Yeah, but any one of the 5 positions on the basketball team can be the "most important" depending on how talented the player is. Not so in football.
Baseball and Football are the ultimate team sports... Basketball is the most selfish game in sports Pujols can go 0-4 with 4 strike outs and commit 2 errors and the cardinals can still win, or Pujols can hit 4 hrs in a game and the cards can still lose. Peyton Manning can throw 3ints and 0 tds and the Colts can still win, or he can throw 3tds and they can still lose. If Kobe or Lebron have a bad game, their team will lose, if they put up numbers their teams win, regardless of how their teammates play. In Basketball, you have players wanting to go one on one all the time instead of moving the ball around and finding the open player. When a player makes a shot, he celebrates like he just won the championship, but if he misses that shot, he turns to the ref, and cries for a foul, as if he just got shot... One of the most selfish acts was done in the NBA when Ricky Davis missed a shot in his own goal, simply for the rebound so he can get his triple double...
Well, the Bears lost Brian Urlacher and suddenly there defense completely suffers. How is that not considered "most important"? It was a huge deal when that Colts defensive lineman got injured. There was a damned update every day the entire week. Both players play different positions? That position argument doesn't fly and doesn't make much sense unless I'm not understanding it fully. Still, my big thing for football is you're either an offensive player, or defensive player. I know sooo many things need to come together to make a great football team and only 16 regular season games to play. But like I said, in basketball you have to play both offense and defense to be successful. I won't argue that individual players in basketball can make or break a team, especially the "superstars". Put Lebron or Kobe on any team and that team at least makes the playoffs. But even Lebron can't make a team elite without other players with specials roles, a reliable bench, and a good coach. Chemistry is important too. Hell, all you to do is look at our Rockets. We don't have any great individual talents, but our TEAM concept and cohesiveness has us playing .500 basketball.
Both the Lakers and Cavs are on track to win 60 games. Do you REALLY think Lebron and Kobe had a good game in every single one of those wins? Of course not, but they're presence on the floor demands attention and they make everyone around them better. The other players on the teams are good enough to win. Look at Dwyane Wade, one of the top 5 players in the game. His team would be on the bubble for the playoffs because the others on the team aren't as good as those on the Lakers and Cavs. Danny Granger and Derrick Rose, both superb individual talents, teams' will both miss the playoffs entirely. The Bucks, without a true superstar are having a great season. What is this individual concept you're talking about? Individual talent most definitely plays a role, but I'm gonna say it, "Its takes five baby". In football, can you really tell me that any team with an average defense couldn't be made playoff teams to be reckoned with if they were to get a Peyton Manning or Drew Brees? Really?
Pretty much exactly the way I feel. And even though I can watch any NFL game when it's, my favorite sport is baseball; I grew up playing it. The Astros are probably my favorite team; if they're playing well then nothing else matters. Baseball is exciting because a game can literally be decided with one pitch. Football is exciting because of the strategy, the big hits and the big plays. Basketball is exciting because, at least during pivotal games and the playoffs, I feel like the momentum can turn and the game can be won or lost in as little as a minute. Football is the ultimate team sport, by far. Basketball would be next, but I would argue at times it becomes more individualistic than even baseball; when you got guys that feel it necessary to hog the ball and try to win the game on their own, it becomes apparent why.
This is true. Ricky Davis is an idiot and I don't think he's even been on a winning team. Those guys who want to go one on one all the time, *cough* Tracy McGrady, are never on winning teams. Which is what we're debating in the first place, what is the best TEAM sport. What about Terrell Owens or, good God, Chad Ochocinco. Anytime they make a good play, they let the entire world know about it. Owens running out to the Cowboys star at midfield comes to mind and to me is just as selfish and idiotic as the Rick Davis thing.
Basketball though I think is a little unpredictable though. You can have players that become cancers on their team, that completely destroy chemistry and effect the quality of product on the court. But then you have teams like the Rockets this year that buy into the team concept and win games because of their unselfishness.
Since when do you have to play on an official sized field? I played hundreds of games of 2 on 2 football in front yards and fields growing up. If we got real desperate, even 1 on 1.
College basketball and NBA have different things going for them that make them unique. NCAA has March Madness, the college rivalries, more strategic coaching, a shorter season, and that almighty commitment to team play. NBA has a hectic pace, gargantuans on the floor (big is better), players who play above the rim I agree with this. You might be on to something, but Steve Nash is Canadian and not really a big draw in the same way as say Kobe or LeBron or the nearly all black Celtics and Bulls. The race thing is kind immeasurable, because some of most successful times in the league (especially during the Jordan years) the best players were ...black. The 90s did not have an abundance of white superstars, yet the ratings were still pretty much the same or better with premier players, like Shaq, Olajuwon, and Ewing. Dennis Rodman and Nick Van Exel, considered two troublesome players were amongst the league's most popular in the 90s. Rodman was decked out in tattoos and piercing with colorful hair and wedding dresses. People often disdain it, and thought it was a ridiculous display of a pro athlete, but he was a great player and did capture a large fan base. Some of the stuff Rodman did was much worst than what some of the guys have done on the court today. Having great, exciting talent in the league can also go a long way. I think having a white (American born) superstar would help things a little, but not enough to change the entire perception of the league. Say, if there were a white player in mold of a Brett Favre or Peyton Manning. The player could draw people, but it wouldn't monumental unless the guy was top 1 to 6 talent and on a winning team. Uhhh... A shot clock was added for the very reason that you mentioned, you realize in high school, college, and NBA basketball. There was no such thing as a shot clock and possessions would last 2 to nearly 4 minutes. A high scoring game was considered 60-56. You might want to go back and watch some of those really old games or read some of stories about the pre-shot clock era. People talk about players now holding a ball for 20 seconds and jacking up a bad shot, could you imagine waiting 2:30 minutes and jacking up a shot. When people talk about the old days of basketball, and being a great game...I always hope that they are talking about late 60s to 90s. Because, everything pre-shot clock and near pre-shot clock is about 77x less exciting than the worst modern day NBA game. The shot clock is one of the greatest things that basketball could come up with, because it makes teams hurry up. Really, the thing that slows the game down are the referees, sometimes timeouts, but not really.
You are proving the other guys argument with yours. You keep saying basketball is the most team oriented sport and using the fact they play both ways to prove it. It is quite the opposite. Since you only play one way, you have to depend on the guys on the other side of the ball, and special teams. This makes it way more of a team dependent sport than 5 guys playing everything. In football you litterrally have to have all 53 guys on the roster and the coaches on the same page to win a game. To take it even further, the practice squad players play a big part in the preperation during the week, adding another 10 players. In football you have to have over 80 guys on the same page on every play in order to succeed. There is really no comparison. If you wanted to say Favre was the best QB ever, you would have to realize that he does nothing without a line blocking, WR running proper route, then catching the ball, RB picking up the blitzer, coaches putting everyone in position to be able to do it, and so on. How good is Emmitt Smith without the Cowboys line, blocking schemes, WR blocking down field, Aikman keeping the defense honest, and so on. There will never be an all time great who hasn't had to depend on 60-70 other people per season.
I think you nailed it. (But I think Birdman averaging 30-10-10 would sell a ton of tickets too!) :grin:
Like Wilt Chamberlain said, "Nobody roots for Goliath". Basketball takes natural athletic talent and height. So to a lesser degree most good basketball players are Goliaths. 6'-4" is NBA small but noticeably tall in regular life. Nascar can exist cuz the people are relatable, even though its not as good a spectator sport. What helps football is all the players are in a sense "farmed and produced", regardless of color. That is, you can mold yourself into a football player through sheer hard work. Coaches can make a high school team good by straight whipping them into shape. Brian Cushing can make himself from a wuss into a man by (roiding) bulking up hard in the weight room. There are a lot of elements that go into football like leadership, toughness, perseverance, courage, along with athletic ability. People appreciate the final product of that more than the guy born with 6-8 height and 36 inch vertical who didnt ever have to work hard at his craft. Football is like military at a lower level. The players are literally FIGHTING and beating the other people up for hometown pride. In the football "arena", ugliness and brutishness are welcomed as an advantage. While people supporting the team can make believe their guys are doing it more "clean" and "honorable" than your guys are doing it. Which makes some of the critique of basketball a little ironic, contradictory, whatever you want to call it. People love when guys break out in fights in hockey, they love the "tough" guy in car racing, love when the drivers get out their cars and talk ***** wanting to fight the other guy. They love bench clearing brawls in baseball. Do that in basketball, the players are "savages" and a product of their "environment". Those same behaviors are DISCOURAGED. Agree. Though NBA has had image problems back to the 60's and 70's. Afros and gold chains were looked at almost the same way as cornrows and tattoos. Bird, Magic, Jordan (and David Stern) made people forget about that for a while. Though Iverson's generation took it up another level.
