Reply With Quote
Sure is. I don't see what that does to prove your point though. Stern himself said it provided an advantage. That says nothing in regards to whether or not they should be allowed.
It's not an invalid comparison. Would you argue against seeing a pro Blackjack player's eyes as having usefulness, perhaps even an immense amount?I expect better from you Blake.
Sure is. I don't see what that does to prove your point though. Stern himself said it provided an advantage. That says nothing in regards to whether or not they should be allowed.
Just because "Stern himself" says something, doesn't mean the basketball gods "themselves" came down and said it.
Second, it definitely says something in regards to the advantages. Poker is all about reading players. Eyes are extremely telling, especially the sizes of the pupils at any given time. Many pros wear sunglasses because of this.
YET there are many who do not. Controlling your emotions in general is much bigger of an issue than simply wearing sunglasses can cover. So the advantage is actually only there for the already disadvantaged - the ones unable to act.
Same concept applies in basketball. The defenders getting passed over and around aren't being made fools of because they can't see their assignments' eyes. Additionally, how often can a defender stop a direct pass anyway? If an NBA player sees an opportunity to pass and has the willingness, the vast majority of the time, he will be successful. And this is D ing Wade we're talking.
That analogy does not work. DWade isn't wearing something to defend his head from concussive force.Why not say "Hey football has no problem with helmets... What's the big deal with using them in the NBA?"
Last edited by z0sa; 01-28-2011 at 01:44 PM.
Vujacic didnt get the memo
Let all the players wear the glasses if they want.Look, the obvious point is that, if they DID confer a compe ive advantage, more people would start wearing them. And Stern doesn't want half his superstars wearing dark goggles/glasses.
Why not say "Hey football has no problem with helmets... What's the big deal with using them in the NBA?"
I really see no problem with it.
Then make a decent argument for it. I'm all ears. Saying "because they allow it in one sport, they should allow it in this sport" is not a good argument.
So is it an advantage or not? In one breath you argue that it is an advantage, in the next you discount the advantage. Which is it?
It's as valid as the "they use them in poker" argument.
Fair enough. I'm guessing that Stern doesn't want half the league wearing those darker glasses. (Obvious hyperbole, but if it did confer an advantage, more would probably wear them.)
I mean, you're talking about a guy who imposed a dress code for his players. He's kinda finnicky about that.
It's invalid in the way they're making it. Whether or not they're beneficial isn't really being argued much. It's whether or not the players should be allowed any potential benefit.
Health reasons needs an argument behind it? You've overlooked the argument in your demand that I make one.
I never said whether it was an advantage (it's clearly not, if you want my opinion front and center). I argued that it's trivial and essentially does not affect the game; even if there is some slight advantage, it's so minute as to be ignorable. In poker, having glasses on makes a huge difference in the actual flow of the game, much more than in basketball.So is it an advantage or not? In one breath you argue that it is an advantage, in the next you discount the advantage. Which is it?
Is Wade wearing protective head gear to lighten concussive tackling force, or using sunglasses to hide his eyes? The answer is neither, technically. Yet the one that makes for a much more apt comparison is ...? Like I said, is the parallel between helmets or sunshades?It's as valid as the "they use them in poker" argument.
i dont see how people can be against the ruling, stern is a dumbass...but he's a dumbass that happens to be right this timee tbh
althought probably not the best approach for playing D, following eye movement is still pretty common even in the nba...not being able to see them would definitely provide some advantage for the offensive player.
FWIW, Wade's eyes seem visible just fine through the shades. Perhaps in split second timing, it might affect things, but I'm not seeing any compelling arguments against the shades, or any at all other than a generic Stern regurgitation.
I agree that some shoes may be considered to have advantages over other shoes. The league as a whole has decided to allow these. Of course, if a shoe came out with a trampoline in the bottom of it, they probably wouldn't allow those.
As I said, the argument is whether or not the players should be allowed to benefit from darker-tinted glasses. In the case of sneakers, the league has decided to allow various types. (I'm sure marketing plays a big deal in that.) So far, the league has said "No" to darker glasses.
If you guys think that they should allow it, ok then. It's really a personal preference, I think. I'm just saying that the league gets to decide what uniform rules they endorse, and saying that it should be ok because another sport allows it is a logical fallacy.
the ones he wore yesterday vs the knicks arent the issue, the ones he was using prior to those are...i didnt see him play with the other ones but im assuming those werent visible were they ??
I dunno about anyone else, but I don't look into the eyes of the guy i'm guarding.
Heat don't have that many fans. Lakers NY would be the biggest hit of all, because of the markets. It's not as much about the players as you think, which is why the ratings were low for Cavs/Spurs Finals but about 2 times that for Spurs/Knicks Finals.
obviously what he wore was fine because he didnt have migraines so its all good
It's not like Wade passes, so who cares who he's looking at when he shoots?
/thread
Are all sunglasses legal items to wear during an NBA game?
If there is a valid health reason behind it (ie helps migraine sufferers) then I don't see why Stern wouldn't allow it.
Of course, Stern DID allow tinted glasses, just not tinted enough to hide ones eyes. Is the darker tint necessary? Would it help with his migraines to a much greater degree?
I don't care personally, though I think it'd look stupid if half the players were wearing them.
I was just opposed to the asinine poker analogy.
poker sucks
its not even a sport
QFT. That's gay IMO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
