Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:I want to see Wiggins respond to a playoff series before making any decision moving him. We are winning, going to get a playoff seed, and that is going to be the most important test. All of the other problematic players have had the opportunity to test the theories of their deficiencies in the playoffs, we'd be foolish to try and move Wiggins before evaluating how he responds to the most important hurdle in his development. Plus selling low is never a good idea. I know some will say it can get worse, and his value could diminish. But there will always be a Toronto deal on the table as I see it. Canadian Nationalism can't be understated in this case.

Wait.....so you are saying we don't really know what kind of player he is until the playoffs? Well, I guess it's good to know that he's been conserving his energy all this time, just so that we could see the REAL Andrew Wiggins in the playoffs after four years in the league.

I'm not saying he is conserving his energy, I am saying that playoff basketball is different brand of basketball and is part of a young player's development. The playoffs in any sport are the real game, and in every high level athletics you'll see players develop from this experience. I believe that someone who has Andrew's athletic gifts could be a huge asset in playoff basketball. You see it every year that certain players every season who tend to be unique athletes stand out for their contributions. Andrew is still streaky offensively, that has been consistent. But I can easily see a great response to the intensity of the playoffs and it being a huge contribution to his continued development.

Around the NBA... media edition.

Here's what happened in the NBA yesterday (1/9 at 11:08 edition)...
https://www.si.com/nba

Did the Wolves win? Did any team win? Did any teams play? There's not a single thing about who won or lost. And it takes at least TWO clicks to find out.

Now couch that with what Steve Kerr had to say yesterday:

[youtube]E9AcTztx1us[/youtube]

THIS is exactly what he was talking about. Apparently, there aren't enough people like me out there to make a difference at this point. Oh well...

It becomes a cycle that feeds on itself...yes, there are fans that eat up sensationalist stories and controversy, so then content providers like ESPN cover it to get clicks, which in turn gets other people to click on it that otherwise wouldn't have been paying attention. What is the line between responsible, substantive reporting and providing content that a segment of your viewers will eat up?

When I was younger, there was always trash journalism in the form of the Enquirer, the Star, and other chekout line rags. So it's always been there, but it was just much more segregated. Now it spills into "mainstream" journalism as well. Kinda sucks.

thedoper wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

thedoper wrote:I want to see Wiggins respond to a playoff series before making any decision moving him. We are winning, going to get a playoff seed, and that is going to be the most important test. All of the other problematic players have had the opportunity to test the theories of their deficiencies in the playoffs, we'd be foolish to try and move Wiggins before evaluating how he responds to the most important hurdle in his development. Plus selling low is never a good idea. I know some will say it can get worse, and his value could diminish. But there will always be a Toronto deal on the table as I see it. Canadian Nationalism can't be understated in this case.

Wait.....so you are saying we don't really know what kind of player he is until the playoffs? Well, I guess it's good to know that he's been conserving his energy all this time, just so that we could see the REAL Andrew Wiggins in the playoffs after four years in the league.

I'm not saying he is conserving his energy, I am saying that playoff basketball is different brand of basketball and is part of a young player's development. The playoffs in any sport are the real game, and in every high level athletics you'll see players develop from this experience. I believe that someone who has Andrew's athletic gifts could be a huge asset in playoff basketball. You see it every year that certain players every season who tend to be unique athletes stand out for their contributions. Andrew is still streaky offensively, that has been consistent. But I can easily see a great response to the intensity of the playoffs and it being a huge contribution to his continued development.

I'll also add that while it's immature and unprofessional, Wiggins still shows up in games he cares about like every time he plays the Cavs. The playoffs may very well bring out that player every game because of the stakes being raised. Everyone just assumes he's gonna be a vegetable all year long and for the rest of his career, but he definitely picks his spots and the playoffs might bring out the good version of him every game. It's not crazy based on his playing history to suggest it.

Q12543 wrote:It becomes a cycle that feeds on itself...yes, there are fans that eat up sensationalist stories and controversy, so then content providers like ESPN cover it to get clicks, which in turn gets other people to click on it that otherwise wouldn't have been paying attention. What is the line between responsible, substantive reporting and providing content that a segment of your viewers will eat up?

When I was younger, there was always trash journalism in the form of the Enquirer, the Star, and other chekout line rags. So it's always been there, but it was just much more segregated. Now it spills into "mainstream" journalism as well. Kinda sucks.

Did you notice (or read about) how some of those magazines got into the politics game in the last presidential election cycle?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/tabloid-newspapers-trump-media-propaganda-214627

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:It becomes a cycle that feeds on itself...yes, there are fans that eat up sensationalist stories and controversy, so then content providers like ESPN cover it to get clicks, which in turn gets other people to click on it that otherwise wouldn't have been paying attention. What is the line between responsible, substantive reporting and providing content that a segment of your viewers will eat up?

When I was younger, there was always trash journalism in the form of the Enquirer, the Star, and other chekout line rags. So it's always been there, but it was just much more segregated. Now it spills into "mainstream" journalism as well. Kinda sucks.

Did you notice (or read about) how some of those magazines got into the politics game in the last presidential election cycle?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/tabloid-newspapers-trump-media-propaganda-214627

Heh, I didn't notice, but let's face it, he's become the king of clickbait/trash journalism. He's brought out the worst in the media. It's actually now hard to tell the difference between some of these publications and others that are supposedly more mainstream.

It's not just SI.com. ESPN.com is right there, too. Welcome to the new age of the NBA.

http://www.espn.com/nba/

The thing is... its popularity is soaring so (1) it's working. (2) it's not going to change (3) I'll stop trying to spray the neighbor kids on my front lawn with the hose...

AbeVigodaLive wrote:It's not just SI.com. ESPN.com is right there, too. Welcome to the new age of the NBA.

http://www.espn.com/nba/

The thing is... its popularity is soaring so (1) it's working. (2) it's not going to change (3) I'll stop trying to spray the neighbor kids on my front lawn with the hose...

And now we're talking about it. Lavar wins again.

At the end of the day the Lavar Ball types bring in the wrong customer base so it will give ESPN a temporary bump, but underneath it all they are building up a toxic/troll following that will abandon them the second they make a miss-step. It's all positive numbers until you go against him and he takes that audience with him.

khans2k5 wrote:At the end of the day the Lavar Ball types bring in the wrong customer base so it will give ESPN a temporary bump, but underneath it all they are building up a toxic/troll following that will abandon them the second they make a miss-step. It's all positive numbers until you go against him and he takes that audience with him.

Does it though?

The NBA has sought the casual fan since the mid 80s... not coincidentally, when it started to surge in popularity. Do you think all those fans who went apeshit for Jordan were doing so because he was the perfect piece of the Triangle offense and had a deceptively consistent mid-range jump shot... or because of the shoes, the tongue, the commercials, et al?

A couple of years ago, the NBA very deliberately modeled its news cycles around the NFL model. Why captivate your target audience for only 8 or 9 months per year. Why not do it 365 days per year like the NFL does with drafts, mini-camps, training camps, free agency periods and other gossip.

We can see subtle changes in how the NBA has embraced the year-long news cycle. Do you think shorter contracts were put in place by accident... or by owners looking to lose out on their top players? Or, because the NBA rumor mill is now a cottage industry, garnering more attention than the vast majority of games themselves?