Camden wrote:I was nodding my head in agreement until I read the "pieces" bit. Rarely, if ever, does anyone say that in a racially-insensitive way. There are pieces to a puzzle. There are pieces that are needed on a championship team. Ball-handlers, perimeter shooters, wing defenders, rebounders, rim protectors, etc. Those are pieces.
That reminded me of how years ago the NBA virtue signaled to the world by replacing franchise "owners" with "governors" which is equally silly. These multi-million dollar athletes getting paid to play basketball and entertain hundreds of millions of fans essentially making them celebrities... but someone somewhere felt like "owners" was outdated and insensitive. Unbelievable.
Everything can't be taken offensively or else there will be nothing left to say. And we're heading there if all things continue.
I don't think people are consciously being racist by doing it, I get that it's coming from the puzzle metaphor, and I agree people in general need to check themselves before they react when they start feeling offended by what people say. And I'd add to your argument by saying I've heard black commentators say it and I've heard it used to refer to white players. But when I think about it it just makes me cringe. It's referring to people as objects, and it is mostly one race of people doing it to another racial group. It just feels wrong to me as a practice. I don't think anyone who does it or defends it is a bad person. I just feel like there are better ways to say it, and actually, you state some of them. Ball-handlers, perimeter shooters, wing defenders, rebounders, rim protectors are all better ways to describe the roles of players without referring to them as pieces IMO.
EDIT: I'm open to being convinced otherwise. For example, if there are other jobs you guys can think of in which the workers are often described as "pieces" in a way that doesn't have a kind of cringy overtone, then I may start to rethink my thoughts on that. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there's a lot I don't know, so maybe there are examples out there. If there aren't, then I feel like it would reinforce my discomfort with this practice.
In the meantime, how about this? Elite. If elite was defined by how often people use it, 25% of the players in the league would have some kind of elite skill. I think of it as much more rare. Like 5% max.
Plus. He's a "plus" rebounder or a "plus" defender. Plus what? I think it means above-average. But I can't for the life of me figure out how it means that. There should be a rule. Every time you refer to a "plus" shooter or a "plus" defender, you are obligated to refer to someone as a "minus" shooter, etc. And we should start referring to sports journalists in these terms as well. As in, Bill Simmons is a "minus" draft analyst.
Or scary. As in, "If that dude gets a jump shot, watch out, that's scary." No it's not. Not unless your idea of a horror movie is watching good players play basketball.