NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     

    Come on guys you're better than this.   If you aren't a fan of basketball that's fine.  The fact is it has more fans and players that make far more money.  Because it's far more popular.

    I'm a fan of all major sports, but I will honestly say I don't really start paying attention to the B's until the playoffs.

    Each sport has it's strengths and weaknesses.  No doubt Campbell showed incredible courage to finish the PK in a key situation. 

    Does anyone who follows BBall remember Larry Legend doing a face plant on the Garden floor and returning for the 2nd half?  Fast forward to the 1:00 mark.  This is slow motion.  No equipment.  No padding.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQpWgcUaeh4

     



    Did Bird really leave the game for that?  That's hillarious!  My 18 month old nephew does that at least five times a day and doesn't even cry.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    alright, now here's the downright clinical approach as to why this "sport" is laughable. the goal of most popular sports is very difficult... goal in hockey(done just a few times in a contest), run scored in baseball(just a few times), touchdown in football(few times), soccer(sometimes not at all). the major goal of basketball is to put a ball through the hoop- done aroung 100x a game! how difficult can the sport be if you can accomplish the goal 100x? my 70 year old mother can hit a free throw, so can my 10 year old niece. the sport is a farce when a 6'4" guy is the little guy on the court. it's a circus freak show for people that are 7' tall. don't get me started with the ball bouncing thing, silly.    

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    Bobby Baun, game 6 of the 63-64 Finals.  Broke his leg in regulation, then came back in OT to score teh game winner.  Not quite the same as playing on, but almost more impressive - it's OT, man, my team needs me!  Wings would have won the Cup if they won that game; Leafs won it in 7.

    [Overheard at the NHLPA press conference]

    "So, is that pronounced "Fair" or "Fear"?

     




    There ya go !  thanks Books and P49.  How that from dramatics ! what was the RedSox pitcher ...pfffft .  Kidding aside that was great also.

     

     




    Schillings 'blood soaked' sock = red dye....makes for a good story though.

    ;^)

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    Prospects In Trouble

    College basketball players get in trouble for taking money from agents and buying jewelry.

    College hockey players get in trouble for having sex with girls in the penalty box.

    Advantage:  Hockey

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:



    You said:  "Basketball players make more because there are less of them per team."

     

     

    That's the only reason I mentioned the Revs and Cannons.  It's obviously more complicated than the number of players on each roster.  The TV contracts for the NHL are nowhere near as lucrative as the NBA.

    Not saying you shouldn't love hockey at all, but don't disregard financial facts.

     



    If there were more guys on a basketball team, each player would make less.  Basketball players make more than football players.  Is basketball more popular than football?

     




    No, Basketball certainly isn't more popular in the US than Football.  But now you've changed your argument.  Within each sport if you expand the roster, revenue being a constant, the average player's salary will be reduced.  Agreed.

    However, your original statement was that comparing two different sports the average salaries were larger in basketball simply because their rosters were smaller than hockey rosters.  Basic economics prove this statement to be completely false.  If it were true then the Boston Cannons (lacrosse 25-man roster) would have a higher average salary than the Patriots (53-man roster).  You might say this is a ridiculous comparison but the example is useful because it's all about the revenue.  That's what you are missing.  The NBA TV contracts alone are more than 5 times greater than the NHL.  That's why their salaries are higher.  The Cannons don't have a high average player salary because the revenue isn't there.

    Hockey is a great sport and I am in no way bashing the sport.  But c'mon now.

    Average salaries/sport:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/12/07/average-player-salaries-in-the-four-major-american-sports-leagues/

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:


    No, Basketball certainly isn't more popular in the US than Football.  But now you've changed your argument.  Withineach sport if you expand the roster, revenue being a constant, the average player's salary will be reduced.  Agreed.

    However, your original statement was that comparing two different sports the average salaries were larger in basketball simply because their rosters were smaller than hockey rosters.  Basic economics prove this statement to be completely false.  If it were true then the Boston Cannons (lacrosse 25-man roster) would have a higher average salary than the Patriots (53-man roster).  You might say this is a ridiculous comparison but the example is useful because it's all about the revenue.  That's what you are missing.  The NBA TV contracts alone are more than 5 times greater than the NHL.  That's why their salaries are higher.  The Cannons don't have a high average player salary because the revenue isn't there.

    Hockey is a great sport and I am in no way bashing the sport.  But c'mon now.

    Average salaries/sport:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/12/07/average-player-salaries-in-the-four-major-american-sports-leagues/



    No, you're changing the argument.  We are speaking only of basketball and hockey initially.  The NHL has a higher salary cap than the NBA.  The NBA players make more per person because there are less of them.

    It's not really that hard.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:


    No, Basketball certainly isn't more popular in the US than Football.  But now you've changed your argument.  Withineach sport if you expand the roster, revenue being a constant, the average player's salary will be reduced.  Agreed.

     

    However, your original statement was that comparing two different sports the average salaries were larger in basketball simply because their rosters were smaller than hockey rosters.  Basic economics prove this statement to be completely false.  If it were true then the Boston Cannons (lacrosse 25-man roster) would have a higher average salary than the Patriots (53-man roster).  You might say this is a ridiculous comparison but the example is useful because it's all about the revenue.  That's what you are missing.  The NBA TV contracts alone are more than 5 times greater than the NHL.  That's why their salaries are higher.  The Cannons don't have a high average player salary because the revenue isn't there.

    Hockey is a great sport and I am in no way bashing the sport.  But c'mon now.

    Average salaries/sport:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/12/07/average-player-salaries-in-the-four-major-american-sports-leagues/

     



    No, you're changing the argument.  We are speaking only of basketball and hockey initially.  The NHL has a higher salary cap than the NBA.  The NBA players make more per person because there are less of them.

     

    It's not really that hard.




    Well, finally we agree on something - it's not hard.   (But you are still wrong).

    Maybe you missed what I said on an earlier post.  The NBA has a soft cap.  A very soft cap. I don't know if this is news to you.  You are already on record for loathing the NBA, so maybe you don't even keep up with their CBA and such.

    Teams go way over the cap all the time.  The Celtics have a payroll well in excess of $70M and the Heat are over $80M.  That's way over the $58M "cap".  I didn't cherry pick these teams.

    Trust the math.  If you clicked on the link I provided to Forbes you'd see that the average NBA player salary is $5.15M.   The NBA enforces a minimum league-wide average roster size of 14.  The maximum is 15.  So, let's take the smaller number (14).

    14 x $5.15M = $72.1M.   Whoa, I thought there was a $58M cap?  How'd that happen?

    Even if you doubled the roster to 28 and didn't pay the extra 14 guys a cent you'd have more players on the NBA roster that the NHL and the average NBA salary would be $2.575M vs. the NHL $2.4M.

    Hey, it's just math.  It's not like I said Jagr's stick is too long or they should play Krug at left wing.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     


    No, Basketball certainly isn't more popular in the US than Football.  But now you've changed your argument.  Withineach sport if you expand the roster, revenue being a constant, the average player's salary will be reduced.  Agreed.

     

     

    However, your original statement was that comparing two different sports the average salaries were larger in basketball simply because their rosters were smaller than hockey rosters.  Basic economics prove this statement to be completely false.  If it were true then the Boston Cannons (lacrosse 25-man roster) would have a higher average salary than the Patriots (53-man roster).  You might say this is a ridiculous comparison but the example is useful because it's all about the revenue.  That's what you are missing.  The NBA TV contracts alone are more than 5 times greater than the NHL.  That's why their salaries are higher.  The Cannons don't have a high average player salary because the revenue isn't there.

    Hockey is a great sport and I am in no way bashing the sport.  But c'mon now.

    Average salaries/sport:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/12/07/average-player-salaries-in-the-four-major-american-sports-leagues/

     

     



    No, you're changing the argument.  We are speaking only of basketball and hockey initially.  The NHL has a higher salary cap than the NBA.  The NBA players make more per person because there are less of them.

     

     

    It's not really that hard.

     




    Well, finally we agree on something - it's not hard.   (But you are still wrong).

     

    Maybe you missed what I said on an earlier post.  The NBA has a soft cap.  A very soft cap. I don't know if this is news to you.  You are already on record for loathing the NBA, so maybe you don't even keep up with their CBA and such.

    Teams go way over the cap all the time.  The Celtics have a payroll well in excess of $70M and the Heat are over $80M.  That's way over the $58M "cap".  I didn't cherry pick these teams.

    Trust the math.  If you clicked on the link I provided to Forbes you'd see that the average NBA player salary is $5.15M.   The NBA enforces a minimum league-wide average roster size of 14.  The maximum is 15.  So, let's take the smaller number (14).

    14 x $5.15M = $72.1M.   Whoa, I thought there was a $58M cap?  How'd that happen?

    Even if you doubled the roster to 28 and didn't pay the extra 14 guys a cent you'd have more players on the NBA roster that the NHL and the average NBA salary would be $2.575M vs. the NHL $2.4M.

    Hey, it's just math.  It's not like I said Jagr's stick is too long or they should play Krug at left wing.

     



    Here is your statement that started all of this:

    "and players that make far more money."

    14 x $5.15M = $72.1M, right?

    Current NHL salary cap:  $70.2M

    So, you are spreading $1.9M over 30 teams.  That's about equal.  So, why do NBA players make far more money?  Because there are less of them on each team.

    I'm not explaining this again.  If you can't understand it, I can't help you.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


    Here is your statement that started all of this:

    "and players that make far more money."

     

    14 x $5.15M = $72.1M, right?

    Current NHL salary cap:  $70.2M

    So, you are spreading $1.9M over 30 teams.  That's about equal.  So, why do NBA players make far more money?  Because there are less of them on each team.

    I'm not explaining this again.  If you can't understand it, I can't help you.



    I understand the situation.   If you understood it as well you wouldn't have mentioned the completely irrelevant NBA salary "cap".

    My statement was correct.  Any way you slice it $5.15M (NBA) is way better than  $2.4M (NHL).  It's more than double and the NHL roster size is only 53% larger.  If you adjust the NBA roster size to the NHL size and keep the same budget the average NBA salary drops to $3.36M.   $3.36M is still 40% more than the average NHL salary.  That's as apples to apples as you can get and the NBA salary still comes way out on top.  Unless of course you think that a 40% raise is chicken feed.  Sure, people turn down raises like that every day.

    I'm done on this thread.  No ill will intended.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    NBA = Gangbangers with athletic ability
    NHL = Individuals with character

    That's enough for me.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to APpats21's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

    NBA = Gangbangers with athletic ability
    NHL = Individuals with character

    That's enough for me.

     




    Thats an ignorant view. I understand youre a hardcore hockey fan but to catagorize NBA players as "gangbangers" is ignorant and honestly dumb.

     




    You're right, bad choice of words on my part.  My point though is that hockey players are, for the most part, humble guys who are appreciative of the fact that they get to play a game they love for a living.  It's not about the glitz and glamour and how many Lamborghini's they can afford.  NBA players have a more "look at me" attitude.

    Sorry if I offended you.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    Yes.  It is dumb to say NBA players look like gangsters. 

    Amare Stoudemire looks like a normal guy to me:

    Amare Stoudemire tattoo picture

    This isn't very gangster:

    This is normal:

    And in every gang, there has to be one J-Rock.  I don't know who this clown is, but I can tell you that I hate him more than I hate Matt Cooke:

     

    So yes, considering how these guys look, it is very unfair to say they look like gangbangers.  They look like fine, upstanding individuals.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In my estimation, BB players are the best athletes in the world.  It is a grueling sport where injury  is a matter of bone on bone not pad on pad.  The fact also remains the BB team can be controlled by a couple super stars.  So if those stars are not playing up to par, you lose.  In hockey you have 21 players who play as a team.  Witness the Pittsburgh series.  The conditioning needed to play hockey is on par even with European Football, I think more metabolically challenging.  I respect BB as a game, although I find traveling and palming the ball almost ridiculous.  To add, baseball when Clay Bucholtz complains of a neck strain, I almost go over the edge in anger.  I grew up with Baseball as my major sport, and basketball I was good enough to be called an average hs player.  Both of those sports though are not like the team game of hockey.  I have so much respect for the game.  I have so much respect for the players, and the team.  Jagr knows the score.  He made adjustments so he would have a chance at the Cup.  He is slow but he has Marchand and to lesser extent Bergeron for line mates.  His skill is also respected by those two.  Love hockey, respect other sports, but................

    Don't judge me monkey!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to APpats21's comment:



    I could live with gangster but gangbanger nah. People like tattoos. Some more than others. I think the last 2 pictures are excessive but hey to each their own.



    Gangster is okay but gangbanger is not?  Please don't tell me that there is a difference. Or worse, please don't tell me that "gangbanger" is derogatory and hurtful to the good gangsters out there.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     

    Come on guys you're better than this.   If you aren't a fan of basketball that's fine.  The fact is it has more fans and players that make far more money.  Because it's far more popular.

     



    No one here cares about the popularity of hockey.  In fact, the less popular it is, the fewer people who only watch the playoffs come tell us how to view things.

     

    Basketball is a ridiculous sport played by freaks of nature who act like little soccer playing girls.  It might be the stupidest sport on the planet.  And basketball fans, in general, are just as damn dumb.

    Reasons why basketball is stupid:

    It's the only one of the four major sports that awards extra points for difficulty of shot.  50 yard field goals aren't worth 4.5 points.  100 foot slap shots aren't worth 1.5 goals.  500 foot home runs aren't worth 1.5 runs.  Extra distance jump shot?  50% extra points for you!

    The fans spend half of their night chanting, "Defense! Defense!"  Each team scores 50 times a game.  Seriously, who is playing defense?

    It's the only sport where the final 10 seconds of a 20 point blowout can still take 30 minutes.

    It's the only sport where the point totals of the first 75% of the game are irrelevant.

    It's the only sport where there is music playing over the PA while play is on.

    It's the only sport that allows a player free shots at an unguarded goal.

    Stupid sport from beginning to end.



    I did like watching Bird, Johnson and Jordan. Since those guys left the sport has become second to the ego's. Practice! You talkin about practice man....Nnnnnot the game, not the game.....practice!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to APpats21's comment:

     

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

     

     

    NBA = Gangbangers with athletic ability
    NHL = Individuals with character

    That's enough for me.

     




    Thats an ignorant view. I understand youre a hardcore hockey fan but to catagorize NBA players as "gangbangers" is ignorant and honestly dumb.

     

     

     



    I think most NBA players are downright thugs.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs


    I can respect atheletes like Spud Webb or John Stockton or Steve Nash, players who had a complete game in terms of the skills needed in the sport. I can't throw respect towards players like Shaq who couldn't hit a free throw to save their life, but are superstars due to the genetic lottery.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NBA Finals, Heat vs. Spurs

    In response to APpats21's comment:


    IMO gangster doesnt sound bad. Im 19, ive joked around with my friends and pretended to be "little gangsters" when we were small or we'd be like yo waddup gangsta. Its not that bad. The meaning of the word to me has lost its significance. Gangbanger i do think is derogatory.

     



    Okay.  That makes sense.  You're part of a new generation that views things a bit differently.

    For me, gangster and gangbanger are the same exact pile of trash.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share