Chris Paul and Gregg Popovich Embody Unwarranted Sense of Entitlement That Has Become Too Common in NBA
Listen to interviews by retired NBA players such as Julius Erving and David Robinson, and you will note that they speak of the responsibility that goes hand in hand with being wealthy, famous, and admired; they do not speak or act as if they are entitled to anything, but rather that they understand that they owe a debt to their devoted fans and that they are privileged to be able to provide their time, voice, and money to help worthy causes. Both on and off the court Erving and Robinson exhibit humility and grace, knowing that those traits did not in any way limit their ability to help their teams win championships: Erving won three championships, while Robinson won two championships.
I know that there are current NBA players who also understand the responsibility that comes along with their privileged lives, but there are too many NBA players who act like they are entitled to a lot but responsible for very little--and the same is true of too many coaches who have become obnoxious and self-absorbed as their salaries soared thanks to their salaries not being subject to salary cap restrictions.
Two Wednesday night incidents are not the most egregious examples of this problem, but they are worth noting as part of a larger trend.
Gregg Popovich has coached the San Antonio Spurs to a 3-12 record this season. The Spurs have not posted a winning record since 2019 and they have not won a playoff series since 2017. Based on that record, Spurs' fans have had a lot to boo about recently, but instead they show up, cheer the home team and--as is their right--boo the opposing team. However, Popovich believes that he has the right to tell paying customers--the same paying customers who pay his $16 million per year salary--when to boo and when not to boo. During the Spurs' 109-102 loss to the L.A. Clippers, Popovich grabbed the house microphone and criticized the San Antonio crowd for booing the opposing team, apparently upset that Spurs' fans were expressing their displeasure with Kawhi Leonard, the former Spur who asked out and then led Toronto to the 2019 NBA title before joining the Clippers. Quite correctly, the crowd responded by booing even louder than they had been booing before. The Spurs shot .385 from the field in that game, and scored just 14 first quarter points while trailing wire to wire.
Would Popovich prefer that the home fans boo him and his sorry team that seems to be heading for the Draft Lottery on accident after tanking their way into the Draft Lottery on purpose to increase their odds of acquiring Victor Wembanyama? Would Popovich prefer that the home fans stop showing up until he puts a winning product on the court? Would Popovich prefer that media members--who ask him softball questions either out of too much fear or too much respect--point out the large difference between his winning percentage coaching Tim Duncan versus his winning percentage sans Duncan? It is said that people in living in glass houses would be wise to not throw stones, and it should also be said that highly paid coaches who have not won anything of consequence for a long time should not draw the spotlight on themselves.
Fans do not have the right to throw things on the court or interject themselves into the action in any way, nor should fans spew profanities or hate speech--but fans pay for the right to cheer or boo, and it is the height of delusional arrogance for any coach, let alone the coach of a losing team, to have the nerve to lecture fans the way that Popovich did. It would have served him right if all of the fans left their seats, demanded refunds for poor performance, and went home so that the Spurs played in front of no fans.
I don't mean to suggest that Popovich is a bad coach or a bad person. He has been a very successful coach, and I don't know him personally so I can't say what kind of person he is. However, Popovich's arrogant press conference demeanor over the years, and his growing penchant for providing social and political commentary that has not been sought and is not grounded in deep research indicate that his outburst directed toward Spurs' fans is not an aberration but part of an unwarranted sense of entitlement: "I'm Gregg Popovich and you're not" is the unspoken justification for Popovich's behavior. He is being paid a lot of money to win games, not to provide commentary about society or lectures on etiquette.
The other Wednesday incident involved Chris Paul, also known as "The best leader in the NBA" (who has never won a championship during his 19 season career). Paul's new team, the Golden State Warriors, fell to 7-9 after losing 108-104 to his previous team, the 9-6 Phoenix Suns. Paul was ejected from the game with 23.2 seconds remaining in the first half and his squad losing, 59-47. During a stoppage of play, Paul complained to referee Scott Foster about a previous foul call. Foster and Paul talked briefly, and then Paul said something to which Foster took offense, resulting in Foster calling a technical foul on Paul. Then, Foster did what referees are instructed to do after calling a technical foul: he walked away from Paul to deescalate--and when Paul continued to talk, Foster put up his hand in the universal "stop" gesture, indicating that he had heard enough. Paul kept yapping, and Foster hit Paul with a second technical foul, leading to automatic ejection. No microphones captured the earlier part of the conversation, but after the ejection Paul attempted to confront Foster before being restrained, and Paul clearly called Foster a "bitch." I wish Paul's teammates had not held him back so that we could find out if Paul lacks the wisdom and self control to avoid hitting a referee; he knew that if he charged at Foster then that boosts his "street cred" and he also knew that as soon as he did that he would be held back, so it would have been fascinating to see what he would have done if he had not been held back. The NBA is full of "hold me back" guys who act like they want to fight because they know that a fight is not going to happen.
After the game, Paul told media members that Foster has had a beef with him dating back to Paul's time with the L.A. Clippers several years ago, mentioning that the league office organized a meeting with Paul, Paul's father, Foster, then Clippers Coach Doc Rivers and then head of NBA officials Bob Delaney. Paul declined to explain what was discussed other than saying that the matter had something to do with his son and Foster. NBA officials are only allowed to speak to reporters in a very limited fashion, so Foster's only explanation of the ejection was that Paul received the first technical foul for "unsportsmanlike conduct" and that Paul received the second technical foul for continuing to "complain" in a way that was also deemed to be "unsportsmanlike conduct."
Paul acts like he feels entitled to say whatever he wants to say and act however he wants to act without facing any consequences. He refuses to take responsibility for his actions, and instead casts aspersions on Foster.
Foster is the easy target here. As the saying goes, the fans don't buy tickets to see the referees but to see star players. However, based on what we saw and heard there was nothing unusual about the ejection. If Paul truly believes that Foster is biased against him, then why did Paul keep talking after getting a technical foul? It must be emphasized that Foster walked away after issuing the first technical foul; this is not Jake O'Donnell versus Clyde Drexler or Hue Hollins versus Scottie Pippen/the Chicago Bulls, instances when officiating bias was an obvious pattern. O'Donnell's grudges against multiple players led to him losing his job despite grading out highly, while Hollins' bias was so obvious that his name was the first one that came to many people's minds when the story first broke about an unnamed referee (who later turned out to be Tim Donaghy) intentionally making wrong calls.
Paul has publicly created a narrative that Foster has a grudge against him without providing any proof, knowing full well that he is immune from consequences because Foster will not be permitted by the NBA to publicly respond. Why should media members or fans believe Paul? Paul has proven to be both a cheap shot artist and a whiner throughout his career, and there are many players around the league who have feuded with him, including both teammates and opponents. I am not aware of a single other player accusing Foster of bias, and Foster consistently grades out as a top referee. I watch a lot of NBA games, and while my focus is much more on the players and the coaches than the referees I have never felt that Foster is incompetent or biased.
It has become popular to suggest that the NBA should never assign Foster to officiate a game involving Paul's team. That is nonsense. If Foster grades out well enough to officiate the NBA Finals and Paul is fortunate enough to be carried to the NBA Finals by Stephen Curry then how can the league take that assignment away from Foster? No, the answer here is simple: if there is objective evidence that Foster is nursing a grudge that prevents him from officiating Paul in an unbiased manner then the NBA should fire Foster--and if there is no evidence of that, then the NBA should fine Paul for his comments, and make it clear that if he makes additional comments questioning the integrity of the officiating then he will be suspended. That is how former Commissioner David Stern would have quashed this nonsense that current Commissioner Adam Silver has allowed to fester for several years. If Paul is correct that the NBA organized a meeting with Paul, Foster, and others then the outcome of that meeting should have been an understanding that Paul's job is to play, Foster's job is to officiate objectively, and that if this ever becomes a public issue again then the person at fault is going to be disciplined by the league. Instead, Silver is letting one of these guys--and my strong suspicion is that the culprit is Paul--make a mockery of the league.
Stern always came to press conferences armed with facts and data, and he would challenge reporters who asked questions without doing their homework. Consequently, many media members have touted Silver as a kinder, gentler Commissioner because they like Silver more than they liked Stern, but I would argue that Silver is a weaker and less effective leader than Stern was. The Commissioner's job is to lead, not become popular with media members. The NBA's record on many issues--from the Paul/Foster nonsense to Draymond Green's unchecked violence, to the league's silence about Chinese tyranny because the NBA makes billions of dollars doing business with China--leaves much to be desired during Silver's reign.
Speaking of China, I would be much more impressed by Popovich if he grabbed a microphone and spoke out about Chinese oppression--which he has never done despite providing a lot of impromptu and unsought political/social commentary--instead of chastising his team's fans. Of course, speaking out about Chinese oppression could lead to a backlash against him, the Spurs, and the league, so Popovich--and other NBA coaches who often voice their opinions on selected issues--will never do that.
There is a big difference between being a loud voice and being a courageous voice. NBA and WNBA players and coaches are very selective about when their voices are loud and when their voices are silent. NBA and WNBA players and coaches made a lot of public comments demanding that Russia set free WNBA player Britney Griner, who had violated that country's drug laws, but I have yet to hear a single NBA or WNBA player or coach say anything about Hamas' October 7 massacre in Israel or about Hamas holding hundreds of civilian hostages, including American citizens. If the NBA and WNBA stand firmly against what they perceived to be the wrongful detention of one American basketball player in Russia then why are the NBA and the WNBA silent about the war crime of holding hundreds of civilians hostage? If the NBA and the WNBA stand firmly against violence against minorities and women then why are the NBA and the WNBA silent about Hamas' crimes against humanity, including rape, torture, and mutilation of women? Over 100 universities have publicly united against terrorism, and over 1500 lawyers from some of the world's biggest law firms issued a public statement condemning Hamas' terrorism, demonstrating the difference between being a loud voice and being a courageous voice; condemning evil even when "woke" self-proclaimed "progressives" will be upset is courageous, while telling fans not to boo or whining about a referee is just being loud and self-entitled.
Labels: Adam Silver, Chris Paul, David Robinson, Gregg Popovich, Julius Erving
posted by David Friedman @ 2:11 AM
