Minnesota Sports Forum

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand? I can't really think of something that would actually be really good.

Man, this is a great topic. Every industry has its pointless jargon, but sports is really filled with it. There are so many sports cliches that either replace perfectly good phrases, express an idea in an imperfect way, or just make no sense.

One I hate is when people use the indefinite pronoun "a" before the name of a pretty unique player, as if there are a bunch of guys out there exactly like that guy. For example, "a defender like that will help you out against a LeBron or a Giannis." That's so pointless. How many LeBrons or Giannises are out there that you can't just say "a defender like that will help you out against LeBron or Giannis? It feels like a way that people are trying to sound smart, but they actually aren't.

A new one I've been hearing lately coming out of the Ringer podcasts is when they refer to "that guy" or "the guy," as in, "Sure, Jamal Murray is good, but can he really be that guy?" I think they mean the best player on a contender, so why not just say that?

Here's one that drives me nuts. "I'm working on my game." Working on your game? The fuck you are. You're practicing. That's what they call that. It's called practicing. They have a perfectly good word for that already. Just use it.

Man, and don't get me started on "gym rat" or all the fucking guys who are supposedly the "first one in the gym and the last one out." The hell they are. There's no possible way that every time a commentator says that about a guy it's true. You hear that about 30% of the guys on every team. That can't be statistically possible. And honestly, it's really hard to believe that many dudes are actually the first ones in and the last ones out. Think about your place of work. Can anybody name me one co-worker who actually gets to work before ANYBODY else on the job and also leaves AFTER everybody else? Don't believe that shit. Just say "this guy spends a lot of time in the gym" or "he works out a lot."

Ugh, and I wish guys would stop referring to players as "pieces." Pieces? Seriously? The players are objects now? No they're not. They're players, athletes, etc. But they're not "pieces." C'mon. Especially because the majority of American sports journalists, writers, and podcasters are white and the majority of players are black, that is just a cringeworthy reference. As a point of comparison, in Europe, where most soccer players are white, you never hear that. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of racist fans in European soccer (especially in Italy and Eastern Europe is terrible), but at least the sportscasters don't refer to the players as exchangeable inanimate objects.

I don't hate all sports figurative language. A lot of it is great. I still like "he's on fire" although a "heat check" is stretching it a bit. I do kind of like the phrase "empty calories" to refer to players who get stats but don't do other things to help a team win, although I think that concept can be overblown--points do still fucking count at the end of the day. It's not like you score 113 and your opponents win with 107 because 14 of your points were somehow "empty calories."

I'm kind of torn on "putting guys in a position to succeed." In theory, that makes sense. I do like how it's a little more specific than just saying "coaching." If a coach recognizes a player's talent and gives them a role to maximize that, it's a perfect phrase. But it gets used so often just as a blanket term after a guy does well. A dude gets hot and scores 34 one night? Coach put him in position to succeed. Ok, maybe. But the guy had to go out there and actually do it. And when a guy has a shitty night, you know what phrase you never hear? Coach put him in a position to succeed. Logically, that must happen just as often. A team can have a good strategy and a guy can just have an off night. But you'd never hear that called out.

One last thing, and this isn't so much a cliche in phrasing, but a way sportscasters respond to games that kind of drives me nuts. A team wins 123 to 121, and all the questions are about what went right, what a gutsy win, where did you find the character to stand strong down the stretch, etc. The tone of the press is just so incredibly upbeat about that team. A team loses 123 to 121, and the tone totally shifts. All the questions are about what went wrong, what changes do you think you have to make, etc. But it's literally one missed three pointer as the difference. That can't possibly justify the huge difference in the way we think about those two teams. Don't get me wrong, I want to win and winning is good. But it's like we pretend there's no chance or luck involved and there just is.

I'm curious to hear from more of you about your favorite and most hated cliches.

So much good stuff in there Drew

monsterpile wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand? I can't really think of something that would actually be really good.

monsterpile wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

I can't really think of something that would actually be really good.

monsterpile wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand? I can't really think of something that would actually be really good. What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand?

You hear reference to "lunch bucket" guys, but that's kind of an early 20th century thing. Urban, working class guys who couldn't afford to go out to eat for lunch, do hard work, don't get paid much, but build things. I also notice you don't hear "lunch box" guys, but lunch "bucket" or "pail" guys. I wonder if that isn't a reference to the guys who used to build skyscrapers and would haul their lunches up in literal buckets.

As for a modern equivalent . . . who actually works hard these days? So many people just sit in front of a screen. Loggers? Sanitation workers (wonder if that's partly why they call it "garbage time" as opposed to the players just being, well, not so great)? Oil rig workers? Amazon warehouse employees? Movers, fruit pickers, or day laborers (most of whom are illegal immigrants)? Can you imagine that?

Okogie goes to the floor for the loose ball. What an oil rigger!

And . . . Gibson with another rebound. Boy, he's such an Amazon worker for this team!

Nice box out by Smart. He's a real illegal immigrant out there tonight!

Yeesh. Maybe we should stick with yeoman.

O-lineman don't get as tired because D Lineman have to go all out every play and they even have to change moves multiple times when they rush the passer. As an O-Lineman half the time your job is just to stay in front of your man while they have to spin, rip, swim or bull to get by you expending extra energy. Then when you run the ball you just get to go all out at the guy you have to block while he has to engage you and make sure he's covering his gap assignment while not getting blocked out of the play. Any time you see a DT hold his gap, throw his guy out of the way and make the tackle it's a big time play. You definitely get tired on the O line but your job just isn't as complex as a D Lineman so it's not as draining. Also in today's game everyone can hold on offense so it's way harder to do all that as a D Linemen when they just hold you every play.

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.

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.

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand? I can't really think of something that would actually be really good.

monsterpile wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

I can't really think of something that would actually be really good.

monsterpile wrote:

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:One in basketball that I actually like, but it really doesn't make sense either:

"He's doing yeoman's work along the boards"

Again, we know what their trying to say, but it doesn't really make sense. You guys with military backgrounds know better than me, but I know a little about what a yeoman is, and it's kind of hard to make a connection.

I think yeoman, at least in American history, is a term most often used to describe small landowner/farmer in the 18th or early 19th century. I get the sense people think of farming at that time as hard, honest work that didn't get a lot of glory or riches, but was also better than being an indentured servant or enslaved, so I think that's what they mean by that. A hard worker who isn't a star but also not a scrub.

What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand? I can't really think of something that would actually be really good. What would be a modern applicable term or job/career etc that everyone would understand?

You hear reference to "lunch bucket" guys, but that's kind of an early 20th century thing. Urban, working class guys who couldn't afford to go out to eat for lunch, do hard work, don't get paid much, but build things. I also notice you don't hear "lunch box" guys, but lunch "bucket" or "pail" guys. I wonder if that isn't a reference to the guys who used to build skyscrapers and would haul their lunches up in literal buckets.

As for a modern equivalent . . . who actually works hard these days? So many people just sit in front of a screen. Loggers? Sanitation workers (wonder if that's partly why they call it "garbage time" as opposed to the players just being, well, not so great)? Oil rig workers? Amazon warehouse employees? Movers, fruit pickers, or day laborers (most of whom are illegal immigrants)? Can you imagine that?

Okogie goes to the floor for the loose ball. What an oil rigger!

And . . . Gibson with another rebound. Boy, he's such an Amazon worker for this team!

Nice box out by Smart. He's a real illegal immigrant out there tonight!

Yeesh. Maybe we should stick with yeoman.

"Okogie goes to the floor for the loose ball. What an oil rigger!" LOLOLOLOL that was great!

Yep yeoman seems like a good way to go. How many people would actually know what an oil riggers even does that makes them hard working? Heck some people that live in the city don't really know what farmers do. People used to ask me if I lived on a farm because I lived in the country outsdie of a small town adn assumed I knew all kinds of farming stuff. One of my high school teachers told a story about in college he went to school with a kid who lived his whole life in Chicago. He was TERRIFIED of cows. He was certain the monstrous beasts were going to eat him. So yeah finding something pretty much everyone can really relate to seems challenging and yes fewer people do physical labor now than before. There are a lot fewer farmers than even when I was a kid.

Russell with an incredible game winning shot! He delivered tonight like Uber Eats!!!

Sidenote: They might as well throw in come stuff like that to make some extra money on calling the game.

SameOldNudityDrew wrote:Man, this is a great topic. Every industry has its pointless jargon, but sports is really filled with it. There are so many sports cliches that either replace perfectly good phrases, express an idea in an imperfect way, or just make no sense.

One I hate is when people use the indefinite pronoun "a" before the name of a pretty unique player, as if there are a bunch of guys out there exactly like that guy. For example, "a defender like that will help you out against a LeBron or a Giannis." That's so pointless. How many LeBrons or Giannises are out there that you can't just say "a defender like that will help you out against LeBron or Giannis? It feels like a way that people are trying to sound smart, but they actually aren't.

A new one I've been hearing lately coming out of the Ringer podcasts is when they refer to "that guy" or "the guy," as in, "Sure, Jamal Murray is good, but can he really be that guy?" I think they mean the best player on a contender, so why not just say that?

Here's one that drives me nuts. "I'm working on my game." Working on your game? The fuck you are. You're practicing. That's what they call that. It's called practicing. They have a perfectly good word for that already. Just use it.

Man, and don't get me started on "gym rat" or all the fucking guys who are supposedly the "first one in the gym and the last one out." The hell they are. There's no possible way that every time a commentator says that about a guy it's true. You hear that about 30% of the guys on every team. That can't be statistically possible. And honestly, it's really hard to believe that many dudes are actually the first ones in and the last ones out. Think about your place of work. Can anybody name me one co-worker who actually gets to work before ANYBODY else on the job and also leaves AFTER everybody else? Don't believe that shit. Just say "this guy spends a lot of time in the gym" or "he works out a lot."

Ugh, and I wish guys would stop referring to players as "pieces." Pieces? Seriously? The players are objects now? No they're not. They're players, athletes, etc. But they're not "pieces." C'mon. Especially because the majority of American sports journalists, writers, and podcasters are white and the majority of players are black, that is just a cringeworthy reference. As a point of comparison, in Europe, where most soccer players are white, you never hear that. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of racist fans in European soccer (especially in Italy and Eastern Europe is terrible), but at least the sportscasters don't refer to the players as exchangeable inanimate objects.

I don't hate all sports figurative language. A lot of it is great. I still like "he's on fire" although a "heat check" is stretching it a bit. I do kind of like the phrase "empty calories" to refer to players who get stats but don't do other things to help a team win, although I think that concept can be overblown--points do still fucking count at the end of the day. It's not like you score 113 and your opponents win with 107 because 14 of your points were somehow "empty calories."

I'm kind of torn on "putting guys in a position to succeed." In theory, that makes sense. I do like how it's a little more specific than just saying "coaching." If a coach recognizes a player's talent and gives them a role to maximize that, it's a perfect phrase. But it gets used so often just as a blanket term after a guy does well. A dude gets hot and scores 34 one night? Coach put him in position to succeed. Ok, maybe. But the guy had to go out there and actually do it. And when a guy has a shitty night, you know what phrase you never hear? Coach put him in a position to succeed. Logically, that must happen just as often. A team can have a good strategy and a guy can just have an off night. But you'd never hear that called out.

One last thing, and this isn't so much a cliche in phrasing, but a way sportscasters respond to games that kind of drives me nuts. A team wins 123 to 121, and all the questions are about what went right, what a gutsy win, where did you find the character to stand strong down the stretch, etc. The tone of the press is just so incredibly upbeat about that team. A team loses 123 to 121, and the tone totally shifts. All the questions are about what went wrong, what changes do you think you have to make, etc. But it's literally one missed three pointer as the difference. That can't possibly justify the huge difference in the way we think about those two teams. Don't get me wrong, I want to win and winning is good. But it's like we pretend there's no chance or luck involved and there just is.

I'm curious to hear from more of you about your favorite and most hated cliches.

I really loved your last point Drew. I know it can be easy to rationalize games as a fan but sometimes there is literally a play that did or COULD have determined the outcome of the game. I mean how is this last FT actually MORE important than the ones the guy made earlier in the game? I mean...it kinda is because that's where we are now...a possible game winner or sealing the game but if he missed earlier...

How about this gem from hockey:

"Two goals is the worst lead in hockey"