Yeah, the latter is much more lame to hate on someone like LOAP did w/ Rubio.The settings are completely different. Just because LoaP didn't say it doesn't mean he didn't possibly imply it..
I think the award should go to the player with the best dunk of the night. Not sure of the format on how to get there though.
Except that the game of basketball is much more nuanced than a dunk contest and Rubio's play was obviously a process that some people chose to ignore.I also thinks its different to be negative about rubio while he playing negatively than to be a hater (negative) on something that donovan mitchell just won (a positive).
I also thinks its different to be negative about rubio while he playing negatively than to be a hater (negative) on something that donovan mitchell just won (a positive).
I just dont have a problem with saying a player sucks when he sucks. I dont remember anyone saying he was playing great while he was playing like dog crap. That would be weird to me.Except that the game of basketball is much more nuanced than a dunk contest and Rubio's play was obviously a process that some people chose to ignore.
Plus he came out for the first dunk of the night and nailed it. I mean I get that there aren't really bonus points for not missing, but maybe there are bonus points for not missing.No, the award should go to the dunker that entertained us the most, and all the way through. I'm pretty sure Mitchell had only one missed dunk, seemed the others were missing multiple dunks every round almost, that kills anticipation for me. Mitchell even said it himself he changed his dunk after the miss to keep everyone's excitement level up to get more points.
You arent the person complaining about people being critical of the dunk contest.I just dont have a problem with saying a player sucks when he sucks. I dont remember anyone saying he was playing great while he was playing like dog crap. That would be weird to me.