20 Second Timeout is the place to find the best analysis and commentary about the NBA.
Saturday, November 05, 2022
76ers Belatedly Add Dolph Schayes to the Team's Legends Walk
Dolph Schayes was the first NBA player to score 15,000 career points, and he ranked first in career scoring from 1958-63, breaking Ed Macauley's record before being surpassed by Bob Pettit (Macauley only held the record briefly in 1957, edging out George Mikan before Schayes took over). When Schayes retired, he held the NBA's career record for games played while also ranking second in career scoring and third in career rebounding. In 1955, he led the Syracuse Nationals to the NBA title. That is the first championship in the storied history of the Philadelphia 76ers (the team moved from Syracuse to Philadelphia in 1962). During the 1955 NBA Finals, Schayes led both teams in scoring (19.9 ppg) and rebounding (11.9 rpg); if the Finals MVP award existed at that time, he would have won it. Schayes finished in the top five in regular season MVP voting three times, and he had three other top 10 finishes while earning 12 All-NBA Team selections, six each to the First Team and the Second Team.
Schayes was selected to the 10 player NBA 25th Anniversary All-Time
team (1971), the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List (1996), and the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team (2021). In 2021, I included him in my revision of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List: "Dolph Schayes was a great shooter. If he played today, he would be
capable of draining three pointers while still being an elite rebounder
and passer; bring prime Dolph Schayes to 2021 and he would probably be
an MVP caliber player whose style and effectiveness would be similar to
the style and effectiveness of Nikola Jokic." I also placed Schayes on my NBA 75th Anniversary Team.
Here are some pictures from today's ceremony honoring Dolph Schayes (Schayes' son Danny, who played in the NBA from 1981-99, is the tallest person in the bottom two pictures):
Robert Kraft's Foundation to Combat Antisemitism to Air Ad During Upcoming Brooklyn Nets Games
Robert Kraft's Foundation to Combat Antisemitism will be airing this ad during upcoming Brooklyn Nets games:
A press release from the Foundation explains:
The Foundation launched the[together
beat hate] initiative in 2020, to address antisemitism by
building bridges between communities through direct engagement and
compassionate, impactful education. With the rise of antisemitism in
recent years, FCAS is now focusing more directly on
engaging non-Jewish audiences about the current threat to Jewish
communities and the role all Americans can play in speaking out against
hatred and stereotypes.
"The
events of recent weeks have highlighted the need for increased
education and awareness so that we can prevent harmful stereotypes and
misinformation from spreading on social media and in
our communities," said Matthew Berger, executive director of the
Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. "We appreciate that so many
organizations and supporters have reached out to spread our message and
to empower everyone to Stand Up To Jewish Hate."
Golden State's Struggles Provide Insight into Why The Team Has Won Championships
Remember the old MLB ad declaring "Chicks dig the long ball"?
Fans and "stat gurus" alike dig the long ball in the NBA, declaring that you cannot be successful in today's game without shooting well from three point range. That assertion is demonstrably false. In The Evolution of the Usage of the Three Point Shot, Part IV, I wrote, "Winning teams play consistent defense, they control the paint at both
ends of the court, and they outrebound their opponents. A team that does
not do those things well is not going to have much success; if a team
excels tremendously in one or two categories then it may survive a
slight weakness in another category, but just jacking up three pointers
with little regard for defense, paint presence, and rebounding is not a
championship recipe, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Houston Rockets during the Daryl Morey/James Harden era."
The defending NBA champion Golden State Warriors are 3-6 this season. Stephen Curry is playing at an MVP level (31.0 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 6.8 apg, shooting splits of .487/.414/.944) and his numbers are better across the board than they were last season. The Warriors rank first in scoring, ninth in field goal percentage, and 16th in three point field goal percentage; last season, the Warriors ranked 15th in scoring, ninth in field goal percentage, and eighth in three point field goal percentage. The difference is defense. This season, the Warriors rank 30th (last) in points allowed, and 22nd in defensive field goal percentage; last season, the Warriors ranked third in points allowed and second in defensive field goal percentage. Also, the Warriors rank 26th in rebounding this season after ranking seventh in rebounding last season. Stephen Curry leads the Warriors in rebounding this season, and he is the only Warrior averaging more than 6.5 rpg; last season he ranked fourth on the team in rebounding (5.2 rpg) behind Draymond Green (7.3 rpg), Kevon Looney (7.3 rpg), and Otto Porter Jr. (5.7 rpg).
After the Warriors won the 2022 NBA championship, I stated that I do not rank Curry among the top 10 players of all-time. Curry does not have the necessary combination of size and all-around skill set to be ranked among the best of the best; I rank him in the top 25-30 of all-time. A combination of recency bias, placing too much weight on "ring counting," and obsession with three point shooting explains why some people rank Curry higher than I do. It is important to not be a prisoner of the moment, to not rank players based solely on championships won, and to not overvalue three point shooting.
The only player under 6-5 in my Pantheon is Jerry West, who was at least as good as Curry offensively and much better defensively. West "only" won one championship, but he played at an elite level throughout his NBA Finals career and he is still the only player from the losing team to win the Finals MVP (in 1969, the first year that the award was given). Ironically, his worst Finals performance was in 1972, the only time that he won a title. The West-Curry comparison is not adequately made by focusing on Curry's 4-1 edge in championships won, because championships won is impacted by who West and Curry played with, who they played against, and the way that playing conditions and rules have evolved. I rank West ahead of Curry because West could do more things well. In other words, all things being equal, I could see West winning four championships with the modern Warriors while putting up numbers at least as good as Curry's and while playing elite defense; I am not convinced that if Curry played with West's teams he would have won more or accomplished more than West did, and I believe that Curry would have not fared as well in a more physical league that did not have the three point shot.
As indicated above, the Warriors' success is grounded in defense and rebounding. More than 30 years ago, Pat Riley declared "No rebounds, no rings," and that is as true today as it was in the 1980s. Curry is a wonderful player, but he is not the primary driver of the Warriors' defensive and rebounding excellence, and it is evident this season that without that defensive and rebounding excellence the Warriors are not even a .500 team despite Curry putting up MVP-level numbers.
It remains to be seen if the Warriors will improve their defense and rebounding, or if a combination of age, complacency, and internal strife has permanently compromised their ability and/or willingness to excel in those areas--but it is evident that even though Curry gets the headlines it is not his three point shooting that drives the Warriors' success.
It is worth extending this analysis to another team that is often discussed, the L.A. Lakers. It has been repeatedly asserted that the Lakers are struggling because they do not have good outside shooters. It should be remembered that the Lakers' 2020 championship team ranked fourth in points allowed, eighth in defensive field goal percentage--and 21st in three point field goal percentage! The 2020 Lakers did not have the "lasers" that LeBron James has lamented that the current Lakers lack; the 2020 Lakers had LeBron James and Anthony Davis committed to attacking the paint on offense and protecting the paint on defense.
Last season, the Lakers ranked 28th in points allowed, 21st in defensive field goal percentage, and 22nd in three point field goal percentage. This season's Lakers have improved defensively while their three point shooting has regressed, but even if the Lakers shot better from three point range than they are now they would not be an elite team unless/until they consistently play high level team defense while also attacking the paint on offense. Improvement in any area would obviously help a losing team, but the foundations of championship level play are defense and rebounding, not three point shooting.
Another important ingredient in the championship recipe is the willingness to pay top dollar for top talent. "Stat gurus" used to assert that they are so much better at talent evaluation than everyone else that they could build a great team with a relatively low budget, but the evidence does not support that belief. "Stat gurus" often point out how many teams have high payrolls but do not win championships as if this proves that traditional-minded talent evaluators are incompetent, but that is a flawed and incomplete viewpoint because each year only one out of 30 teams will win the championship. Put another way, even if the champion's payroll ranks in the top 10, nine of the top 10 payrolls will not win a title, so by definition it will always be true that most of the teams that spent a lot of money did not win a championship.
What "stat gurus" neglect to mention is that the championship team will almost always be one of the top spending teams. Therefore, the most honest way of looking at this is to see how often championship teams rank among the top spenders. Since the 2010-11 season (when LeBron James formed a super team in Miami), the NBA champion has had the top payroll twice, ranked in the top five six out of 12 years, and has ranked lower than 10th just four times, with an average ranking of seventh. Disregard the 2014 Spurs (who ranked 19th while paying Finals MVP Kawhi Leonard less than $2 million), and the average ranking is sixth.
The Golden State Warriors had the highest payroll in the NBA last season, and they have the highest payroll this season. In their three championship seasons prior to 2022, they ranked 14th (2015), 14th (2017) and second (2018) in payroll. They exploited a boost in the salary cap in 2017 to sign Kevin Durant, who was the best player on their 2017 and 2018 championship teams. There is no question that big spending played a significant role for their 2018 and 2022 championship teams, and there is also no question that the good fortune of having Stephen Curry and others on below market value contracts (due to those players not having signed their big money contract extensions yet) helped the Warriors win their first two championships.
The larger point is that the league's economic structure is much different than it used to be, which impacts competitive balance, and that is yet another reason that comparing players mainly based on "rings" is not the best method.
Stephen Curry is a great player, and I think that he would have excelled in any era--but this era is tailor-made to his skill set strengths, and he has been blessed with teammates who have enabled the Warriors to be an elite defensive team. Although West played with prime Elgin Baylor, in general he did not have teams as well-balanced as Curry has had, and by the time West played with Baylor and Chamberlain, all three players were past their primes, though West and Chamberlain were still quite good.
Over the last several days, we have made repeated attempts to work
with Kyrie Irving to help him understand the harm and danger of his
words and actions, which began with him publicizing a film containing
deeply disturbing antisemitic hate. We believed that taking the path of
education in this challenging situation would be the right one and
thought that we had made progress with our joint commitment to
eradicating hate and intolerance.
We were dismayed today, when given an opportunity in a media session,
that Kyrie refused to unequivocally say he has no antisemitic beliefs,
nor acknowledge specific hateful material in the film. This was not the
first time he had the opportunity – but failed – to clarify.
Such failure to disavow antisemitism when given a clear opportunity
to do so is deeply disturbing, is against the values of our
organization, and constitutes conduct detrimental to the team.
Accordingly, we are of the view that he is currently unfit to be
associated with the Brooklyn Nets. We have decided that Kyrie will serve
a suspension without pay until he satisfies a series of objective
remedial measures that address the harmful impact of his conduct and the
suspension period served is no less than five games.
A few hours after the Nets announced Irving's suspension, Irving made the following Instagram post (I have not changed the grammar or spelling in his post):
While doing research on YHWH (Yahweh), I posted a documentary that
contained some false anti-Semitic statements, narratives, and language
that were untrue and offensive to the Jewish Race/Religion, and I take
full accountability and responsibly for my actions. I am
grateful to have a big platform to share knowledge and I want to move
forward by having an open dialogue to learn more and grow from this.
To All Jewish families and Communities that are hurt and affected
from my post, I am deeply sorry to have caused you pain, and I
apologize. I initially reacted out of emotion to being unjustly labeled
Anti-Semitic, instead of focusing on the healing process of my Jewish
Brothers and Sisters that were hurt from the hateful remarks made in the
Documentary. I want to clarify any confusion on where I stand fighting against
Anti-semticism by apologizing for posting the documentary without context
and a factual explanation outlining the specific beliefs in the
Documentary I agreed with and disagreed with. I had no intentions to
disrespect any Jewish cultural history regarding the Holocaust or
perpetuate any hate. I am learning from this unfortunate event and hope
we can find understanding between us all. I am no different than any
other human being. I am a seeker of truth and knowledge, and I know who I
Am.
Note that Irving still refuses to say what exactly he agrees with in the film. The film consists of three hours of lies and nonsense thrown together, so Irving's statement is equivalent to someone listening to David Duke ramble on for three hours, posting a link to Duke's speech, and then later saying, "Well, I don't agree with everything he said, and I apologize to anyone who is offended."
If Irving's apology is sincere and if he is truly "a seeker of truth and knowledge" then he can start by clarifying exactly what he believes. Then, he can educate his social media followers who responded with ignorant comments reiterating and amplifying the lies stated in the film that Irving promoted in a previous (and subsequently deleted) social media post. Irving's followers truly believe that Irving is some kind of truth-speaking prophet and not a dude who is gullible enough to fall hook, line, and sinker for conspiracy theories that are easily debunked.
I know better than to try to persuade people who are willfully blind to the truth, but when thinking about who has power, what are the limits of free speech, and what is the nature of objective historical truth, it is interesting to keep in mind a few facts that I have mentioned in my previous articles about Irving:
1) Irving has more social media followers than the Jewish population of the world. Irving has over 20 million followers, while there are fewer than 15 million Jews in a world that has a population of nearly 8 billion people. When Irving boasts that he has an "army" supporting him, that is not an exaggeration. He is far from powerless both in terms of his personal, generational wealth, and in terms of the influence that he wields. If each of his followers spreads his messages to just five more people, Irving potentially reaches 100 million people every time he makes a social media post.
The Jewish people are so powerful that less than 80 years ago a third of their population was massacred in Europe while the Jewish people were unable to get immigration quotas lifted in any major Western country, including America.
2) No one has challenged Irving's free speech right to post whatever he wants to post. The First Amendment protects against government restriction of a citizen's free speech rights--but just like Irving has a right to say what he wants to say, other people have a right to respond to him, to question him, and to decide to not employ him or do business with him.
3) I have seen some people assert that the film that Irving promoted speaks the truth, and I have seen other people say some version of "everyone has a right to speak his truth."
Regarding the first sentiment, the movie that Irving promoted asserts that the Holocaust never happened, that Jews controlled the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that Jews worship Satan. Those statements are all demonstrably false. This would be equivalent to a white supremacist stating that slavery never happened, that Black people are responsible for harming white people on a massive scale, and that Black people worship Satan. If you support Irving's promotion of antisemitic falsehoods, then you have no standing to challenge white supremacists who state that they are not attacking Black people but rather defending white people, and you definitely need to stop talking about so-called "micro-aggressions." To be clear, I find both white supremacy and Holocaust denial to be offensive; I condemn both. I just don't want to hear about "micro-aggressions" from people who endorse "macro-aggressions" that contradict historical truth and contribute to a climate in which antisemitic violence is soaring to unprecedented levels.
Regarding the second sentiment, this notion that there is not an objective truth but that each person has his or her own "truth" is precisely what George Orwell warned about in his classic dystopian novel 1984. If words lose their objective meaning and if history can be whatever each person believes it to be then we have no shared past and no shared future because there are no longer standards for what is right, what is wrong, what is true, and what is false. There are far too many people in our society who would love to take our educational system in that direction. The Soviet Union tried it, China is doing it now, Cuba is doing it now, and we have seen--without fail--that every nation that goes down this path ends up persecuting its own people and terrorizing its neighbors.
People laughed and shook their heads when Kyrie Irving suggested that he believes the world is flat, not understanding where this kind of irrational thinking leads; once you abandon objective truth, anything is believable, and any action can be justified.
I doubt that Irving sorted his way through all of the above truths in the past four or five hours, but either he or people close to him figured out that he is on his way to killing the golden goose that lays $40 million per year eggs for him. I doubt that many of his followers will ever figure this stuff out, but if Irving makes a sincere attempt to become more informed and objective then perhaps he can become the "light" he claims to aspire to be.
I am rooting for Irving to grow, and for his followers to grow with him. It is not an exaggeration to say that our society's fate depends on people leaning toward objective truth, and leaning away from subjective, personal "truth."
It is not too late for the NBA office, the NBA Players Association, and the coaches who are self-styled social justice warriors to make their voices heard against antisemitism. Their continued silence speaks volumes.
Even NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, who has been silent about Irving's antisemitism up to this point, responded to the weak statement by noting that
he is "disappointed that he has not offered an unqualified apology and
more specifically denounced the vile and harmful content contained in
the film he chose to publicize. I will be meeting with Kyrie in person
in the next week to discuss this situation."
Not long after Silver finally spoke up, Irving met with the media for the first time since his Saturday media availability (when he accused media members of dehumanizing him for questioning his promotion of an antisemitic film that dehumanizes Jews). Asked if he is antisemitic, Irving declared, "I cannot be anti-Semitic if I know where I come from." This is a not so-veiled reference to the beliefs espoused in the film that Irving promoted, namely that Black people are the real Jews, which Irving understands to mean that he cannot be antisemitic because he thinks that he is a semite. Irving also called reading his "superpower," arrogantly indicating that he has reached some level of expertise as a historian. Irving bragged about reading dictionaries and knowing what words mean. Maybe he started at the back of the dictionary and did not make it very far, because he has repeatedly flunked knowing the definition of antisemitism, a subject that I discussed in an article that I wrote two years ago:
1: hostility toward, or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.
It is important to note two things:
1: Being a Semite has nothing to do with skin color. 2: Although anti-Semitism and antisemitism are both considered
formally correct spellings, the latter should probably be preferred to
avoid the
false narrative that antisemitism means anything other than Jew-hatred.
In 1879, German author Wilhelm Marr used the term anti-Semitism
specifically to refer to his hatred of the Jewish people, and his
opposition to what he declared was a Jewish infiltration of German
society. Marr founded the League of Antisemites, the first German
organization dedicated to fighting the alleged threat that Jews posed to
Germany. The League of Antisemites advocated the forced removal of all
Jews from Germany. Marr popularized the term anti-Semitism as a synonym
for "Jew-hatred."
Nazi Germany's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels publicly declared
in 1938, "The German people is anti-Semitic. It has no desire to have
its rights restricted or to be provoked in the future by parasites of
the Jewish
race." He was not referring to Semites in general, or to anyone other
than Jewish people. The word and the concept of antisemitism have
nothing to do with the broader definition of Semites or with skin color;
the word and the concept apply specifically toward and against the
Jewish people and only the Jewish people. To suggest otherwise is to
willfully deny documented historical facts.
Antisemitism has been labeled the "socialism of fools," and Irving is emerging as the poster child of this foolishness.
Silver is demonstrating that he is a weak leader. Did he meet with
Donald Sterling to discuss that "situation"? Did he meet with Robert
Sarver to discuss that "situation"? There is no "situation" to discuss here.
Irving promoted an antisemitic film, Irving has had multiple
opportunities to apologize and make amends, and Irving has defiantly
refused to do so. If the NBA does not agree with the antisemitism Irving
is promoting as an NBA employee, then the NBA should suspend or
terminate Irving's employment. LeBron James, Chris Paul, and many other
NBA players expect nothing less regarding owners, so that same standard
should apply to players as well.
When David Stern was Commissioner, he took immediate and decisive action when an owner, coach, or player stepped out of line. He fined and/or suspended Ron Artest, Charles Barkley, Kobe Bryant, Mark Cuban, Gregg Popovich, Latrell Sprewell, Glen Taylor (then-owner of the Minnesota Timberwolves), and many others. Stern did not first check to see which way the winds of popular opinion
were blowing, and when he announced the punishment he issued he made it
clear that he and he alone had decided: he made the decision, and he was
willing to take the heat. Even if some of his actions were overturned
or reduced after arbitration, Stern knew that he must make it crystal
clear that the league has principles and standards--and he knew that
perhaps the most important part of his job was to uphold those
principles and standards.
Stern put a stop to Carmelo Anthony's "Stop Snitching" nonsense and Anthony's associations with street criminals by explaining to Anthony that he was part of the NBA business, the NBA business did not support "Stop Snitching," and if Anthony felt strongly about continuing down that path then he could do so without being an NBA player. That is the type of message that Silver must deliver to Irving regarding Irving's promotion of antisemitism.
Silver's passivity is not an excuse for the silence of NBA players and the NBA Players Association. Irving is a Vice President of the NBA Players Association. Silence is complicity. If Irving's antisemitism is not endorsed by the NBAPA, then the NBAPA should speak up and make that clear.
The NBA's coaches have also been silent. Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich are two of many coaches who do not hesitate to offer unsolicited opinions about a host of political and social issues. Is antisemitism not important to them? Kerr and Popovich also declined to speak out about Chinese atrocities even though the NBA has multi-million dollar deals with China.
If these self-styled social justice warriors are going to be selective about what they speak about, don't be surprised if people are going to be selective about hearing what they say.
In case you are not familiar with the film that Irving promoted (and the book upon which the film is based), the film asserts that the Holocaust never happened, that the Jewish people controlled the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that Jewish people worship Satan. The film includes false, unsourced quotations to support these false, vile assertions.
During today's media availability session, every time Irving was asked to clarify his position regarding the film's antisemitism, Irving reversed the question and talked about the racism suffered by Black people. If that is the subject Irving wanted to discuss, then he should have made a factual post about that important topic--but, instead, he promoted an antisemitic film, and Irving's poor choice means that he will be asked questions about that poor choice until he provides answers.
Amazon's poor track record does not diminish Irving's responsibility for his choice to promote an antisemitic film to his 20 million social media followers. Adolf Hitler is responsible for what he wrote and said, but any person who promotes Hitler's genocidal ideology is responsible for promoting hatred. Amazon is responsible for the content it disseminates, but any person who promotes antisemitic content is responsible for promoting hatred. Irving could have informed his 20 million social media followers that Amazon is streaming a hate-filled film and Irving could have declared that he stands with the Jewish people against antisemitism. That is not what he did, and he must be held accountable for his words and deeds (as we all must).
Anyone who praises Irving for "speaking his truth," "not bowing to the plantation owners," and so forth, should keep in mind that there are a large number of people who "speak their truth" that slavery did not happen (or was not that bad) and who espouse many negative beliefs about Black people. If you support Irving for "speaking his truth" then you forfeit your right to criticize others for speaking their "truth." Either there is objective historical truth--including that the Holocaust happened and that slavery happened--or each person can define history however he or she wants to define it.
If you support Irving, just be clear about exactly what you are supporting: you are supporting antisemitism, and you are supporting the notion that there is no objective historical truth. Also, keep in mind that David Duke and the white supremacists love the antisemitic lies that Irving promotes, so if you support Irving you have aligned your thinking with the viewpoint of the Ku Klux Klan.
Luka Doncic is Great--and He is Reminding Us How Great Wilt Chamberlain Was
Luka Doncic has made the All-NBA First Team each of the past three seasons while finishing in the top six in MVP voting each of those years as well. He is currently posting career-high numbers in scoring (36.1 ppg),
assists (9.0 apg), steals (1.7 spg), field goal percentage (.514), and
free throw percentage (.772). The only blemish on his resume so far this
season is his three point field goal percentage (career-low .237).
Doncic has joined Wilt Chamberlain and Jack Twyman as the only
players in NBA history to score at least 30 points in each of the first
seven games of a season. The first graphic that I saw about Doncic's
accomplishment neglected to note that (1) Chamberlain's record streak is
23 games, and (2) Chamberlain also had a streak of eight games. Doncic
has tied Twyman for third place on the list, but Chamberlain still holds
the top two spots, and it would take Doncic until December 5, 2022 to catch
Chamberlain--assuming that Doncic keeps scoring at least 30 points in
each game and does not miss a game.
We are all able to see how great Doncic is, but pause for a moment to think about how great Chamberlain was to put together one streak more than three times as long as Doncic's and then another streak one game longer than Doncic's current streak. In Wait Till Next Year, William Goldman wrote an essay about Wilt Chamberlain called "To the Death." Goldman discussed how most athletes become less famous and less renowned as time passes, but that Chamberlain was so exceptional that his feats will not easily be forgotten:
During Michael Jordan's amazing '86-'87, Wilt was always in the papers because Jordan was always scoring the most this's since Wilt Chamberlain or taking the most that's since Wilt Chamberlain. And that ain't gonna change, folks. Not in this century.
Take big-scoring games, for example. Michael Jordan hit 60 points,
twice last year. In the eighties, only two other men have done it, each
once: Bernard King and Larry Bird. Four times this decade. Seven other
guys did it once: Fulks (the first), Mikan, Gervin, West, Barry,
Maravich and David 'oh-what-a-fall-was-there-' Thompson. Elgin Baylor
did it thrice. And Wilt? Well, it's been done 46 times so you subtract.
Wilt: 32. The rest of basketball: 14. At the present rate, we will be
well into the twenty-first century before the NBA catches up.
Goldman wrote those words in 1988, and he was prophetic, as it took well into this century before the rest of the players in NBA history collectively produced as many 60 point games as Chamberlain. Kobe Bryant, with six such games, ranks a very distant second to Chamberlain.
It is odd that the "Greatest Player of All-Time" conversation is often narrowed to just Michael Jordan and LeBron James. Wilt Chamberlain played his last NBA game in 1973, and he still holds more NBA records than any other player. Almost any time a modern player does something exceptional, he is the first player to do that since Chamberlain--and often, Chamberlain did more of that than any player before or since. I am not convinced that one can objectively select a "Greatest Player of All-Time," but I am absolutely convinced that the field of candidates is larger than two, and that the field must include Chamberlain.
Cavaliers Beat Celtics in Overtime For Second Time This Season
The Boston Celtics are the reigning Eastern Conference champions, but early this season the Cleveland Cavaliers have twice beaten the Celtics in overtime thrillers. The Cavaliers won 132-123 in Boston last Friday as Donovan Mitchell and Caris LeVert each scored 41 points, and tonight the Cavaliers won 114-113 in Cleveland. The 6-1 Cavaliers have stacked up six straight victories after losing to the Toronto Raptors in their season opener, while the 4-3 Celtics are trying to get their footing without injured center Robert Williams and with rookie Coach Joe Mazzulla taking the place of the suspended Ime Udoka.
I have a long (and largely justified) record of being skeptical of young players and young teams until they prove their worth in the postseason crucible, but I must say that the Cavaliers are impressive--and not because of Mitchell's flashy dunks or the team's league-leading three point field goal percentage. The Cavaliers are impressive because they rank second in points allowed and because their deep, talented roster plays a very unselfish style of basketball with players repeatedly giving up good shots to get great shots. They must improve their rankings in rebounding (18th) and defensive field goal percentage (11th) to be able to make a deep playoff run, but there are indications that the Cavaliers are willing and able to do what it takes to make progress in both departments.
The Cavaliers play hard at both ends of the court, and even players who are not known as defenders (hello, Donovan Mitchell) are putting forth effort, which is a sign that the team has a strong internal culture and excellent coaching.
It is an encouraging sign that the Cavaliers beat a very good team despite shooting just .420 from the field, including .282 from three point range. Casual fans may believe that blistering three point shooting is why the Golden State Warriors have won four championships in the past eight seasons, but informed observers understand that the Warriors have been an elite defensive team during their dynastic run. The Cavaliers not only held the Celtics to .409 field goal shooting (including .268 from three point range) but they contained both of the Celtics' stars without turning anyone else loose; Jaylen Brown scored 30 points on 10-26 field goal shooting, while Jayson Tatum had 26 points on 8-21 field goal shooting. Meanwhile, all five Cavalier starters scored in double figures, led by Darius Garland (29 points, 12 assists) in his first game back after suffering an eye injury in the first game of the season. Mitchell added 25 points and six assists. Garland and Mitchell did not shoot much better than Tatum and Brown, but any team that has two stars who can play Tatum and Brown to a standstill and generate enough offense to win is dangerous.
It is premature to say how good a team is until the season is at least 20-30 games old; that is a large enough sample size to at least make some preliminary assessments. Wins in October and November do not count in May and June--but winning habits formed in October and November can lay the foundation for success in May and June. If the Cavaliers stay healthy and stay focused on team goals then this team could be very dangerous next summer.
Kyrie Irving and Brooklyn Nets Issue Joint Statement Condemning Antisemitism
Kyrie Irving's recent (and since deleted) social media post promoting a film that is loaded with antisemitic tropes and blatantly false statements inspired some passionate statements about how his actions are hateful, hurtful, and dehumanizing. Initially, neither the Nets nor the NBA took any action other than issuing meaningless statements that did not even mention Irving by name.
Tonight, Irving and the Nets each pledged to contribute $500,000 to organizations fighting hatred, and Irving and the Nets issued a joint statement with the Anti-Defamation League. Here is Irving's portion of the statement: "I oppose all forms of hatred and oppression and stand strong with
communities that are marginalized and impacted every day. I am aware of the negative impact of my post towards the Jewish
community and I take responsibility. I do not believe everything said
in the documentary was true or reflects my morals and principles. I am a
human being learning from all walks of life and I intend to do so with
an open mind and a willingness to listen. So from my family and I, we
meant no harm to any one group, race or religion of people, and wish to
only be a beacon of truth and light."
What should we make of this statement? Just imagine that an NBA player tweeted out a link to a film that claims that slavery never happened, that Black people worship Satan, and that Black people are responsible
for the suffering of white people, who are actually the original and
true Black people. If, several days after receiving backlash for promoting such vile falsehoods, that NBA player declared that he did not believe that everything in the film is true would you accept that as a sufficient response? Or would you wonder which of the asserted lies he believes to be true?
In light of the defiantly ignorant tone that Irving took in a press conference on Saturday, I am a little surprised that Irving said "I take responsibility," but one can surmise that he may have been presented the option of backing off to some extent or being fined an amount greater than $500,000.
The NBA does not have the moral fortitude to suspend Irving, because that would cost the league too much money and create too much controversy. Irving has more social media followers than the total Jewish population of the world, so the math here is not complicated: for the NBA, if it does not make dollars then it does not make sense.
The league also understands that it would lose credibility if it just completely ignored what Irving did. So, the most expedient solution for all parties is to issue a statement, donate $1 million to charity, and pretend the whole thing did not happen. Remember that the Nets franchise has an estimated worth of $3.5 billion, and Irving's career NBA earnings approach $200 million (not including this season, and not including his many endorsement deals), so $500,000 each is little more than pocket change found in between the couch cushions; I don't mean to diminish the real good that this money can do if properly allocated, but the point is that Irving disseminated hatred to millions of people and is essentially paying pennies per person for each follower who saw the post and understood Irving to be promoting Holocaust denial plus a host of bizarre and unfounded conspiracies.
I hope that Irving is sincerely repentant, that he will amend his hateful worldview, and that he will be a source of light instead of being a source of darkness--but forgive me if I remain skeptical until I see a pattern of deeds matching (and exceeding) the words in the above statement.
"Inside the NBA" Crew Weighs in on Kyrie Irving, the Departure of Steve Nash
Kyrie Irving and Kanye West have both made antisemitic social media posts recently. It does not seem likely that the NBA will discipline Irving despite Irving being unrepentant about how his post dehumanizes Jews. In a classic--and clumsy--attempt to control the narrative and distract attention, the Brooklyn Nets parted ways with Coach Steve Nash on the first day that Irving's Nets appeared on national TV since Irving made his now infamous social media post. Nash's departure is being presented as a mutual decision, but it is not hard to imagine that the Nets preferred for TNT's pre-game show to focus on the Nets' dysfunctional play instead of the Nets' resident antisemite.
TNT played along--for one segment. The first segment of TNT's pre-game show for the Brooklyn Nets-Chicago Bulls game focused on the Nets' coaching situation. Earlier in the day, reports suggested that the Nets plan to replace Nash with Ime Udoka, who the Boston Celtics suspended for the entire 2022-23 season, but that rumor caused so much media consternation that now the Nets are claiming that they have not determined who their next coach will be; assistant coach Jacque Vaughn will serve as their interim coach.
After the TNT crew spent 11 minutes talking about how bad the Nets are as a basketball team, Ernie Johnson tossed to a break by saying that in the next segment the crew would talk about Irving. After the advertisements ran, Johnson opened the discussion by describing Irving's behavior in the past year or so as "unpredictable and unsettling"--referring to, among other things, Irving's anti-vaccination stance and his embrace of lunatic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones--before directly addressing Irving's antisemitic tweet. Johnson said simply and directly of Irving, "That is promotion," contradicting Irving's disingenuous press conference statement that when he posts something for millions of his social media followers to see he is not promoting what he posts. Johnson noted that Irving has over 20 million followers across his various social media platforms.
Shaquille O'Neal mentioned that he was one of the first athletes to frequently utilize Twitter, and he knew from the beginning, "I had to be responsible." O'Neal said of Irving, "He's not conscious" and O'Neal expressed frustration because "We [the "Inside the NBA" crew] have to answer for what this idiot has done." O'Neal said that he tries to bring people of all different backgrounds together instead of tearing them apart, but that it is obvious to him that Irving does not think that way and "does not care."
Charles Barkley summed up the issue concisely and accurately: "I think the NBA dropped the ball." Barkley insisted that the NBA should have immediately suspended Irving. Barkley noted that NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is Jewish--which is not relevant, as Irving deserves to be suspended regardless of who the Commissioner is--and declared that Silver should have said, "You can't take $40 million (a rough approximation of Irving's annual NBA salary) and insult my religion." Barkley is correct that the NBA should have suspended Irving--not because Irving insulted Silver's religion, but because Irving insulted every intelligent human being and because Irving's promotion of vile antisemitism is inexcusable (Amazon.com's willingness to sell the video that Irving promoted should also be addressed, but that is not something that the NBA controls).
Johnson pointed out that discussions are ongoing within the Nets organization and the NBA offices, so it is possible that the NBA may still discipline Irving, and Barkley was right on target when he replied, "It's too late now." Barkley added that if the NBA suspends Irving now then it looks like the NBA caved in to public pressure as opposed to taking a stance based on right and wrong.
Kenny Smith, who used to be a voice of reason, was way off target. He started off by saying that he will take Irving at face value when Irving says that he is not antisemitic. If that is how Smith thinks, then he also needs to take white supremacists at face value when they say that they are pro-white, not anti-Black. At least Smith conceded that reporter Nick Friedell has a right to question Irving about why Irving made the social media post, but that is so obvious that it should go without saying. Friedell and all journalists have a responsibility to ask pertinent questions, and there is no question more pertinent now for Irving than asking Irving why he promoted antisemitism on his Twitter feed. I am the first to note that many press conference questions are as stupid as they are irrelevant, but in this situation Friedell did his job--which makes him stand out in a room (and profession) where far too few people are willing or even capable of doing the job.
Anyone who does not understand how far off target Smith is regarding Kyrie Irving should just watch the segment and then imagine that Kyrie Irving is your least favorite politician and that Kyrie Irving tweeted about a video filled with vile, hateful stereotypes of Black people claiming that slavery never happened, that Black people worship Satan, and that Black people are responsible for the suffering of white people, who are actually the original and true Black people. In that hypothetical situation, can you picture Smith saying that he will take at face value the politician's insistence that he is not a racist?
A person is defined by what he does, not who he claims to be. In just a few days, Irving's words and actions have told the world so much about who he really is, and by not listening carefully Smith is telling us something about who he really is. Smith has generally been a thoughtful person, so maybe he will reconsider his position.
Ernie Johnson gently brought the segment back on track by passionately saying of our society "We've lost our way" and emphasizing that anyone who posts to social media--particularly a person who has as many followers as Irving--should first think, "If I put this out there, who am I going to hurt?" Johnson then cut to a clip from his podcast with Barkley when they had a conversation with Rabbi Erer Sherman. Rabbi Sherman said that the answer here is to communicate, and he invited Irving to come to his congregation, meet his family, and increase his understanding. Rabbi Sherman opined that the way out of our society's troubles will be through sport, because sport and religion "intersect in a deep way." It is true that historically sports have brought people from different backgrounds together, but I am not sure that it will be so easy to mend the deep fissures tearing apart our society.
During the game telecast, Reggie Miller said, "The players have dropped the ball on this one...Right is right and wrong is wrong. If you are going to call out owners, then you have to call out players as well." I have made that same point repeatedly: if NBA players are going to declare that they are more than just athletes and that they are social justice warriors then they have to accept the full weight of that responsibility, and they have to be willing to speak out about players who say or do hateful things.
The Nets announced that Irving will not speak to the media today, and he will not speak to the media for the foreseeable future. I can understand why the Nets prefer that Irving shut his mouth, but putting him under wraps so that he can keep scoring points is not the right way to go. Irving should take responsibility for what he posted and for the tremendous influence that he has. Also, league policy requires players to be available to the media on game day. It is not clear what, if anything, the suddenly silent and apparently impotent NBA office will do about this violation of league policy.
If this is not the Nets trying to protect Irving from himself but rather Irving using the team to shield himself from scrutiny then shame on him for being so cowardly. Irving claims that he has an "army" supporting him--and the scary thing is that may be true. If Irving feels so powerful, righteous, and smart, then he should not be afraid to listen to questions without interrupting and then to answer those questions. Dictators control the press, but freethinking leaders are not afraid to be questioned and challenged.
Earlier today, after Nets General Manager Sean Marks was asked why the team had not fined or suspended Irving, Marks stated that the Nets are communicating with the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Irving situation. That is weak. If Irving is willing to be educated about history, then the ADL and other groups can play a role, but it is not up to the ADL to punish Irving or set workplace policies for the NBA.
The NBA, its teams, its coaches, and its players are not shy about expressing their opinions about a host of political, economic, and social issues, so their silence about Irving sends a loud and clear message: the NBA does not care about antisemitism.
You're dehumanizing me, Kyrie. I’m a Jewish man. Descendant of people who died in gas chambers and got incinerated by
Nazis. You're dehumanizing me by putting on your platform a book and
movie that is filled with anti-Semitic tropes that are designed or
eventually lead to the dehumanization of me, and my children, and my
ancestors who died because they were Jewish.
It's not funny, and I can't believe I have to tell someone from Duke
who's clearly smart enough to know--you're not promoting it with a
tour--but when you put it in front of four million people who might not
have known about it, you’re promoting it! You're giving it your
platform. When you give it your platform, you may not agree with all the
things of the people who created the book or movie or theory that you
say is true, you’re now owning all of that person’s opinions.
On Monday night, Irving's Brooklyn Nets won a home game versus the Indiana Pacers, 116-109. Irving played very well (28 points, six assists, six rebounds), and that is not surprising--he is a tremendously talented basketball player. The real story is not the Nets improving to 2-5 or Irving continuing to play at a very high level. The real story is that seven fans sat in courtside seats wearing T-shirts reading "Fight Antisemitism." One of them, Aaron Jungreis, told ESPN, "We felt that the Nets did not condemn an antisemite in their ranks. And we wanted to show love, we're still Net fans and we
love the team, but they should reprimand Kyrie because he's full of
hate. We're full of love. Hopefully he'll come around to the other
side. I hope he realizes how much antisemitism he is stoking by putting out [a
link to] a film like this which is extremely
anti-Jewish. And I hope he comes to his senses...I think he should be
suspended and he should understand what he did, but I don't know if
they will."
Irving acts like he is a brave person who speaks the truth, but he is a coward who spouts ignorance and then pretends that linking to an antisemitic film on his social media platform to spread that film's hate to his millions of followers could not possibly have any negative, real life consequences. "Did I harm anybody?" Irving asked Friedell at Saturday's press conference. Yes, in a country where antisemitic attacks are increasing to unprecedented levels, encouraging your millions of followers to watch a film that denies that the Holocaust happened and accuses Jews of worshiping Satan is harmful. Irving has deleted the offensive social media post, but he has not admitted that the film he promoted is full of hate-filled lies. Essentially, he gave the film free publicity to millions of his followers, and after he did that it is not nearly enough to just delete the social media post without any comment. It is irresponsible to incite hatred to millions of people and then just try to pretend that nothing happened.
If you don't understand the problem here, then just imagine that your least favorite politician posted something on social media that is offensive to you or to your ethnic group. Would you be satisfied if that person just took the post down with no comment, or would you think that he is obligated to repudiate the statement? Maybe if you think about it in those terms then you will understand why what Irving did is wrong, hurtful, and potentially putting a vulnerable minority group at risk.
As long as Irving keeps putting the ball in the hoop, though, he is immune from discipline, unless a whole lot more than seven people show up in NBA arenas wearing "Fight Antisemitism" T-shirts; that would get the NBA's attention, because the NBA cares more about profits than anything else. Wearing a "Fight Antisemitism" T-shirt at this time in this country is a lot braver than anything Irving has ever done.
If Irving is such a brave freethinker, why did he skip out on Monday night's press conference after refusing to answer Friedell's questions on Saturday? Irving declared on Saturday that he stands by his beliefs and won't back down, so why is Irving afraid to fully articulate his beliefs in a setting where he can be questioned and challenged? Obviously, he prefers staying in an echo chamber with other people who believe in hate-filled conspiracies.
NBA players are no strangers to wearing T-shirts to support a variety of causes, including T-shirts supporting one specific person who has been convicted of violating Russian laws (other Americans detained in Russia who are not good at playing basketball apparently do not matter). How many NBA players are willing to wear a "Fight Antisemitism" T-shirt?
It will be fascinating to see if TNT's "Inside the NBA," one of my favorite TV programs and in many ways the voice/conscience of the league, addresses this topic during tonight's broadcast of a doubleheader that includes the Chicago Bulls visiting the Brooklyn Nets. It would be great if TNT's studio crew wore "Fight Antisemitism" T-shirts, even if just for one segment. Think about what a powerful message that would send to a large audience.
Will the NBA Suspend an Unrepentent Antisemite Who is One of the League's Biggest Stars?
In his first press conference after promoting a vile, antisemitic movie via a social media account that has over 4 million followers, Kyrie Irving not only refused to acknowledge that he is wrong and that his actions are hurtful, but he lashed out at a reporter who gave Irving an opportunity to retract his hateful stance. Instead of apologizing for promoting hate, Irving focused on the semantics of the word "promote." Here's a hint, Kyrie: when you have millions of followers and you post a link to a movie, you just promoted that movie to millions of followers.
Irving is not only ignorant of history and unwilling to acknowledge the responsibility that he shoulders as an influential public figure, but he is defiantly ignorant, and his defiance is grounded in a simple reality: he is confident that the NBA is not going to take any action against him. All that the NBA has done thus far in the wake of Irving's hateful act is issue a general condemnation of hate speech that did not even mention Irving by name. Irving is so powerful that the NBA will not even publicly rebuke him by name! NBA Commissioner Adam Silver understands very well that in order to keep receiving his paycheck it is in his interest to not fine or suspend Irving, or at least to wait for Irving to become so outrageous and toxic that he can "lead from behind" and discipline him amid a public outcry to do so.
Some would argue that Irving has a First Amendment free speech right to say what he thinks. That is true, but let's be clear about what the First Amendment protects and what it does not protect: it protects citizens from having their speech curtailed by governmentaction. So, Irving has a right to make ignorant, hateful social media posts--and his employer has a right to fine him, suspend him, or even terminate his employment. Customers have a right to not buy products that he endorses. Other citizens have a right to speak out against Irving's ignorance.
The NBA suspended Meyers Leonard last year for uttering an antisemitic slur but that was an easy call for the NBA: Leonard is a journeyman player who never averaged 10 ppg in a season, so suspending him makes the league look like it cares about antisemitism without facing any risk of a backlash. If the NBA suspends Kyrie Irving, people with clear minds will understand and applaud, but many fans will be outraged, which could cost the NBA a lot of money. No one is going to protest yelling "Free Meyers," but I could picture people protesting an Irving suspension.
It is not only the league that is hypocritical. NBA players spout off on a regular basis about social justice. Every NBA player who condemned Robert Sarver and/or Donald Sterling but is now silent about Kyrie Irving's blatant antisemitism is a hypocrite. Unless I missed an Irving condemnation, that list of hypocritical players includes but is not limited to LeBron James, Chris Paul, and Draymond Green (who is not only a hypocrite but who also somehow managed to punch out a teammate and avoid being suspended by his team or the league).
Let me be crystal clear: I am not defending Sterling, Sarver, or Cuban. I have said that Cuban should have been disciplined, and I have no problem with Sterling and Sarver being disciplined. The point is that the NBA and the NBA players are hypocrites who are not sincerely pursuing social justice but instead cynically pursuing profits while hypocritically and selectively voicing support for select causes and outrage at select offenses/offenders.
If you don't know much about the documentary Kyrie put out there, "Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America," you can read this excellent breakdown at Rolling Stone.The
documentary is based on a book, written by the director, that is full
of antisemitism, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamaphobia. That book
purports many influential Jewish people "worship Satan or Lucifer."
It's
awful stuff that deserves no equivocation. There's no excuse for
sharing such garbage. Not a player's talent. Not the good deeds he's
done in the past. Not the I'm-smarter-than-you series of deflections he
tried to foist off Saturday night after his team lost to the Pacers,
a game which dropped his team to 1-5 and required his teammates to
address the antisemitism percolating on their star's social media.
The question now is what comes next. Teammate and fellow superstar Kevin Durant,
asked if this was a distraction Saturday night, said, "Absolutely not.
The only impact is you guys and everybody outside the locker room."
If
Durant is saying that he and his teammates don't care [about] the hateful
ideas Kyrie is spouting and advancing, then shame on Durant and shame on
his teammates. Talent and friendship shouldn't be covers or excuses for
antisemitism, racism, misogyny and other forms of hate, a fact Durant
and the NBA should know better than most.
This
is a league that, rightly and impressively, has tied much of its brand
to social justice. That commitment to justice should not be paused
because one of the NBA's stars doesn't like accountability when it's
applied to him.
The NBA and the NBA players have a great opportunity to show how much they really care about fighting hatred and promoting social justice. I will be disappointed but not surprised by the deafening silence that will ensue.
Westbrook Shines in his New Role as Lakers Beat Nuggets 121-110
The Lakers are no longer winless after beating the Denver Nuggets 121-110 on Sunday night. The 1-5 Lakers lost their first game after relegating Russell Westbrook to the second unit, but game two of this experiment turned out much better as Westbrook provided a significant spark with 18 points on 6-12 field goal shooting, eight rebounds, eight assists, and a game-high +18 plus/minus number. Plus/minus can be noisy, and one game is not a large sample size for any purpose (including looking at plus/minus numbers), but it is interesting that the Lakers "won" Westbrook's 32 minutes by 18 points while "losing" LeBron James' 35 minutes by one point. James led both teams in points (26) and field goal attempts (22) as he moved closer to breaking Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's career scoring record.
I am not sure that moving Westbrook to the bench is a permanent solution to the Lakers' problems, but separating at least some of Westbrook's minutes from James' minutes could provide some interesting evidence regarding why/how the Lakers can be successful. In the previous game, Westbrook had a plus/minus number of 0 in 33 minutes while James had a plus/minus number of -13 in 37 minutes. So, in the past two games Westbrook has been +18 in 65 minutes while James has been -14 in 72 minutes. These numbers would seem to support my contention that James is focusing on breaking the scoring record, while Westbrook is playing hard and doing things that maximize his team's opportunity for success. When James and Westbrook were sharing most of their minutes, it was harder to use plus/minus to determine each player's impact, but when they are separated it is easier to see that the Lakers lose ground with James on the court but gain ground with Westbrook on the court.
Again, two games is a small sample size. Some might argue that plus/minus is not meaningful unless you have a full season's worth of data. I would say that plus/minus combined with observing the games with an informed eye can provide a lot of insight. Based on what I have seen from James and from Westbrook not just in the past two games but in the past two seasons, these plus/minus numbers do not surprise me.
There is no doubt that for most of his career James has had a significant impact on winning, nor is there any doubt that he was the best player on each of his four championship teams. However, he is older now, and he is not playing in a way that maximizes his team's potential; he is preserving his body while chasing the scoring record.
I am not suggesting that Westbrook dominated the game individually or won the game without any help. James' scoring and his assists (eight, tied with Westbrook for game-high honors) provided value, and the Lakers also received a major boost from Anthony Davis (23 points, game-high 15 rebounds, +15 plus/minus number), who did not play in the previous game and appears to be not day to day but minute to minute with back soreness. However, the notion that Westbrook is washed up and cannot make a valuable contribution to winning is not supported by the eye test or by the numbers.
Nikola Jokic led the Nuggets in points (23), rebounds (14), and assists (six). He had a 0 plus/minus number, and each of the other four Nuggets' starters had positive plus/minus numbers while each of the six Nuggets' reserves who played had negative plus/minus numbers. There is a lot of "noise" in numbers from small sample sizes; Jokic is not the fifth best Denver starter, and Westbrook did not single-handedly annihilate Denver's bench, but it is not far-fetched to suggest that Denver's starters outplayed their counterparts while the Lakers' bench lifted the Lakers back into the game.
"A work of art contains its verification in itself: artificial, strained concepts do not withstand the test of being turned into images; they fall to pieces, turn out to be sickly and pale, convince no one. Works which draw on truth and present it to us in live and concentrated form grip us, compellingly involve us, and no one ever, not even ages hence, will come forth to refute them."--Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Nobel Lecture)
"The most 'popular,' the most 'successful' writers among us (for a brief period, at least) are, 99 times out of a hundred, persons of mere effrontery--in a word, busy-bodies, toadies, quacks."--Edgar Allan Poe
"In chess what counts is what you know, not whom you know. It's the way life is supposed to be, democratic and just."--Grandmaster Larry Evans
"It's not nuclear physics. You always remember that. But if you write about sports long enough, you're constantly coming back to the point that something buoys people; something makes you feel better for having been there. Something of value is at work there...Something is hallowed here. I think that something is excellence."--Tom Callahan
