Around the NBA - October 2017 (3 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? Thanks Denny.

Because I must have been under a rock during those times and absent from watching any NBA.

Your insight is first rate. :D

Well, some of the decline of his play can be attributed to age, right?

That's the insight, and nobody's mentioned it until I did.
 
Well, some of the decline of his play can be attributed to age, right?

No. In your 40s, there's a significant aging factor. In your early 30s, you're still basically in your physical prime. Skills should increase enough to offset what little physical loss there is.

The early 30s aging slow-down is due to wear and tear, not calendar years. Grant Hill had very little of that, having been sidelined for so long.
 
No. In your 40s, there's a significant aging factor. In your early 30s, you're still basically in your physical prime. Skills should increase enough to offset what little physical loss there is.

The early 30s aging slow-down is due to wear and tear, not calendar years. Grant Hill had very little of that, having been sidelined for so long.

Hill was 34 by the time he could put together consecutive seasons of 60+ games. 34 and several years of intensive rehab or just sitting on his ass because he couldn't.
 

Well I admit I thought his vertical was more than 34.5 at the combine. (Which was still above average for his class) But none the less it's not like he shoots sets shots or relies on the 3 ball. (he makes about 1.3 per game) He is deceivingly athletic. Isn't that part of what made him good?
 
Bobby Portis has been suspended for 8 games by the NBA for his altercation with teammate Nikola Mirotic.
 
Well I admit I thought his vertical was more than 34.5 at the combine. (Which was still above average for his class) But none the less it's not like he shoots sets shots or relies on the 3 ball. (he makes about 1.3 per game) He is deceivingly athletic. Isn't that part of what made him good?

No. He's "crafty". :devilwink:
 
Bobby Portis has been suspended for 8 games by the NBA for his altercation with teammate Nikola Mirotic.

Hmm 8 games is a lot. Is it because he actually connected that the suspension is so high? If it is I am not sure if I like that being part of the the criteria. If you swing you swing. It should all be the same. Can't penalize a guy for knowing how to fight. Although i still want to know why Mirotic charged him twice. That should be a factor as well.
 
Hmm 8 games is a lot. Is it because he actually connected that the suspension is so high? If it is I am not sure if I like that being part of the the criteria. If you swing you swing. It should all be the same. Can't penalize a guy for knowing how to fight. Although i still want to know why Mirotic charged him twice. That should be a factor as well.

You can penalize a guy for assaulting someone and making it so they will miss 6 weeks and have to wear a mask when he comes back.

Plus, it was a cheap shot.

Portis should be charged IMO. Buuuuuuuut....

Jordan never got in trouble....

Jordan once punched Will Perdue in the head and, more famously, Steve Kerr in the face, producing a black eye for Kerr.
 
Hmm 8 games is a lot. Is it because he actually connected that the suspension is so high? If it is I am not sure if I like that being part of the the criteria. If you swing you swing. It should all be the same. Can't penalize a guy for knowing how to fight. Although i still want to know why Mirotic charged him twice. That should be a factor as well.

He broke mirotics face to the point mirotic had to be hospitalized and has to have facial surgery to fix the damage. 8 games isn't shit for that.
 
You can penalize a guy for assaulting someone and making it so they will miss 6 weeks and have to wear a mask when he comes back.

Plus, it was a cheap shot.

Portis should be charged IMO. Buuuuuuuut....

Jordan never got in trouble....

Jordan once punched Will Perdue in the head and, more famously, Steve Kerr in the face, producing a black eye for Kerr.

Seems like its closer to the Kermit Washington\Tomjanovitch incident in terms of severity. Though they weren't teammates.
 
He broke mirotics face to the point mirotic had to be hospitalized and has to have facial surgery to fix the damage. 8 games isn't shit for that.

So let's say tonight, Len throws a punch and hits Nurk in the side of the head, barely grazing him and causing zero damage to Nurk. But Nurk reacts instinctively by throwing the exact same punch at Len, but connects a little bit better and breaks numerous bones in his face causing Len to be out for a while. How many games does Nurk get?

Does he get penalized more games for being a better fighter? Even though Len threw the first punch? My point is the end result of the punch should not be the main factor. Portis may still deserve 8 games because he threw the first punch, but the severity of the penalty should not be based on how well he connected IMO.
 
So let's say tonight, Len throws a punch and hits Nurk in the side of the head, barely grazing him and causing zero damage to Nurk. But Nurk reacts instinctively by throwing the exact same punch at Len, but connects a little bit better and breaks numerous bones in his face causing Len to be out for a while. How many games does Nurk get?

Does he get penalized more games for being a better fighter? Even though Len threw the first punch? My point is the end result of the punch should not be the main factor. Portis may still deserve 8 games because he threw the first punch, but the severity of the penalty should not be based on how well he connected IMO.

I disagree. I think severity does matter. A player who punches and causes a great amount of damage should be penalized with greater severity than a player who throws a punch and does little to no real damage.
 
So let's say tonight, Len throws a punch and hits Nurk in the side of the head, barely grazing him and causing zero damage to Nurk. But Nurk reacts instinctively by throwing the exact same punch at Len, but connects a little bit better and breaks numerous bones in his face causing Len to be out for a while. How many games does Nurk get?

Does he get penalized more games for being a better fighter? Even though Len threw the first punch? My point is the end result of the punch should not be the main factor. Portis may still deserve 8 games because he threw the first punch, but the severity of the penalty should not be based on how well he connected IMO.

It was a sucker punch man.
 
So let's say tonight, Len throws a punch and hits Nurk in the side of the head, barely grazing him and causing zero damage to Nurk. But Nurk reacts instinctively by throwing the exact same punch at Len, but connects a little bit better and breaks numerous bones in his face causing Len to be out for a while. How many games does Nurk get?

Does he get penalized more games for being a better fighter? Even though Len threw the first punch? My point is the end result of the punch should not be the main factor. Portis may still deserve 8 games because he threw the first punch, but the severity of the penalty should not be based on how well he connected IMO.
Result of the crime has always factored into the punishment thereof. There's a reason that murder and attempted murder are punished differently.
 
Portis may still deserve 8 games because he threw the first punch, but the severity of the penalty should not be based on how well he connected IMO.

Don't change the narrative.

Your point is moot because Portis threw the ONLY punch. And it was a sucker punch.
 
So let's say tonight, Len throws a punch and hits Nurk in the side of the head, barely grazing him and causing zero damage to Nurk. But Nurk reacts instinctively by throwing the exact same punch at Len, but connects a little bit better and breaks numerous bones in his face causing Len to be out for a while. How many games does Nurk get?

Does he get penalized more games for being a better fighter? Even though Len threw the first punch? My point is the end result of the punch should not be the main factor. Portis may still deserve 8 games because he threw the first punch, but the severity of the penalty should not be based on how well he connected IMO.
Yes, I think he does. Also, it seems that there is this bizarro logic that the guy retaliating always seems to get penalized worse for some reason. I blame the school system ;)
 
Don't change the narrative.

Your point is moot because Portis threw the ONLY punch. And it was a sucker punch.

Intent, damage, the amount of time that the player who was injured is going to be out should all be considerations when figuring out what the discipline should be.
 
Basketball players "charge" at each other all the time. No one ever believes they really want to fight, LOL. That Portis felt he needed to throw a punch is surprising.

Remember when Zach busted Ruben Patterson's eye socket when Ruben kept picking on Qyntel Woods? That was pretty nasty. What was the outcome of that?
 
Yes, I think he does. Also, it seems that there is this bizarro logic that the guy retaliating always seems to get penalized worse for some reason. I blame the school system ;)

Is retaliation worse in the eyes of the nba than the initiation of said fight by the other party? It seems like they would have to look at all the factors in a given fight to determine the appropriate consequence.
 
Basketball players "charge" at each other all the time. No one ever believes they really want to fight, LOL. That Portis felt he needed to throw a punch is surprising.

Remember when Zach busted Ruben Patterson's eye socket when Ruben kept picking on Qyntel Woods? That was pretty nasty. What was the outcome of that?

Zach was fined $100,000 and suspended for 2 games
 
Don't change the narrative.

Your point is moot because Portis threw the ONLY punch. And it was a sucker punch.

Why can't I change the narrative? I am simply asking a question based if thing were just a little different. I defended Mirotic last night when someone said he had it coming by charging him twice. I felt that the reason he charged him twice was important.

I have moved on from Portis, now I am the asking a question on what should happen if things were slightly different. The consensus seems to be that the penalty should be handed out differently based on who kicks who's ass. And I am not sure I agree.
 
Hmm 8 games is a lot. Is it because he actually connected that the suspension is so high? If it is I am not sure if I like that being part of the the criteria. If you swing you swing. It should all be the same. Can't penalize a guy for knowing how to fight. Although i still want to know why Mirotic charged him twice. That should be a factor as well.

Video and story here (supports the charged him twice):

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ndefinitely-altercation-teammate-bobby-portis
 
Why can't I change the narrative? I am simply asking a question based if thing were just a little different. I defended Mirotic last night when someone said he had it coming by charging him twice. I felt that the reason he charged him twice was important.

I have moved on from Portis, now I am the asking a question on what should happen if things were slightly different. The consensus seems to be that the penalty should be handed out differently based on who kicks who's ass. And I am not sure I agree.

So if two players fight. One instigates the fight, throws a punch, and does little damage. The other player retaliates, throws a punch and does extreme damage to the other players face, that requires hospitalization, surgery, and months off the court. Both players should be suspended the sane amount of games? Recieve the same punishment? Doesn't seem equitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top