TBayXXXVII

I believe so. Hey, I think they should all do what works for themselves. If bouncing it on the floor, going up through the rim and coming back down makes someone better from the line, then they should do that.

LOL, I was being sarcastic with the height issue and tried to exaggerate it. I never looked anything up. I do however think there's probably some legitimate merit to it. I've seen international games between the US and other Asian countries, and while I did exaggerate the height difference for comedic affect, it's still there... and obvious. Now, while I do think the height difference is definitely less than a foot, even if it's like 4 or 5 inches, we see how that affects the NBA. Historically, a guy who's 7' tall and a guy who's 6'8", are only 4" different, but you'll find free throw percentages to favor the shorter players. Keep in mind that it's not just height, it's wingspan because when a player is shooting, they're extending their arms up and out and that makes a difference. If you have someone who's 6'4 and someone who's 6'2 stand next to each other, you'll see a 2" difference at the shoulder... but if they raised their arms, their finger tips are likely to show a 4" difference. So, when I did say I exaggerated the heights for comedic purposes, looking at your link and a link I found online, the average Asian player is around 6'2" (your link)... ironically, the average NBA is in fact 6'6" (google... a lucky guess, nothing more). That's 4 inches, and when wingspan comes into play, that's 8". That's rather substantial and it's possible that shorter players benefit from shooting off the glass.

Duh, they'll have all that extra money from when they defunded the police.

NBA players average 6'6", but Asians average around 5'6". It's all about trajectory. It's why the really tall (7' types), struggle with free throws.

At it's best. I'm being polite and not calling it toilet paper. Also, found it funny you ignored the part of the post that proved Democracy from Trump and anti-Democracy from the left.

LOL, board communists are upset that Trump is pandering to the religious community... but never have a problem when the Democrats do that to every single type of victimhood group.

So you're saying that Trump confirmed that he stands for Democracy? As you wrote (copy/paste from your leftist propaganda tabloid), his supporters might want him to stay longer. Meaning, the voting public want to be able to vote for him again. That is Democracy, isn't it? Now, I know you may be confused on that because your candidate right now was chosen for you, instead of voted on.

Just like the NFL being a copycat league, so is Congress. Obama puts in a young activist onto the Supreme Court, so Trump does it too. Of course, Biden has to make sure he one-up's Trump and puts a person on the SC who can't define what a woman is. If you think that what @Mike Honcho said where the extremist view point of SCOTUS is a problem, then you should think that Kagan, Brown, and Barrett are all a problem. Otherwise, it's just another "it's (D)ifferent" argument. This is something you SHOULD care about. It's the current state of the government right now. Who can bring in the most extreme people into government. It's what causes division. Right now, while the narrative is that it's Republican's causing the division, if you use your eyes and ears, it's clearly the Democrats. Of course though, you don't see it, because "it's (D)ifferent.

LOL, as a receptionist. You're response tells me you think that Barrett was more qualified than Kagan, is that correct?

Sure, I get that. If either were doing Constitutional law, fine, but neither were. Kagan, at best, was a political activist with a law degree. Barrett was at least a judge in the 7th circuit court of appeals before even being on the Supreme Court, but I'm not really sure she should've gotten that job either. At least she did something at a judge level, but I don't see the two all that much different. They were picked solely to to cater to the extremes of their party... I don't like that.

I want people who are NOT activists in positions of power. Neither qualify. They're both activists who push an extremist agenda. They were both place in that position because they were young and expected to serve 20 years or more to push that agenda. That is DEI. That's not a good thing. I'm not surprised you're ok with that because you're ok with that even in the White House.

She was never actually in a courtroom. I'd think that in order to be a judge, you'd have to at least SEEN one. No? As @Mike Honcho pointed, it's no different than Barrett, right? You're fine with her being on the Supreme Court, or is that (D)ifferent. Trump took a page out of the Obama book. That's all good, right?

Yeah, I said as much at the time. I called out liberals who were saying she wasn't qualified by asking why they didn't have a problem with Kagan. It's the same thing. Either you're against Barrett and Kagan or you're for both. If Obama can do it, so can Trump, right? Or is it (D)ifferent?

She never actually stood in front of a judge, in a court room. At all. Ever. She did book work for Williams & Connolly. She was soooo gooood at that, that she left the law field to teach. You know, those who can... do, those who can't.... teach.

Remove all the straight white men. Going full blown DEI on this ticket.

Regardless of whether it was a man or woman, it's ridiculous. Also, Kagan never was actually a practicing lawyer. How the heck could she even be a judge??? Every judge and lawyer in the US should've had a problem with her appointment

This is true. It's also why Obama & Biden made sure they got two really young (and unqualified), activists in Kagan and Brown-Jackson in there. The longer they're on, the more left they go and they're already at socialist level. By the time they hit their 60's, they'll probably be full blown communists.

Totally nailed it here.

Yeah, that year was the first year of our money league. Our scoring system was the basic one at the time for yards and TD's... just not PPR. The guy that beat men in the semi's had Terrell Davis and Randall Cunningham.

I was 14 (1994), my first team had almost every Buccaneer. I had Craig Erickson as my QB, Errict Rhett, Courtney Hawkings, Lawrence Dawsey, Horace Copeland, & Michael Husted. It was an 8-team league... obviously, I finished in last place. My first year in a money league was 1998. I took this rookie with the very last pick in the draft. Some WR out of Marshall. Turned out pretty well. I finished 3rd that year, 10-team league.

Wonder if Crochet's extension talk prevents the White Sox from being able to trade him. He says that he's not going to pitch in the playoffs unless he has an extension signed and that he won't go back to the bullpen.

Practically nothing... their #12 and #22 prospects. Maybe the PTBNL is actually a good prospect.

Is this like saying, I'm not racist because I have a black friend?

Wayne Brady is one funny m'fer. Dude is super talented.

LOL, you come across as someone like my cousin. One night, a few of us were talking about basketball and my cousin said that LeBron James was the best player of all-time. I said, "I don't know, I'd think I'd put Jordan, Russell, & Wilt ahead of him." His response... "Oh, yeah, so LeBron sucks?". LOL, I basically said he was the 4th best player of all time and he's claiming I think he sucks. OP's list has him #3... I think he falls up #6 or #7. That "drop" might literally be 1 target less per game. Hahaha... heaven forbid I think he gets around 9 targets per game!