|
|
Post by game on May 31, 2023 13:37:34 GMT -5
In fairness to national media, the largest Denver radio station decided a decade or so ago they would essentially only cover the Broncos and completely ignore the other teams in town.
|
|
|
|
Post by funky on May 31, 2023 13:39:45 GMT -5
It's difficult to market someone who doesn't want to be marketed. Jokic doesn't give a f**k about the media, so they treat him the same way and that's completely understandable.
|
|
|
|
Post by game on May 31, 2023 13:49:14 GMT -5
Pop compared Jokic to Larry Bird in like 2019 and got mocked for it by these same national bozos.
It's almost like one is paid to win and understand winning basketball games, and others are paid to be entertaining to casual fans.
Tim Duncan, Hakeem - basketball geniuses love this guy, and that's what I care about.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on May 31, 2023 14:16:49 GMT -5
It's difficult to market someone who doesn't want to be marketed. Jokic doesn't give a f**k about the media, so they treat him the same way and that's completely understandable. Larry Legend didn't want to be marketed either and they still pushed him as the face of the league for a decade. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 14:37:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on May 31, 2023 17:50:07 GMT -5
It's just weird to me to act like you can't possibly market Jokic because he doesn't want to do lots of interviews.
You can market his highlights. His interviews are incredibly quotable, so even if he does 1 and some other player does 5, there's better material in Joker's 1 interview. You can market "not since Wilt". You can market greatness.
But people on ESPN who don't actually care about basketball aren't going to figure out how to market a guy whose greatness is almost entirely visible on the court to people who do care about basketball.
|
|
|
|
Post by famicommander on May 31, 2023 17:55:33 GMT -5
It's just weird to me to act like you can't possibly market Jokic because he doesn't want to do lots of interviews. You can market his highlights. His interviews are incredibly quotable, so even if he does 1 and some other player does 5, there's better material in Joker's 1 interview. You can market "not since Wilt". You can market greatness. But people on ESPN who don't actually care about basketball aren't going to figure out how to market a guy whose greatness is almost entirely visible on the court to people who do care about basketball. Saw a clip from First Take this morning where Stephen A. ranked the top 5 guys "worthy of a supermax" deal. His criteria were on court greatness mixed with box office draw. His list? 1. Curry 2. LeBron 3. Giannis 4. Luka 5. Tatum All the other people on the show laughed at him. He'd give 38 year old LeBron, who just lost a playoff series in 4 games to 28 year old Jokic, a supermax. |
|
|
|
Post by GBG on May 31, 2023 18:00:54 GMT -5
I don’t GAF what media pundits say. They are drama queen blowhards and I try to ignore them.
Cable media especially is about stirring things up and creating controversy in a desperate attempt to stay relevant and get eyeballs.
Social media is worse, of course, because divisions and extreme takes is what gets clicks. People have to learn what my parents told me sixty years ago. Don’t believe what you read and hear, and verify everything. Lying and dis/misinformation is a part of our culture more than ever, and the most crazy voices have a megaphone in this broadband communications age that they never used to have. This is true of sports and most everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by game on May 31, 2023 18:05:54 GMT -5
It's just weird to me to act like you can't possibly market Jokic because he doesn't want to do lots of interviews. You can market his highlights. His interviews are incredibly quotable, so even if he does 1 and some other player does 5, there's better material in Joker's 1 interview. You can market "not since Wilt". You can market greatness. But people on ESPN who don't actually care about basketball aren't going to figure out how to market a guy whose greatness is almost entirely visible on the court to people who do care about basketball. Saw a clip from First Take this morning where Stephen A. ranked the top 5 guys "worthy of a supermax" deal. His criteria were on court greatness mixed with box office draw. His list? 1. Curry 2. LeBron 3. Giannis 4. Luka 5. Tatum All the other people on the show laughed at him. He'd give 38 year old LeBron, who just lost a playoff series in 4 games to 28 year old Jokic, a supermax. So you're saying the network that is hosting the Finals and has been running "are the Nuggets disrespected?" content for a week-plus left the guy in the Finals (that again, they're hosting) off the list? And his co-hosts and all over social media immediately freaked out about it? Must have been an oversight. No way that was very intentional to drum up some dialogue and debate about Jokic and get people to start to develop opinions and check in on him based on whether they want to see him shove it in Stephen A's face or see him and all the VORP nerds who prop him up look stupid. It's. All. Theater. |
|
|
|
Post by rock on May 31, 2023 18:54:18 GMT -5
I get they are trying to get clicks and create controversy
But why use jokic as the target? What’s their goal? Upset the 20-30 nugget fans they think that exist?
Wouldn’t they get much more attention leaving Lebron off?
|
|
|
|
Post by famicommander on May 31, 2023 19:01:56 GMT -5
I think Stephen A. genuinely is as stupid as he comes off and it's ESPN that positions themselves to profit off of his stupid takes. I don't think ESPN feeds him stupid takes for ratings and I don't think he's smart enough to perpetrate a charade on his one over an extended period of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on May 31, 2023 19:07:43 GMT -5
I get they are trying to get clicks and create controversy But why use jokic as the target? What’s their goal? Upset the 20-30 nugget fans they think that exist? Wouldn’t they get much more attention leaving Lebron off? let me use a political analogy. Stephen A disrespecting Jokic is like a GOP candidate demonizing Muslims or if I can use the flip-side of that coin, a Democrat saying all Maga people are racist. there's practically no downside and it drums up excitement among the intended audience. casuals will not react negatively to Jokic slander like they would Bron slander. |
|
|
|
Post by bignuggets on May 31, 2023 21:39:28 GMT -5
I was reliving the Jokic and Morris beef right now!!
I remember Butler yelling at Jokic to meet his ass in the back lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuggetshipster on Jun 1, 2023 3:30:31 GMT -5
This s**t should die tho. You were posting so many memes about Silver rigging it for Boston/LAL. When in fact neither advanced |
|
|
|
Post by nuggetshipster on Jun 1, 2023 3:32:15 GMT -5
It's just weird to me to act like you can't possibly market Jokic because he doesn't want to do lots of interviews. You can market his highlights. His interviews are incredibly quotable, so even if he does 1 and some other player does 5, there's better material in Joker's 1 interview. You can market "not since Wilt". You can market greatness. But people on ESPN who don't actually care about basketball aren't going to figure out how to market a guy whose greatness is almost entirely visible on the court to people who do care about basketball. Old dudes likes Jokic and his down to earth values. Have you met many kids and teenagers lately? They love the Melo Ball’s and Ja Morants |
|
|
|
Post by LotharBraunBrownBryant on Jun 1, 2023 9:40:01 GMT -5
I have kids. The oldest is a teen.
If what they're constantly marketed is "look at Ja Morant's highlight dunk!" then that's what they'll think is cool. A few years ago it was "look at Steph and Klay and Dame draining long threes" and that's what was cool.
I don't believe the NBA couldn't figure out how to market Joker's highlight passes leading to AG or Bruce or Jamal dunks or MPJ or KCP threes. They just haven't decided to. Maybe they will after this series.
|
|
|
|
Post by game on Jun 1, 2023 10:02:21 GMT -5
If you want to consider the hot take game in real time:
Consider that Skip Bayless and Nick Wright are both picking Miami. Unsurprisingly, both guys have been anti-Jokic guys in the past. As was mentioned earlier, Skip had to momentarily jump on the Nuggets side for his most famous take - anti-LeBron. Then, right back. Nick Wright's most famous take is of course pro-LeBron, which means he had to rain praise on Denver up in case the Lakers beat them, then pivoted hard away from praising Denver. He picked LA to win the title. How would you not change your mind if your title favorites got swept? This stuff is all very orchestrated - these guys have to have trademark takes that people know them for, and they'll never move off them.
Watch how this plays out during and after if Denver wins. Grab onto any excuses mid-series like "Kyle Lowry got hurt!" or whatever. After the series, the pivot will be VERY hard to "easiest path ever?" "worst title team of all time?". It would seem odd to pick against Denver every series or almost every series and then say "their opponents suck", but that's the game.
A ring is a ring is a ring. You're never ever going to just get the "we were wrong! these guys rule! end of show!", so might as well just enjoy it and ignore that stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 1, 2023 14:22:12 GMT -5
The “easiest path” stuff is just so dumb. Would the path have been harder if our Nuggets had beaten the falling apart version of the Grizzlies? Or the first time in the playoffs in nearly 20 years Kings? Or the perpetually disappointing Clippers?
Most oddsmakers and number crunchers picked the Suns to win the west after the Durant trade. The Lakers ranked very high in the league after their mid-season personnel changes and had Lebron and Davis both playing at very high levels. And the Heat have made it to the Finals 2 of the last 4 seasons and at least to the eastern conference finals 3 of the last 4 seasons — it seems dumb to claim they are some kind of phony team.
Some of the sports media will do some dumb money grab things.
|
|
|
|
Post by duh88 on Jun 2, 2023 5:12:42 GMT -5
Duh, I identify with your Everest comment. A Nuggets championship would mean more to me than all the Avs and Broncos championships combined, and all of them mattered...a lot. Broncos first super bowl was huge - plus, I badly wanted to see Elway get it done. But a Nuggets championship, on the other hand, has always seemed f***ing inconcievable lol. When we win it all this month - I don't know? I may just stop watching sports all together, because I don't think there's going to be another spectator "high" that will ever compare. |
|
|
|
Post by duh88 on Jun 2, 2023 5:18:28 GMT -5
Regarding cable news and sports pundits -
1. I miss that the editorial departments are no longer ran by guys like Bob Costas, Peter Gammons, etc. There was an approach to sports that was based heavily on the player personality, and the unique stories that come from it. I do think the editorialists still try to take on this approach - but the historians (Costas, etc) are no longer in the editorial departments - rather - they have been replaced by political causes. In turn - the narrative depth is suffering.
2. Twitter and other social media platforms have heavily cut down cable media - and for good reason - many of the journalists on the social media platforms are truly independent and are reporting more cutting-edge stories than most of what one can find on ESPN or other national networks.
ESPN is surviving on gambling. They do a great job posting the gambling stats and odds, so that people can pull up Fan Duel on their phone and make bets. Once social media statiticians can compete (and disseminate odds more intelligently), then it's lights out for ESPN and others.
As far as I'm concerned - they brought it up upon themselves.
|
|
