Thank you for the great synopsis! I'm WNBAStorm until I die, I'm WNBAStorm until I die, I know I am, I'm sure I am I'm WNBAStorm until I die!
"Ok side bar here. Coaches don’t really say this. People in the media use it as coach speak." <----- hahaha (checks which writer authored this article) ok yeah... checks out. =)
Marta - thanks for reading. You seem passionate about our post which tells me one of two things. 1) You disagree and think the Storm are capable of winning the title. 2) You have critiques of the reasons why we say the Storm can't win the title in their current form.
Unfortuantely, you state there are holes and provide no reasons. In "sports journalism", even if people disagree with your assertion, an author provides reasons or evidence. For example, Seattle is near the bottom of the league in effective field goal percentage and last in three point percentage. However, they are near the top in defensive effective field goal percentage. That makes it a tough call which is acknowledged in the post. Lastly, they simply haven't beaten the good teams enough. Simple, but true.
"Holes" isn't the right word if you just disagree with an author's assertion. Holes are what is happening when someone provides an opinion (like a substack comment) with no evidence or reasoning.
Also, I apologize - I made an assumption. Grabbagquestion - Kevin, have you ever coached? Currently? How many coaches have you had in your life? Maybe same questions for Brian (asking for a friend).
Thank you for the great synopsis! I'm WNBAStorm until I die, I'm WNBAStorm until I die, I know I am, I'm sure I am I'm WNBAStorm until I die!
"Ok side bar here. Coaches don’t really say this. People in the media use it as coach speak." <----- hahaha (checks which writer authored this article) ok yeah... checks out. =)
LatsgoooooSeaTown Sports!
Seeing stuff like this shows why not everybody should write or try to get into sports journalism... so many holes in this article, holy shit!
Marta - thanks for reading. You seem passionate about our post which tells me one of two things. 1) You disagree and think the Storm are capable of winning the title. 2) You have critiques of the reasons why we say the Storm can't win the title in their current form.
Unfortuantely, you state there are holes and provide no reasons. In "sports journalism", even if people disagree with your assertion, an author provides reasons or evidence. For example, Seattle is near the bottom of the league in effective field goal percentage and last in three point percentage. However, they are near the top in defensive effective field goal percentage. That makes it a tough call which is acknowledged in the post. Lastly, they simply haven't beaten the good teams enough. Simple, but true.
"Holes" isn't the right word if you just disagree with an author's assertion. Holes are what is happening when someone provides an opinion (like a substack comment) with no evidence or reasoning.
What holes?
Also, I apologize - I made an assumption. Grabbagquestion - Kevin, have you ever coached? Currently? How many coaches have you had in your life? Maybe same questions for Brian (asking for a friend).