigger, faster, stronger. If yesteryear's athletes had the same weight training, supplements and food additives to use as are available today, chances are they'd improve accordingly. That's why comparing different eras is pretty meaningless on the whole in terms of determing who the best team or athlete ever is.
Anyway, got a bit off-topic...my issue isn't with the players, but the coaches and the rule calling. Sports in general has becoming overcoached, and in sports like hockey and football, systems rule the day. So while we've got a ton of players who could skate and score as well as Glen Anderson, we're not seeing it because the other team is clutching and grabbing these players to death. Defensive systems back then weren't nearly as strong, so scoring chances were aplenty. But more to the point, the amount of off-the-puck interference that took place was miniscule compared to now, and if it took place back then it was called. Now you could literally pick someone with a check and there's no call. Hold someone with your stick and go halfway down the ice for no call. Then when you do have a chance to score, you've got maybe three one inch-diameter holes to put it through because the goalie's covering up everything else with his astronaut suit, which leads to shooters trying to make a perfect shot and missing instead of just winging it. It's really quite annoying.
So yeah, I think players are smarter, more talented and more efficient then they've ever been. But the guys who can skate and score aren't able to just for that reason. The systems are so much more complicated now, and when they're executed well it makes even decent scoring chances hard to come by. Couple that with the illegal clutch and grab and oversized goalie equipment, and we're left with the current 1-0, 2-1 mess that we see today.
Heck, last season we saw a goalie get what, six straight shutouts in a row? The fact that I don't remember his name speaks far more to the state of the game then his accomplishment.
Unfortunately issues like this are being left unchecked, due to all this idiotic financial bickering that's taking place. That's what really ticks me off.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Mike Works said:
cause you always do that. you think the other sports have nothing on hockey and frankly that's getting annoying. baseball has no strategy compared to hockey, the other sports' athletes arent in good enough shape, i mean, basketball players stand around?! jesus. i guess banging under the boards against power forwards and fighting for position isnt hard core enough.
that may be but, is shack a better player than wilt? or to put it another way, are todays playesr better at the nuts and bolts of basketball than yesterday's players? cause all i see nowadays is the kid trying to make the highlight reel and not learning the triangle offense or even wanting to learn team ball period.
and i'm out. it's 6:00 in the morning and we have derailed a whole hell of a lot from the original topic (as usual) in summary, no id ont believe either league deserves to be shut down (it's silly to think that) but hockey didnt want to fix it's shit-they had five years to do it- and didnt so now they suffer the consequences.
evil solrac v3.0 said:
That's why I kept it to physical. Stuff like smarts is pretty arbitary, and I could argue that case either way. Anyway, how good did Wilt have to be? For the most part he was a man playing against boys. Then again, I suppose the same could be said for Shaq. :lol
The NHL pretty obviously deserves it over the NBA. Not because of the quality of either sport, but because of the horrible breakdown between the players' association and the owners. Neither deserves to be cancelled permanently, but with the way this situation is acting out, I wouldn't want to see any NHL games. Not that I watch it anyway... but it's hard to have respect for players in a league when they're so spoiled that they don't care that they're ruining their own league.
Mike Works said:
It wasn't MEANT to be a thread about hockey vs. basketball, the title says NHL vs. NBA. There's a difference. I would definately say NHL > NBA in terms of what I like more, but I would also definately say NCAA Basketball > NHL too ... so it doesn't make a difference to me. I've liked all three pro leagues, NFL, NBA, and MLB as my favorite at different times. Even though basketball is my FAVORITE sport, the NBA on the list of how much I like it nowadays would be about 10th on my list behind NASCAR, Boxing, and every other sport.
I'm not racist, but today's players just seem too thuggish honestly. Most of the NBA players are on 'Cribs' more than on ESPN. I didn't know a league could completely entrap itself in a thug image but the NBA has managed to do so. Jordan wasn't a thug, Barkley wasn't, hell even Rodman wasn't - I could stand all that ... I just can't stand watching a league centered on the the overused overdone cliched hip hop thug theme that got old about 5 years ago.
Wow, this thread has deteriorated into a series of Loki-lenght point / counterpoint posts. I wont' bother reading it, but the most tiring sports to play (physically) are football / rugby / hockey (in no particular order) because the most physically tiring thing you can do is slam your body into something at a high speed (yes, more tiring then running long distances). I see this pointless debate come up time and again, and I figured I'd let some people know.
PS - this has nothing to do with who's in the best shape. Just what is most physically tiring activity.
PS - this has nothing to do with who's in the best shape. Just what is most physically tiring activity.
michael000
Banned
SickBoy said:
Lol my whole response to that original post was just to be a smartass to the idiot that was bashing the basketball left and right. At most i was just trying to point out that as much as he thinks it sucks to play and watch (this coming from a guy who enjoys soccer...) it's still blowing the doors of the NHL and hockey (and soccer 1000x) in every way in the country where it matters the most (for no reason other than we spend like no one else).
speaking of NHL.... things are looking up!
NHLPA has accepted the use of a salary cap in conjunction with luxury tax
apparently they are at the bargaining table right now trying to work out a deal
i'll assume they'll end up agreeing on something today to sign the cba
$42 million hard cap with 50% luxury tax on $35 million and up is my guess
NHLPA has accepted the use of a salary cap in conjunction with luxury tax
apparently they are at the bargaining table right now trying to work out a deal
i'll assume they'll end up agreeing on something today to sign the cba
$42 million hard cap with 50% luxury tax on $35 million and up is my guess
Whenever I try to explain hockey to someone I'll start out by making them think about basketball. And vice-versa.
They're the same game.
Don't hate, collaborate.
And as far as conditioning involved. I'm a terrific athlete (seriously) but I know I can't keep up with serious basketball OR hockey players in their respective sports. I feel like an uncoordinated goat with emphysema in either case.
They're the same game.
Don't hate, collaborate.
And as far as conditioning involved. I'm a terrific athlete (seriously) but I know I can't keep up with serious basketball OR hockey players in their respective sports. I feel like an uncoordinated goat with emphysema in either case.
Gregory said:
No, I haven't, to be honest. I just figured that constantly running around (especially when changing speeds and directions) is very tiring and requires excellent conditioning. If you insist that hockey is more physically demanding than soccer (and hence basketball), then that's fine.
I never intended to really "debate" these things anyway, as I don't feel strongly about it either way.
I was just a bit miffed over the abuse that basketball was taking in this decidedly pro-hockey, pro-"football" thread. Kcerrid 31
Member
Wow, great thread guys (and a great way to unite us NBAers in a common cause for a change lol).
As for the thread topic? It's been answered I'm afraid. I don't hate hockey or anything, it's just that I didn't grow up with it, so the loss of it is not a big deal. I'm not too familiar with the rules but i was talking to my nephew about ways to make the game more exciting.
One way would be to have every rink a color that corresponds to the teams's uniform, so that when you tune in, you're not just seeing the same damn white ice over and over again. If the team's uniform is dark blue, then have the "ice" floor the same color and have the puck a bright color that stands out against it (dark ice, white puck).
Have more indepth biographies on the players and what motivates them, you know? Give newbies a reason to take interest in this game. That's how the Williams sisters kicked interest in tennis up a notch.
As for the NBA, as much as I enjoyed MJ, I'm glad he's moved on because the game is definitely getting back to its roots as far as being a team game again. I watch the Suns, and Spurs play, for example, and it just makes me smile. MJ was once in a lifetime, and unfortunately, you have maybe 10% of players still holding on to his blueprint, which simply doesn't work anymore.
Jordan dominated because he HAD TO for the most part. Today's players really aren't in that position to have to now (save for Iverson maybe). That's why you can have a Lebron or D Wade or Nash rack up the assists and stay within the team concept. Isolation plays bore me now, because today's players just aren't good at it like Jordan, Barkley, or Olajuwan were.
I could rattle on Loki style about the little things I love about the NBA, but since the question was posed, reality gives you your answer: most Americans don't GIVE A DAMN about Pro Hockey! Sorry fellas
As for the thread topic? It's been answered I'm afraid. I don't hate hockey or anything, it's just that I didn't grow up with it, so the loss of it is not a big deal. I'm not too familiar with the rules but i was talking to my nephew about ways to make the game more exciting.
One way would be to have every rink a color that corresponds to the teams's uniform, so that when you tune in, you're not just seeing the same damn white ice over and over again. If the team's uniform is dark blue, then have the "ice" floor the same color and have the puck a bright color that stands out against it (dark ice, white puck).
Have more indepth biographies on the players and what motivates them, you know? Give newbies a reason to take interest in this game. That's how the Williams sisters kicked interest in tennis up a notch.
As for the NBA, as much as I enjoyed MJ, I'm glad he's moved on because the game is definitely getting back to its roots as far as being a team game again. I watch the Suns, and Spurs play, for example, and it just makes me smile. MJ was once in a lifetime, and unfortunately, you have maybe 10% of players still holding on to his blueprint, which simply doesn't work anymore.
Jordan dominated because he HAD TO for the most part. Today's players really aren't in that position to have to now (save for Iverson maybe). That's why you can have a Lebron or D Wade or Nash rack up the assists and stay within the team concept. Isolation plays bore me now, because today's players just aren't good at it like Jordan, Barkley, or Olajuwan were.
I could rattle on Loki style about the little things I love about the NBA, but since the question was posed, reality gives you your answer: most Americans don't GIVE A DAMN about Pro Hockey! Sorry fellas
Thank you for that informative graphic, if a similar poll was done in Canada, during a hockey season, for the cancelation of an NBA, or ANY NCAA SPORT EVER, they scale would be above 80% for No. I know of 1 person who actually follows the NBA. I seriously have tried to watch it this year to fill the hockey void, but its just SO TERRIBLE, but that's just my opinion.
Mike Works
Member
Is there a reasonable chance that the NBA could get locked out next season? Because that would be fucking terrific for so many reasons.
The reason why Basketball and Football are more exciting than Hockey and Soccer is because the large amount of funding their high school programs get for the former sports, compared to the latter 2.
I'm willing to bet that MANY Americans don't even know the rules to hockey...I bet most can't tell you the offside rules for either Soccer or Hockey.
People have to know and understand the sport to enjoy it. I'd wager that 99% of those who watch Golf have actually played it before. In fact, I can't concieve of a 1% who has NEVER played Golf yet enjoy watching it.
This is why I think that sports videogames do a great job of introducing people to new sports. But that's another topic.
Hockey is the fastest, hardest, most exciting sport out there. Ask anyone who's been to a game, there is no other spectator sport like it. Americans would like Hockey, and I think they would prefer it to football or basketball, because it makes those sports look very weak. Football is physical, but not that fast paced. Basketball is fast paced, but not that physical. Hockey has everything. Americans would prefer it to all other sports if they knew more about it.
I'm willing to bet that MANY Americans don't even know the rules to hockey...I bet most can't tell you the offside rules for either Soccer or Hockey.
People have to know and understand the sport to enjoy it. I'd wager that 99% of those who watch Golf have actually played it before. In fact, I can't concieve of a 1% who has NEVER played Golf yet enjoy watching it.
This is why I think that sports videogames do a great job of introducing people to new sports. But that's another topic.
Hockey is the fastest, hardest, most exciting sport out there. Ask anyone who's been to a game, there is no other spectator sport like it. Americans would like Hockey, and I think they would prefer it to football or basketball, because it makes those sports look very weak. Football is physical, but not that fast paced. Basketball is fast paced, but not that physical. Hockey has everything. Americans would prefer it to all other sports if they knew more about it.
Mike Works said:
There's a half-chance that a lockout could take place. But from all accounts the NBA should have their CBA issues sewn up long before the start of next season.
There's also a chance that the NFL could have a lockout next year, would make me laugh out loud. Seems the league aren't counting some new individual team revenue streams into the total, which is what the NFL cap is based on. Keep an eye out on that one.
Fight for Freeform said:
Understanding of a sport has little to do with the chances of people liking it. What you grow up with, what you're used to, and what you like to see in sports is more important.
They've tried selling hockey in the US for 30 years now (mind you not very well, but still), and they don't care. Same way nobody in North America cares much about soccer, despite it being a religion in rest of the world. And a newborn baby with down syndrome could understand that sport. So why is that not more popular?
Hell I've never driven a car in my life, but nothing on TV matches up to the excitement generated by the WRC telecasts. I don't need a lesson in advanced training to know that the things drivers do with those cars borders on the ridiculous. Not to mention being exciting as hell.
The one way Americans might take to the sport is the proliferation of HDTV. Hockey is a great spectator sport, but that image simply doesn't translate well to TV. In fact most people say it's easily one of the worst TV sports to watch, mainly for that reason. But HDTV could really help close that gap, really showing off the full scale and motion of the action. Plus they'd be able to see the puck as well. :lol But the NHL will need a completely redeveloped marketing plan to take advantages of such assets if it wants to become anything more then the niche sport it's dwindled into.
Of course, they'll also have to improve the style of the game...2-1, 1-0 sludge matches just aren't gonna cut it in the States.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Shinobi has never driven a car?!?!
I think roller hockey should overtake ice hockey. Its a lot of fun, and much more asccesible to the average person (can be played a basketball court, or even outside). I played it in middle school. Granted it is not as fast as ice hockey, (maybe it could be?), it would probably garner a lot more support if more people played it, and didn't require zambonis. Hell, rollerblades would come back.
What do you guys think about the NHL? Is it really dead now? The MLB was healthy before the strike of 94 and people said that it would eventually kill the MLB. Luckily people around the world love baseball too much to prove stupid analysts wrong, but is there enough support for hockey? Hockey was pretty much dead everywhere except for Canada and maybe Russia so what is going to happen now?
Btw the NBA has sucked since the end of the 90s (when the Miami/NY rivalry died.)
Oh and baseball is the most athletic sport.... you have to jump high, throw hard, run fast, and hit hard. Bring up pitchers all you want but the other positions require flexibility, power, and speed.
Btw the NBA has sucked since the end of the 90s (when the Miami/NY rivalry died.)
Oh and baseball is the most athletic sport.... you have to jump high, throw hard, run fast, and hit hard. Bring up pitchers all you want but the other positions require flexibility, power, and speed.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
I'd just like to comment on the stuff about conditioning. I actually played team basketball, team football, team soccer, and team hockey during high school.
Here is my order for toughest conditioning requirements (1 being toughest)
*Playing a game with even effort on offense and defense against an equal or lesser player
1. Hockey
2. Soccer
3. Basketball
4. Football
* Playing a game trying to dominate on offense against an equal or lesser player
1. Hockey/ Basketball (Tie)
3. Soccer
4. Football
*Player a game trying to dominate on defense against an equal or lesser player
1. Soccer
2. Basketball
3. Hockey
4. Football
*Playing against a player far more skilled than you are
1. Basketball
2. Fooball
3. Hockey
4. Soccer
Here is my order for toughest conditioning requirements (1 being toughest)
*Playing a game with even effort on offense and defense against an equal or lesser player
1. Hockey
2. Soccer
3. Basketball
4. Football
* Playing a game trying to dominate on offense against an equal or lesser player
1. Hockey/ Basketball (Tie)
3. Soccer
4. Football
*Player a game trying to dominate on defense against an equal or lesser player
1. Soccer
2. Basketball
3. Hockey
4. Football
*Playing against a player far more skilled than you are
1. Basketball
2. Fooball
3. Hockey
4. Soccer
Kuroyume said:
Wow, know much about hockey do we? Yeah, hockey is only alive in Canada and Russia. I guess that`s why there`s a world championship held every year in 3 different divisions (around 30-40 countries). Ice Hockey is arguably the second most popular teamsport in Europe, commercially.
When was the last time fucking baseball held some world championship tournaments It`s barely hanging on as an olympic sport.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
I dunno Barry complained about having to stand too much because he was being walked all the time....
bishoptl said:
Chances are, if I know a little bit about hockey and a little bit about basketball - at least I have a shot, with hardly no experience at all. If I played Michael Jordan to 100 one on one, chances are I would make at least 2, 3 baskets - even though he is the greatest basketball player who ever lived - just because of how the game is set up. Throwing up a shot out of nowhere, hey you're probably going to make at least one out of 40, 50 if your an average guy who's played basketball before. Same with hockey, if you've played hockey before and you know how to skate and shoot, chances are you can get one or two goals on a major goalie like Dominik Hasek or something.
Put that to test in baseball, where hand eye coordination is very important. Chances are out of 100 chances to hit a Randy Johnson fastball, I would be lucky to hit one. And there's no way in hell I would ever be able to strike out a MLB player.
If MLB is so easy why did MJ move to MLB and barely bat .200 for a Double A team? If it takes less athleticism, when MJ is probably the most athletic player in sports history, then he should have easily been the best player in baseball .. not a bench warmer for lower level minor league team.
- Status