OT: Bill Simmons, "I think the Pistons for top 4 fan bases you wouldn't want to be a part of."
I'm wondering if the Pistons fanbase on the Board agrees with his assessment. He starts talking about the Pistons at the 50:11 mark.
Joe House responds, "Pistons stink...."
Personally, I find this upsetting as the Bad Boys are my favorite all-time NBA team but don't follow the team now.
I imagine it's because he's very knowledgeable about the NBA and because he's a good writer.
He was once a good writer; the past couple of years have been some of the hackiest shit I've seen out of him. He's a podcast host and runs a semi-successful online media network after he pissed off the overlords of his much more successful earlier one and they let it die on a vine and kept the good parts for themselves.
And based on my discussions with Boston fans, they don't think he's much better than a homer who waxes poetically about their favorite teams. His basketball book was solid, but I've read it a couple of times and on each successive read you see more and more logical inconsistencies and tropes.
I'd say he's over-extended himself. I think he's definitely a better writer than he is a TV personality. That said, I still value his opinion, especially on the NBA, and can't blame him for making some loot.
I don't blame him for making money, but as a writer his columns have really suffered, especialy when he veers away from basketball. He used to be more innovative, but then he sort of locked himself into 2006 mode and never really got better. It's not his fault, but for a guy whose brand was snarkily discussing the failings of Boston Globe columnists, he's basically the same now.
As a Boston Sports fan, I'd say that I really feel that since he's moved to LA, he's lost touch with the pulse of being a Boston sports fan. I don't hate his writing style, but I do think that his writing is more presumptive than accurate now. That's my main problem with him.
Replace "Boston" with "Michigan" and you could be describing Brian Cook.
It's possible to not be a stuffy, objective, capital-J Journalist and still write analytical, evidence-based prose.
Detroit is more segregated than Boston.
but I'm also on the Bomani Jones opinion of "Literally every major American city is racist"
I agree that there will be racism in any city or sporting event, but after the Adam Jones ordeal I have to think it is something more than that in Boston. With seemingly everyone of importance, including Red Sox players themselves, defending Jones' statments about Boston having a racist fanbase, it seems like a lot of smoke for the fire that is a consistent issue in the city.
I don't care about your fantasy football team, I don't really care about how little or much white people experience racism. No offense, but there's a reason you don't hear it. Because it's not targeted at us.
Any fanbase that consistently boos their own players (see Detroit and Philadelphia)I've heard of Philly fans booing Santa Claus, but do Detroit fans really have that reputation? I'm not aware of that.
What? Do you miss all the times that starting pitchers get a standing ovation after a good outing? To lump Detroit fans in with Philly fans is ridiculous. Detroit fans are much easier on their teams than New York, Philly, and Boston fans
Detroit media, fans... We are some of the nicest when it comes to fan treatment.
Bill Russell retired 45 years ago. How are you going to bring up something from when over half your fan base probably wasn't even born?? I don't know or care if you are right, but that is a stupid argument to bring something up so long ago.
Definitely not going to listen to a podcast to hear someone be a dick.
He's not being a jerk. The OP is inscrutable, but some people early in the thread seem to think he's taking a shot at Pistons fans. But he's not.
He's saying that the team is mediocre, its cap money is tied up in guys who won't put it over a top, their franchise center can't be on the floor to close out games, and they got an adequate but low-ceiling player in the draft.
He's saying that the Pistons are destined to be mediocre for years--never better than a low playoff seed, never bad enough to get a star in the high draft range. And he's saying that, objectively, being a fan of that team is a situation that would be unpleasant. He's not saying the fans are bad, he's saying the team isn't fun to follow right now.
Who can argue? The OP proves the point, remembering the Bad Boys but stating plainly they don't follow the team anymore.
Simmons is right. The guy is a Boston homer, and as annoying as he can be, he truly knows basketball. The Pistons are in a really tough spot. They are one of the top 10 teams in spending, while being, at best, a fringe playoff team. They have really no young stars that a contending team can be built around. Drummond is a athletic freak of a center, but has no offensive game. The Pistons were one of the worst 3 point shooting teams in the league, which is a league that has been gravitating towards the 3 point shot for the last 5ish years. Overall, they aren't good enough to get excited about any sort of a playoff run, but aren't bad enough to where they can grab legitimate young players with a high ceiling to build around. The team's history is awesome, but their current situation is absolutely terrible.
Seems fair. The NBA is a superstar league and Detroit just doesn't attract those kinds of players. That's the main reason why I stopped following the Pistons, and the NBA, years ago. Unless you have a super team with multiple superstars on it, your team just doesn't have a chance.
Would a franchise player rather play in Milwaukee, Minnesota, Utah, Sacramento, or Memphis? There are about 5-10 franchises that are more appealing just based on location. I think Detroit could attract free agents if they built a team that had the parts to win a championship.
I think the difference between the NBA and the other 3 major sports is the importance and impact of individual superstar players. The 2004 Detroit Pistons were an anomaly, but almost every other champion in the modern NBA had one of the top 5 players in the league, if not the best player in the league.
That's an unreasonably rosy take on the draw of Detroit nationally. It's not a desirable location for a high earning young athlete.
Is it? With the Pistons moving downtown, I think Detroit is more appealing than about half the NBA franchises for a player considering the franchise history, marketing opportunities, and population of the metro area. Metro Detroit is shrinking, but it is still one of the top 10-15 most populous metro areas. And then you add in the fact that some of those large cities like NYC and LA have two teams with one of the two considered the black sheep in their city (Clippers and Nets). And some states with multiple teams. Most people in the state of Michigan, especially southeastern Michigan, root for the Pistons.
I'm not saying it's the best, but it is far from the bottom 5
Metro Detroit isn't shrinking; its population is stable. It's moved down the rankings because other cities have simply outgrown it.
In any event, it still has one of the largest African-American populations of any city, which isn't a small consideration for an NBA player.
Are we speaking of the city of Detroit, or the region as a whole?
Some individual communities (most notably Detroit, but also some inner-ring suburbs) have shrunk but this has been offset by growth elsewhere.
Per the Census Bureau, from 2010-16 Wayne County lost an estimated 71,000 residents. At the same time, Oakland Country grew by 41,000, Macomb County by 27,000 and Washtenaw by 20,000.
It's no longer shrinking (or maybe about neutral?) but Detroit is literally the only city in the entire country that hit 1 mil population and then fell back below 1 mil.
The population of the city itself really doesn't matter; comparing cities is apples and oranges, since some cover a larger land area than others.
It's the whole regional population that makes a difference. There are over 5 million people in Southeast Michigan. That's a solid-sized market.
The city of Detroit is literally the only American city to have had 1 million people and then have fewer than 1 million. Of course it's hard to compare absolute populations between cities because of where boundaries are drawn, but that doesn't change the impact of the statistic above.
but that doesn't change the impact of the statistic above.
Correct, because it has no impact. For pro sports, it's the size of the overall TV market that matters, not arbitrary lines on a map.
I wasn't commenting on the Detroit sports market. Only that Detroit city did shrink in population.
How are you defining small market? If you are calling Detroit a small market team, then you are calling every team outside NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston a small market. You could continue your list past Milwaukee, Indianapolis, OKC, Cleveland, and San Antonio to include the likes of Utah, Sacramento, Orlando, Portland, Charlotte, Memphis, Denver, etc. until you have covered 2/3 of the league.
Detroit is an average to above average sized market in the NBA. It does have an NHL team to compete with which makes it different from many of the smaller NBA cities, but I would not put it in the same basket with Milwaukee, New Orleans, OKC, Utah, or even Indianapolis.
Simply based on metro areas, The pistons would be the 16th team out of 30 in terms of market size behind the Knicks, Nets, Lakers, Clippers, Rockets, Mavs, Bulls, Wizards, Raptors, 76ers, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, Warriors, and the Suns.
Then, once you add in the perception of Detroit, other options, albeit smaller, become more attractive to Free Agents (IMO) due to reputation of the cities themselves (young population, attractive landscape, etc.): The Pelicans, Trailblazers, and Nuggets all seem to fit.
Finally, once you add in basketball aspects that attract free agents, like playing with stars, historical teams, coaches, etc. you can add in: The Cavs, Thunder, Spurs.
With the combination of all of those factors, it shouldn't be a surprise that Detroit is likely to fall into the bottom 3rd of attractive destinations for free agents.
"Then, once you add in the perception of Detroit, other options, albeit smaller, become more attractive to Free Agents (IMO) due to reputation of the cities themselves (young population, attractive landscape, etc.): ... Trailblazers..."
As a former Portland resident - I'm not sure I'd put Portland in there.
They have a REALLy hard time attracting free agents in general, and often have to massively overpay.
Portland is the whitests "big" city in America.
They may not have been stars in the same vein as today's stars but the 2004 roster had a 2nd All-NBA teamer and first team defensive player in Ben Wallace. Rasheed Wallace was still a baller, and while they may not be Steph Curry or KD like players, Billups and Rip Hamilton were still stars. HOWEVER, in general you're right, most NBA champs have elite stars like LeBron, Durant, Nowitzki, Duncan, etc. .. but don't discount the star power of Billups, Hamilton and the Wallaces on that 2004 team.
Exactly....as a fan, I always want to believe my team has a shot at a Championship...at least to start the season. THe NBA is the only league where truly teams outside the top 3 or 4 have 0% chance of winning a championship. Why would I invest my time to follow that sport?
Fail...
So do you just not like pro basketball generally? Because your argument seems to be "I don't like that my team doesn't have a star, but even if they have a star, I wouldn't watch it." I mean, basketball has always been a star-driven sport. Jordan, Bird, Magic, Malone, Chamberlain, etc. all got special treatment. And while this year was boring because of GSW, the past half-dozen years have featured some of the best overall basketball quality in recent memory. I loved those 2004 Pistons, but their brand of basketball wasn't particularly exciting or high-quality beyond defensive intensity.