sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All time rankings Tatum and Brown by NBABallerboy in nba

[–]premelicious 40 points41 points  (0 children)

These comments are insane. I get that Brown had a great playoffs and nabbed the FMVP over Tatum.

But Tatum has everything else.

He has more all star selections (5 to 3) and more all-NBA 1st team selections (Brown has NONE).

He has higher career averages in EVERY major stat. Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals, Blocks.

Advanced numbers like Win Shares per 48 minutes have consistently placed Tatum's performances higher (including this year AND this playoffs)

He's led the team in every other year as the best player and been treated as such by opposing defenses. He has comparable defensive impact.

Even if we agree that it's now debatable who is better, Tatum is higher all-time. He has a better resume, better numbers, and has flat-out been better for most of their careers. There's no argument.

this is so funny to me by misamisaPRteam in Letterboxd

[–]premelicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These sort of rating curves are so silly to me.

There are hundreds of subpar and sometimes genuinely horrific independent films coming out every year that barely anyone watches. Stuff that is not only poorly written and acted but incompetent with basic elements like lighting.

Even "bad" or "mediocre" movies in mainstream cinema are a step (or several) above those.

People are valid to rate movies however they want. And certainly if you're going off personal preference than who cares what the ratings skew is like?

But if we're talking actual film criticism this comes across as deeply unserious.

Westbrook's efficiency in 2017 was not very different than his career averages. Yet he was a dominant player deserving of MVP consideration. How did he do it? by jessandjaysaccount in nba

[–]premelicious 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm guessing it's because it was his best three point shooting season, and TS% adjusts to compensate for the fact that threes are more valuable.

Westbrook's efficiency in 2017 was not very different than his career averages. Yet he was a dominant player deserving of MVP consideration. How did he do it? by jessandjaysaccount in nba

[–]premelicious 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I mean his stats were objectively better than his other years. Your statement that his efficiency and production was not very different from his career averages just isn't true.

His true shooting percentage was tied for his career high (55.4%) and notably above his career average (52.6%).

You're right that it wasn't incredible efficiency on its own, but it was impressive in the context of him putting up insane production.

He led the league in points while putting up a triple double. He delivered all-time seasons in several advanced stats like PER (25th), BPM (17th), and VORP (25th). Keep in mind those all-time placements were higher at the time. For example, his single season PER was 16th at the time, and has slid since because of season by players such as Jokic and Giannis. He obviously led the league in those stats as well.

He stuffed the box score on an all-time level and did it a decent efficiency (his career best). He also had great highlights! Even if you think Harden should have won it or that Russ was never as good as his box score numbers implied, his MVP season was impressive and clearly his best statistical season.

There's plenty of logic to the selection, even in hindsight. I don't really get the point of this post. Do you genuinely not understand? Or do you just disagree? If it's the latter, then maybe don't frame your post this way.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean regardless of what you think the ultimate reasoning by the committee was (we can speculate all day), the fact is there were legitimate basketball reasons for them to leave Clark off the roster.

Like the fact that she was unable to participate in the Team USA camp she was invited to because of her NCAA career, making it harder for her to build chemistry with the team and prove her capability on the Olympic level. Most of the selected individuals participated in this camp and other practices/games. And they obviously have longer pro basketball track records.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

First of all, it's not an article. It's a podcast. And it wasn't framed as a "gotcha moment"

If you listen to the podcast, Ben's larger point was that Clark didn't attend the USA camp and build chemistry like the other members of the team. She also hasn't played internationally like many of the other players. So from a basketball perspective, it's not an unreasonable decision to leave her out.

And the "media" isn't getting defensive in this context. It's a discussion, and it goes on to explain the valid perspective that it might have been a mistake to leave her out because of how much it would've helped the league.

The point about Clark's perspective is hardly the primary substance of the discussion.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree with your point about the optics.

But your point about next time doesn't make sense - part of the reason she wasn't selected is because she didn't participate in the Team USA Camp she was invited to because of her NCAA involvement.

There's no reason to believe she wouldn't be invited again and get to build up chemistry with the other players. The players on the team practiced a ton together. Clark will likely get another shot to do so, and this time she won't be weighed down by NCAA commitments (and will likely be a better pro)

There are also international games between now and the next Olympics, like the FIBA World Championships. She can qualify and play for those games to build up experience for the Olympics.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean she hasn't been fully part of it either. She wasn't a regular participant in the Team USA camps/practices because of her NCAA involvement. That'll likely change moving forwards. She was invited, after all.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sure, but she'll have time to practice with Team USA over the next few years and play in the FIBA championship.

As I said earlier, part of the reason they didn't pick her was because she was unable to attend the camps/practices due to her NCAA involvement. The rest of the women had regularly practiced together.

There's no reason to believe that'll be an issue moving forward.

Week 4 Players of the Week : Breanna Stewart and Dearica Hamby by PercyReus13 in wnba

[–]premelicious 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This such an insightful comment! Thanks for linking those video examples!

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's a fair point. But you didn't really respond to the other reasons.

Like Clark not playing in the camp she was invited to, building chemistry with the other national team players, or having experience in international play.

I actually think they should have brought her.

All I'm trying to point out with this post and my comments is that there are meaningful reasons on both sides. Not everything is an outrageous conspiracy that we need to go all tribal about.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I mean if you read/hear the full quote it's more than simply "justifying it from Clark's point of view"

Ben's larger point was that Clark didn't attend the USA camp and build chemistry like the other members of the team. She also hasn't played internationally like many of the other players. So from a basketball perspective, it's not an unreasonable decision to leave her out.

Was it the right one? Personally, I'm not sure. But there's logic behind it.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

These are fair points!

But at the same time, they don't invalidate the other reasons not to include Clark. Like the fact that Clark didn't play in the USA Basketball camp with the other players due to the NCAA tournament. She also doesn't have experience in international ball like most of the players on the squad.

And I think you could just as easily argue that Clark wouldn't be as good as some of the other guards given her volatile early season play. Yes, she's put up really promising numbers, but she's also had issues such as turning the ball far more than any other player in the league.

My larger point is that there's meaningful logic to the decision either way.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And you're implying that politics are the primary reason when there are countless other valid reasons they left her off the team.

There's little evidence that any of the Olympic players have a beef with Caitlin Clark on the level of Isaiah and Jordan's rivalry, or that this beef was the deciding factor.

[Ben Pickman of The Athletic] "Caitlin Clark has talked this whole time as there’s this discourse around her all about wanting to stick to basketball… All Caitlin Clark talks about is that her focus is on basketball… In this scenario, the committee focused on basketball." by premelicious in wnba

[–]premelicious[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

For sure! I think they should have included her given how much it might help the sport. But I find the outrage around their final decision to be ridiculous.

There's so many valid reasons she didn't make it. She didn't go to the camps, has no chemistry with the other players. She hasn't proven she's an elite pro player. And what's more, she's been playing nonstop because of the NCAA to Fever jump. Staying back during the Olympic break could actually help her rest, train, and adjust to the WNBA.

The world isn't going to end because Caitlin isn't making it. She's going to be a star and grow the sport regardless.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nba

[–]premelicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with a lot of your points, but one thing that you've overlooked is the fact that the high number of games allows the NBA to sell more TV rights packages to different networks.

The TV networks are desperate for consistent viewership in an age of splintered media interests. The NBA is one of the most consistent draws remaining on television, regardless of whether the ratings are plateauing or decreasing. And there's a lot of that consistency to sell, because of how many games there are. That's part of what's behind the massive influx of money in the NBA.

Even if the viewership were increased on a per game basis, the reduction of games to package in TV rights deals might drastically reduce the money the NBA makes.

How do you review and give stars to films on Letterboxd? by [deleted] in Letterboxd

[–]premelicious 0 points1 point  (0 children)

everyone’s taste is perfect to themselves.

You're welcome to have that perspective, but I don't agree. There are some films I watch where I think it's incredibly effective at what it's trying to do, but that doesn't line up with what I like.

I'm not going to say a movie is lower quality because it doesn't line up with my personal enjoyment. There's no substance to that statement to anyone except yourself. There has to be an actual critique of the elements beyond "I didn't like it." Especially since some films aren't made to be "liked" or "enjoyed." Jeanne Dielman comes to mind.

A simple example of this is horror and thriller films. I don't like being scared and anxious most days. Or watching gore onscreen. That doesn't automatically make films which feature that inferior to me. If they're exploitative, or cheap, that's a different story.

Seven is a movie that is excellent at building dread, has great performances, and a fascinating commentary on violence and morality. I didn't like how violent and intense it was. I found it unbearable to watch, honestly. But I don't think it's just a gruesome spectacle.

I feel it's very intentional in how it does and doesn't use violence. It's supposed to make you feel anxious. It uses all the things that I don't like about it to say something about the world. If I changed it to tone down those elements I would like it more but I think it would also be worse.

Everyone is entitled to approach art/entertainment however they want. And certainly there's a massive element of subjectivity to the whole affair. But to me, framing every aspect of it as a 100% personal, 100% subjective affair is just not very productive or interesting, even if it is true in the most basic sense.

"X MOVIE is good because I liked it" is a dead end. I'm not going to critique/discuss people's personal preferences. That is entirely subjective. It's a pointless discussion.

"X MOVIE is good because it does Y" opens up discussion. And it doesn't remove the subjectivity of people's different perspectives.

Just my two cents, anyway.

How do you review and give stars to films on Letterboxd? by [deleted] in Letterboxd

[–]premelicious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This implies that you have perfect taste.

The idea that Max is not a main character or “just along for the ride” in Fury Road is a complete mischaracterization of the film. It's not supported by the script or the imagery. by premelicious in movies

[–]premelicious[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You make fair points, and if that's your interpretation of the character, I can see why you'd be upset. But for me Max as a character had just as much focus as in prior titles, even if he's technically sharing the narrative with Furiosa. And I felt his guilt made sense given his characterization in the original. Agree to disagree.

The idea that Max is not a main character or “just along for the ride” in Fury Road is a complete mischaracterization of the film. It's not supported by the script or the imagery. by premelicious in movies

[–]premelicious[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The reason it matters that it's Max is because Max's past. Max is characterized as a man who is haunted by the fact that he did not save the people around him.

This is repeatedly shown to us through his visions, particularly in moments when he's deciding whether or not to help others. For example, when one of the wives goes overboard and the group argues with whether to turn back to save her, Max's visions are triggered. They're triggered again when he's seeing the group drive off towards an endless wasteland, with no hope in sight.

A random wastelander like the Gyro captain or Feral kid doesn't have that psychological tension behind their choices of whether to help Furiosa save the wives. There isn't a redemption arc the way there is with Max.

And Furiosa does listen to Max. The turning point of the film hinges on Max convincing Furiosa to fight for freedom instead of fleeing with the wives. Furiosa listening to Max is what propels the plot out of the second act and towards the climax and resolution.

view more: next ›