ItsTheBlog™
ITL: The blog itself is designed to serve as a means of entertainment to the public as well as to provide some insight into what we are all about here at ITL. ItsTheBlog stems from the website dedicated to all things sports, www.itstheleague.com. We love sports and we're always looking to make improvements and build on what we have, so feel free to leave us some feedback.Monday, June 25, 2007
Re: Duncan (concurring opinion)
I concur with ChinMusic on this issue.
It appears as if success is being defined in terms of two factors--championships and excitement. Why aren't the Spurs exciting to watch? Because we live in CA. The Spurs are the most exciting thing that San Antonio has (after the Alamo* of course). But we have no interest in them so it isn't exciting to us. Also, what is exciting? A huge number of points scored? Slam dunks? Fast places Steve Nash Suns style of play? All of these things are subjective. Granted one of the best things about sports is that anyone can have an opinion. I may think that opinion is wrong, but so long as a person backs up that opinion with some reasons and statistics, I'll respect them.
But it seems as if we are trying to come up with an objective top ten based on some criteria that we could all point to and agree on. So why is excitement on there? Shouldn't it be just statistics? Because, I bet that there are plenty of San Antonio fans out there who think Duncan is the most exciting thing since sliced bread. I don't even think excitement should come into play as a factor here.
Is an exciting dunk worth more points than a layup? Granted, a play does have more impact if it can change the momentum of a game, but all things being equal, statistics are the most accurate way players can be compared.
Furthermore, ratings have been down for all sports this year. Look at the Stanley Cup Finals? And playoff hockey in general? Worst ratings in years. So, I find fault in the argument that low ratings equals less excitement.
I think the low ratings for both leagues had to do with the fact that San Antonio and Anaheim are both small markets. Small market means fewer fans watching the games on television.
Again, this is just my opinion. Out of the four contributing authors to this blog, I know the least about basketball (although my fantasy league performance would suggest otherwise).
*Note: Did you see it in today's Press Enterprise? Paul Reubens might be bringing back the belowed Pee-Wee character to the big screen.
It appears as if success is being defined in terms of two factors--championships and excitement. Why aren't the Spurs exciting to watch? Because we live in CA. The Spurs are the most exciting thing that San Antonio has (after the Alamo* of course). But we have no interest in them so it isn't exciting to us. Also, what is exciting? A huge number of points scored? Slam dunks? Fast places Steve Nash Suns style of play? All of these things are subjective. Granted one of the best things about sports is that anyone can have an opinion. I may think that opinion is wrong, but so long as a person backs up that opinion with some reasons and statistics, I'll respect them.
But it seems as if we are trying to come up with an objective top ten based on some criteria that we could all point to and agree on. So why is excitement on there? Shouldn't it be just statistics? Because, I bet that there are plenty of San Antonio fans out there who think Duncan is the most exciting thing since sliced bread. I don't even think excitement should come into play as a factor here.
Is an exciting dunk worth more points than a layup? Granted, a play does have more impact if it can change the momentum of a game, but all things being equal, statistics are the most accurate way players can be compared.
Furthermore, ratings have been down for all sports this year. Look at the Stanley Cup Finals? And playoff hockey in general? Worst ratings in years. So, I find fault in the argument that low ratings equals less excitement.
I think the low ratings for both leagues had to do with the fact that San Antonio and Anaheim are both small markets. Small market means fewer fans watching the games on television.
Again, this is just my opinion. Out of the four contributing authors to this blog, I know the least about basketball (although my fantasy league performance would suggest otherwise).
*Note: Did you see it in today's Press Enterprise? Paul Reubens might be bringing back the belowed Pee-Wee character to the big screen.
Labels: Duncan, hockey, San Antonio Spurs, Stanley Cup
Archives
June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 August 2008 December 2008 April 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 April 2011
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]