Landry has Cooper Flagg dreams 😴

[Sothron]

12 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Shaq, one of the greatest marketing machines in NBA history, is a center. It's not about race, or position, it's about charisma. 

Shaq is the only center, ever, to sell shoes. You are moving goal posts at this point.

Flagg is a unicorn as a white American superstar with freakish ability. Jokic is none of those things. Shaq is none of those things. Saying Flagg being a white American in addition to his basketball skills has no impact on his marketing appeal is frankly silly.

[bleachkit]

5 hours ago, Sothron said:

Shaq is the only center, ever, to sell shoes. You are moving goal posts at this point.

Flagg is a unicorn as a white American superstar with freakish ability. Jokic is none of those things. Shaq is none of those things. Saying Flagg being a white American in addition to his basketball skills has no impact on his marketing appeal is frankly silly.

Actually I'm pretty sure you're the one moving the goal posts here. I'm citing examples that run counter to your specious claims and you're conveniently dismissing them. According to you being White really helps in marketing. Wait, unless you're foreign. And you can't be a center either. And any examples of successful centers or foreign born players also don't count. Ok man sure.

[thecampster]

13 hours ago, AHF said:

Flagg feels like an overhype moment waiting to happen to me. We’ll see.  

Flagg is going to be very, very good....but you are right....he is not going to be great year 1 out of Duke.  He's going to need to put some meat on his bones and he's got a few minor things to work on. 

He can't main handle the ball more than 10% of the time. He has unicornish skills and I'd love to have him but I wouldn't expect him to come in like Trae or Luka and lead day 1.

[Vol4ever]

Dalton Knecht out of TN is a boss!  He's a 3 and does it all.  

[Sothron]

11 hours ago, bleachkit said:

Actually I'm pretty sure you're the one moving the goal posts here. I'm citing examples that run counter to your specious claims and you're conveniently dismissing them. According to you being White really helps in marketing. Wait, unless you're foreign. And you can't be a center either. And any examples of successful centers or foreign born players also don't count. Ok man sure.

You mentioned Shaq because he's a white American player? Oh wait, he's not. Insert strawman.

Being a white AMERICAN superstar is what I am talking and only have been talking about. Jokic is not that. Luka is not that. Steve Nash was not that. The last white AMERICAN superstar player was Bird and he got marketing deals out the whazzoo back in the day. 

Saying Flagg being a white AMERICAN superstar in the making has no impact on his market appeal is, again, frankly silly. 

[bleachkit]

41 minutes ago, Sothron said:

You mentioned Shaq because he's a white American player? Oh wait, he's not. Insert strawman.

Being a white AMERICAN superstar is what I am talking and only have been talking about. Jokic is not that. Luka is not that. Steve Nash was not that. The last white AMERICAN superstar player was Bird and he got marketing deals out the whazzoo back in the day. 

Saying Flagg being a white AMERICAN superstar in the making has no impact on his market appeal is, again, frankly silly. 

I mentioned Shaq because he is a center, and he is highly marketable. And I'm not sure why you think being American is so important. Did you recently witness the Wemby hype? He's French. Giannis is very popular. He's from Greece. If you have some empirical evidence to support your position, please share it. The two things that really matter are how good you are at basketball, and how charismatic you are. Being White does not appear to provide any marketing advantage. If it does can you cite an example? Being American does not appear to be that important either. Ultimately you have be really good and have some flair or charisma that excites fans. 

[kg01]

Just parachuting in to say Shaq didn't really sell shoes either, relative to his celebrity.  As a big man, everything he did from a marketing standpoint was unprecedented and truly singular.  He shouldn't be an example disproving saffron's claim w.r.t. big men. 

Parachuting out ... 

[AHF]

I think you have to say on this that we have no idea whether being a white American gives you an actual edge in marketing.  If the last guy who was a white American and was a marketing star was Larry Bird and Bird hasn't played since 1992 then you have 32 years of no data supporting that idea.

Obviously, none of the white American All-Stars since then have sparked big marketing dollars (think of someone like Christian Laettner who had all the publicity and hype  you could hope for but never much of an NBA fan base).  I think the idea is sound that a white American superstar wing should appeal is sound but also agree that any superstar wing has the potential to be a marketing stud if he is likeable and charismatic.  So let's see how it plays out.  I certainly don't take it as a given that anyone is destined to be a marketing stud primarily due to race and nationality.

On 2/10/2024 at 9:11 AM, thecampster said:

Flagg is going to be very, very good....but you are right....he is not going to be great year 1 out of Duke.  He's going to need to put some meat on his bones and he's got a few minor things to work on. 

He can't main handle the ball more than 10% of the time. He has unicornish skills and I'd love to have him but I wouldn't expect him to come in like Trae or Luka and lead day 1.

To me, I'd say for example that I don't take it as a given that he will be better than Chet Holmgren or Mitch Richmond or Khris Middleton or any number of other players who have been really good but not even really blips on the radar as far as being marketing stars. 

I will say that I'm pretty sure a "white Joe Johnson" would not be any kind of marketing stud.  Great player.  7x All-Star.  But very low on charisma and very few really "big moments" that are celebrated by NBA fans who aren't Hawks fans.  (We remember some really big plays in the first two rounds of the playoffs but that isn't where legends are made.)

[shakes]

On 2/9/2024 at 8:26 PM, bleachkit said:

Has being White helped Jokic being marketed? People who don't follow the NBA have no clue who he is despite being arguably the best player in the world. I'm going to say that again. He's white, he's the best player in the world. He doesn't even have his own shoe. 

post after post, you keep skipping right over the AMERICAN part.   Why you keep doing that?

[bleachkit]

5 minutes ago, shakes said:

post after post, you keep skipping right over the AMERICAN part.   Why you keep doing that?

I didn't know NBA fans were so xenophobic. "I would be a huge fan of his, but he's not American!" Like nobody is thinking that at all. Do you seriously believe if had just been born in Scranton or Toledo that would make some huge difference in his marketability? That's absolutely moronic. 

[bleachkit]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I think you have to say on this that we have no idea whether being a white American gives you an actual edge in marketing.  If the last guy who was a white American and was a marketing star was Larry Bird and Bird hasn't played since 1992 then you have 32 years of no data supporting that idea.

Obviously, none of the white American All-Stars since then have sparked big marketing dollars (think of someone like Christian Laettner who had all the publicity and hype  you could hope for but never much of an NBA fan base).  I think the idea is sound that a white American superstar wing should appeal is sound but also agree that any superstar wing has the potential to be a marketing stud if he is likeable and charismatic.  So let's see how it plays out.  I certainly don't take it as a given that anyone is destined to be a marketing stud primarily due to race and nationality.

To me, I'd say for example that I don't take it as a given that he will be better than Chet Holmgren or Mitch Richmond or Khris Middleton or any number of other players who have been really good but not even really blips on the radar as far as being marketing stars. 

I will say that I'm pretty sure a "white Joe Johnson" would not be any kind of marketing stud.  Great player.  7x All-Star.  But very low on charisma and very few really "big moments" that are celebrated by NBA fans who aren't Hawks fans.  (We remember some really big plays in the first two rounds of the playoffs but that isn't where legends are made.)

If being a White American helped then there would data or examples supporting that position. There is literally none. 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

I didn't know NBA fans were so xenophobic. "I would be a huge fan of his, but he's not American!" Like nobody is thinking that at all. Do you seriously believe if had just been born in Scranton or Toledo that would make some huge difference in his marketability? That's absolutely moronic. 

It definitely can make a difference when a kid comes up being talked about in the press for his high school success and then even moreso his college success.  Tim Tebow doesn't have a fraction of the popularity he did without his years at Florida.  If he entered the NFL straight from Germany or something nobody would have even given him a second thought.  So I think you are wrongly dismissing the idea that being raised domestically can improve your marketability.  It doesn't in every case but it can put some players' on the public consciousness in a way that someone like Jokic wasn't before he hit the NBA.  (Luka was probably the most hyped foreign prospect I can remember other than maybe Yao Ming and I would definitely say he would have been much better known to the general NBA fanbase had he won a ring at Duke or something as compared to his success in the Euro market.)

I say that even though I share your skepticism about how large of a difference it makes.  

What I'll need to see is to look at "like" players and see if there is a big difference.  With US born players, I don't see a huge difference in their ability to get shoe deals based on whether they were raised in the US or not.  Like Keith Van Horn, Laettner, Hurley, and others have been high lottery picks and haven't made a big splash because they just weren't good enough. 

Personality just makes such a big difference that I think it dwarfs anything other than success on the floor.  Like what differentiated Joe Johnson and Grant Hill?  I'd say personality more than any edge Hill may have had in career success.  How about Stockton versus Iverson?  I'd say personality and image more than success or performance.  

But I wouldn't rule out being raised in the US being a material positive factor for building someone's brand.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

If being a White American helped then there would data or examples supporting that position. There is literally none. 

There is no data either way.  That was the point of the post you just quoted.  How many white American superstars have their been?  Not any in the last 30 years.  So with a sample size of 0 how can anyone expect data?  

I agree data is needed to prove the case as I said above.

[bleachkit]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

There is no data either way.  That was the point of the post you just quoted.  How many white American superstars have their been?  Not any in the last 30 years.  So with a sample size of 0 how can anyone expect data?  

I agree data is needed to prove the case as I said above.

True but I also think there would be examples of over hyped White American players if thats what marketers were truly looking for. To use an analogy in another sport. Look at women's tennis. Some woman's players received more endorsements because they were considered more attractive. Not because they were necessarily the best players. 

[AHF]

17 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

True but I also think there would be examples of over hyped White American players if thats what marketers were truly looking for. To use an analogy in another sport. Look at women's tennis. Some woman's players received more endorsements because they were considered more attractive. Not because they were necessarily the best players. 

Using women's tennis I think you could make an argument that the Williams sisters used their US roots to help build their brand.  They were amazing players but part of the appeal and the marketing story was their rags to riches pitch which is appealing to and particular to (different from unique to) an American audience.  Sarena in particular had a very engaging personality which obviously also helped.  I don't think physical attraction was the key to their hype although they were both lovely in their own way.  I would link the physical attractiveness more to some of the Russian players with Anna Kournakova being the poster example for that (pun intended).

For men's sports, physical attractiveness seems to have a much weaker correlation between marketing success and looks so it doesn't hurt at all to look like Tom Brady or OJ Simpson but you can also look like Peyton Manning or Dennis Rodman and still be a marketing juggernaut.  For me, charisma and success are the two biggest factors. 

[bleachkit]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

Using women's tennis I think you could make an argument that the Williams sisters used their US roots to help build their brand.  They were amazing players but part of the appeal and the marketing story was their rags to riches pitch which is appealing to and particular to (different from unique to) an American audience.  Sarena in particular had a very engaging personality which obviously also helped.  I don't think physical attraction was the key to their hype although they were both lovely in their own way.  I would link the physical attractiveness more to some of the Russian players with Anna Kournakova being the poster example for that (pun intended).

For men's sports, physical attractiveness seems to have a much weaker correlation between marketing success and looks so it doesn't hurt at all to look like Tom Brady or OJ Simpson but you can also look like Peyton Manning or Dennis Rodman and still be a marketing juggernaut.  For me, charisma and success are the two biggest factors. 

You bring up the Williams sisters. Would they be more popular if they were white? Probably not. I just think it's really tough to make the case being white confers any advantage in sports marketing. 

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

You bring up the Williams sisters. Would they be more popular if they were white? Probably not. I just think it's really tough to make the case being white confers any advantage in sports marketing. 

You could definitely find examples to make the case.  Patrick Mahomes versus Tom Brady.  Mark McGwire versus Barry Bonds.  But you could also find counter examples (Sammy Sosa versus Chipper Jones for example).  I'm certainly not aware of any largescale study that suggests being white confers any meaningful advantage in sports marketing.  I find most anecdotal comparisons come down to personality and charisma more than race but that is also my own anecdotal take since I won't claim to have made any serious comparison.

[bleachkit]

41 minutes ago, AHF said:

You could definitely find examples to make the case.  Patrick Mahomes versus Tom Brady.  Mark McGwire versus Barry Bonds.  But you could also find counter examples (Sammy Sosa versus Chipper Jones for example).  I'm certainly not aware of any largescale study that suggests being white confers any meaningful advantage in sports marketing.  I find most anecdotal comparisons come down to personality and charisma more than race but that is also my own anecdotal take since I won't claim to have made any serious comparison.

I don't understand your Mahomes/Brady, McGuire/Bonds examples. But ultimately I agree with your conclusion that success and charisma are the most determinative factors. 

[AHF]

15 hours ago, bleachkit said:

I don't understand your Mahomes/Brady, McGuire/Bonds examples. But ultimately I agree with your conclusion that success and charisma are the most determinative factors. 

Mahomes is on a similar trajectory to Brady in terms of NFL on field success.  Brady was a marketing dynamo.  Mahomes isn't.  Brady is white.  Mahomes is mixed race.  You could argue that race is the big factor that prevents him from getting the kind of Q factor that Brady enjoyed.

Bonds was a vastly superior player to McGwire but McGwire was much more beloved and got a lot more play in ads, etc.   Both used steriods and cheated by McGwire never got a big blowback while Bonds did.  Is that because Bonds is black and McGwire is white?  You could certainly make that case.  Is it because McGwire was charismatic and projected a positive attitude closer to Ken Griffey Jr. while Bonds projected a surly attitude?  I'd say that you can't discuss this fairly without taking that into account.  On the personality side of things, I'd say Griffey vs Bonds is a nice case study.  Now Griffey didn't transform from an athletic outfielder to a body builder but even when that was happening guys like McGwire were getting loved for it while Bonds wasn't.  

Anyway, just saying all these are anecdotes and I think you'd need a much more broader study to try to account for the many variables that go into it.  My gut says race is pretty low on the pecking order of what makes someone a successful marketer in light of the great variety we see in terms of people who are successful in building their brand and marketing themselves from all areas of media including sports.

[bleachkit]

15 minutes ago, AHF said:

Mahomes is on a similar trajectory to Brady in terms of NFL on field success.  Brady was a marketing dynamo.  Mahomes isn't.  Brady is white.  Mahomes is mixed race.  You could argue that race is the big factor that prevents him from getting the kind of Q factor that Brady enjoyed.

Bonds was a vastly superior player to McGwire but McGwire was much more beloved and got a lot more play in ads, etc.   Both used steriods and cheated by McGwire never got a big blowback while Bonds did.  Is that because Bonds is black and McGwire is white?  You could certainly make that case.  Is it because McGwire was charismatic and projected a positive attitude closer to Ken Griffey Jr. while Bonds projected a surly attitude?  I'd say that you can't discuss this fairly without taking that into account.  On the personality side of things, I'd say Griffey vs Bonds is a nice case study.  Now Griffey didn't transform from an athletic outfielder to a body builder but even when that was happening guys like McGwire were getting loved for it while Bonds wasn't.  

Anyway, just saying all these are anecdotes and I think you'd need a much more broader study to try to account for the many variables that go into it.  My gut says race is pretty low on the pecking order of what makes someone a successful marketer in light of the great variety we see in terms of people who are successful in building their brand and marketing themselves from all areas of media including sports.

I don't think the Mahomes/Brady is a fair comparison. You would have to compare endorsements at the same point in their careers. Id bet Mahomes actually has more endorsements than Brady did at age 28. Mahomes has prominent endorsements from Adidas, State Farm, Subway and many others.