20 Second Timeout

NBA Wags a Stern Finger at Draymond Green for Confronting a Fan During a Game

The NBA has reportedly issued a "warning" to Draymond Green after Green went chest to chest with a courtside fan in New Orleans on Sunday as Green's Golden State Warriors defeated the New Orleans Pelicans, 124-106. The fan had been chanting "Angel Reese" at Green after Green missed several shots. Reese is a WNBA player who is notorious for seemingly padding her rebound totals by collecting her own missed shots. Green finished with eight points on 3-13 field goal shooting, 10 rebounds (including four offensive rebounds), six assists, and five turnovers; in the first quarter, Green scored 0 points on 0-7 field goal shooting, and he had four offensive rebounds (all of which were from his own missed layups or attempted tip in shots). The fan's chanting may have been annoying to Green, but it was not vulgar, and it pertained to the action on the court, as opposed to being a random or offensive insult. Fans have a right to cheer or boo, and to heckle as long as the heckling is not vulgar/offensive and not interfering with other fans being able to watch the game.

It is not clear what Green thought that he could accomplish by approaching the fan, who did not back away and did not seem intimidated by Green; it is also not clear what the NBA thinks that it can accomplish by issuing an unofficial warning to Green, who has a long history of violent misconduct despite being fined and suspended multiple times; if forcing Green to miss games and lose money did not straighten him out, a verbal warning is unlikely to have much impact.

Green has quite a rap sheet demonstrating his immaturity and his lack of emotional control. In the 2016 playoffs, Green kicked Steven Adams in the groin, and Green was suspended for game five of the NBA Finals after striking LeBron James in the groin in game four. Green consistently gets away with running roughshod over referees with incessant (and often vulgar) complaining/whining, he viciously punched then-teammate Jordan Poole in 2022, he stomped on Domantas Sabonis twice while Sabonis was down on the floor during a 2023 playoff game, he choked Rudy Gobert during a 2023 regular season game, and he slugged Jusuf Nurkic in the face during a 2023 regular season game. 

Green specializes in attacking players who are (1) not standing up or are in an otherwise compromised position and (2) are either smaller than he is or are clearly not going to fight back. Green had a chance to confront Ron Artest/Metta World Peace several years ago and somehow managed to not attempt a chokehold, groin kick, or punch--because Green is a bully who knows better than to pick a fight with someone who is crazier or tougher than he is. There may not be that many players left in the NBA who are willing to fight at the cost of being fined/suspended, but Green knows very well who they are and he gives them a wide berth. However, people like Green who think that they know who to mess with only have to make one mistake to end up in a precarious situation in which either they get injured or they injure someone else--and Green is fortunate that the players he has struck, kicked, and choked did not end up with serious injuries. What if Poole had suffered brain damage or Gobert had suffered a broken neck? There are many people in prison because the people who they hit in the face or who they choked suffered serious or even fatal injuries.

Green also has an outsized belief not only regarding his worth/power, but the worth/power of athletes in general vis a vis the owners who employ them (and the fans who ultimately pay their salaries by purchasing tickets and merchandise). After the NBA suspended Green for choking Gobert, I lamented Green's anger control issues and inflated sense of entitlement: 

Green is the poster child for athletes who are paid far more than they could ever earn doing anything else, and who have developed a sense of entitlement without a corresponding sense of responsibility regarding their conduct. If Green did not have the NBA to protect him, there is a strong possibility that he would be in jail--or dead--as a consequence of his inability to control his anger. Sadly, neither of those possibilities can be ruled out if he does not seek help. Gobert referred to Green as a "clown" and I can understand why he feels that way, but this is no laughing matter: Green needs help both to protect others and to protect himself, because his behavior goes well beyond just being a physical player. In the sense that Green is overrated, Gobert is correct: without the injured Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson around to carry the load, the Warriors went 15-50 in 2019-20 as Green averaged 8.0 ppg on .389 field goal shooting while looking very much like a role player and very little like the Hall of Famer he is purported to be. Green seems to get very angry when his limitations as a player are pointed out, but that does not change the reality that he is a limited player whose specific talents can be helpful for a team already stacked with talent but don't make much impact on winning otherwise. 

In December 2023, I warned that the NBA is taking a risk by not sufficiently disciplining Green for his out of control violent behavior:

If the NBA keeps protecting Green from the natural consequences of his actions, Green is going to eventually do something so egregious that the NBA will no longer be able to protect him because the judicial system will be compelled to intervene. Draymond Green is a 6-6, 230 walking time bomb that is going to explode in the league's face if Commissioner Silver does not take strong action--and if time bomb Green explodes, the league is not going to be able to successfully argue in court that the explosion was not foreseeable given Green's track record of violent behavior. 

Green has some basketball skills, but he is not as good as he thinks he is. Green should not be compared to Hall of Famers Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace. Rodman won seven straight rebounding titles, and would have been a dominant rebounder regardless of who his teammates were. Wallace won two rebounding titles and one shot blocking title, and he ranked in the top 10 in the league in those categories seven times each overall. Neither Rodman nor Wallace could have been the best player on a championship team, but both were statistically dominant players. In contrast, Green has only led the NBA in a statistical category once (steals per game in 2016-17), he has never ranked in the top ten in rebounds per game or blocked shots per game, and he is heavily dependent on being surrounded by great players who do most of the work, as I noted last year when I assessed Green's legacy:

Green is going to ride his triple single career averages (8.7 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 5.6 apg) all the way to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame because he was lucky enough to play alongside Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, and Andre Iguodala. Is "lucky" a fair adjective? What would Green's career have looked like without those guys? Glad you asked: in the 2019-20 season, Iguodala and Durant were gone (Green played a role in chasing Durant away, but that is another story), Thompson missed the whole season due to injury, and Curry played in just five games due to injury. Green showed the world who he really is as a player, averaging 8.0 ppg on .389 field goal shooting along with 6.2 rpg and 6.2 apg for a 15-50 team. So, yes, "lucky" seems about right.  

Green will be 36 years old soon, and his pedestrian numbers so far this season (7.9 ppg on .391 field goal shooting, 5.8 rpg) indicate that his playing days will be over soon. Green's retirement will be a mixed blessing: the good news is that we will no longer have to watch him deliver cheap shots to opposing players and we will no longer have to listen to his self-serving excuses for his lack of emotional self-control; the bad news is that he likely will be paid millions of dollars per year to be a commentator for one of the NBA's media partners, turning that media partner's pregame show into a mess almost as unwatchable as any pregame show featuring "Screamin' A" Smith. Green is supposed to have a high basketball IQ, but that has not been evident thus far when he has been a TV commentator; to cite just one example, when he participated in TNT's coverage of the 2024 Western Conference Finals he was more interested in bashing Gobert than in providing intelligent analysis, as I pointed out in my game two recap:

An intelligent, unbiased commentator would talk about the final possession of the game when Dallas gave up an open three pointer to Naz Reid even though Reid was the hottest three point shooter in the game. Reid's shot barely missed, but just as it could be argued that Minnesota should not have given up a three pointer to Doncic with a two point lead it could also be argued that Dallas should not have given up an open shot to Reid, one of the few Minnesota players who shot well in this game.

Instead, Green focused his attention on Gobert, sounding like a little kid on the playground teasing another kid as opposed to sounding like an intelligent, unbiased commentator analyzing what happened. It is valid to question why Minnesota left Gobert in the game for the last defensive possession instead of going small, switching everything, and forcing Dallas to shoot a two point shot--but it is silly to act as if Gobert is personally responsible for Doncic hitting the kind of shot that he has hit many times before against many other players.  

Gobert has one of the best plus/minus numbers overall during the 2024 playoffs, and the Timberwolves have outscored the Mavericks during his minutes this series while being outscored when Gobert is out of the game. I would not be surprised if "Screamin' A" Smith acted as if an entire 48 minute NBA game can be boiled down to one shot, but intelligent commentators understand that the last play is not necessarily what decided the outcome. Here, the Timberwolves enjoyed a 16 point third quarter lead before their offense fell apart; are we supposed to pretend like all of those empty offensive possessions had nothing to do with the final result?

Green is either an idiot or a buffoon: he either does not know what he is talking about, or he does not care how foolish he sounds. It is interesting that Kenny Smith was the only person on the TNT set who was willing to even tentatively challenge Green's nonsense both before and after the game. Smith noted that the Timberwolves have outscored the Mavericks during Gobert's minutes, and Smith emphasized that Doncic could have made that last shot over anyone, not just Gobert. Charles Barkley and Shaquille O'Neal did not contradict Green, but they correctly focused on Towns' shortcomings and they made the valid point that if the Timberwolves are going to play big then their big men must play with force in the paint. The Timberwolves' problem is that they are not attacking the paint offensively--and that problem must be fixed by Edwards and Towns. The problem is not drop coverage or Rudy Gobert or any other nonsense spewed by Green. If Green keeps lying about Gobert it would be great if someone had the guts to tell the truth about Green, and his triple single exploits on .389 field goal shooting for the 15-50 Warriors during the 2019-20 season when Green did not have Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, or Andre Iguodala to do the heavy lifting. I'll double down on what I said before: Green will be inducted in the Basketball Hall of Fame primarily because he was lucky enough to play alongside those four players. 

It is also worth mentioning that Green went 0-3 versus Minnesota this season, and 1-2 last season (Golden State beat Minnesota once in 2022-23 when Green did not play, an example of addition by subtraction). If Green is so smart, maybe he should use that big brain to figure out how to do better than 1-5 versus the player and team that he keeps mocking.

The NBA and TNT should have been embarrassed to put Green on the air in the first place after his numerous violent incidents, and they should be even more embarrassed by how he is doing his part-time job. When David Stern was the NBA's Commissioner, he took the consistent position that it was important to promote the game and uplift the players. How does it promote the game to uplift a violent and petty person like Green to a position of prominence so that Green can mock the league's Defensive Player of the Year? If Gobert is as bad as Green suggests, then either the league is trash, or the media members who do the voting are idiots; neither scenario is a good look for the league. 

The NBA under Commissioner Adam Silver has coddled Green for too long, and no one should be surprised when Green does something so egregious that the NBA will not be able to protect Green from legal consequences. What if Green had hit the New Orleans fan like he hit Poole? Green would be in jail, and he, the Warriors, and the NBA would likely be facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit. It is easy to retort that Green did not hit the fan because Green knows what boundaries he cannot cross, but Green has crossed multiple boundaries already, so relying on him to exercise good judgment is quite a gamble, even for a league that does not mind being in bed with legalized gambling operations.

Labels: Adam Silver, Domantas Sabonis, Draymond Green, Golden State Warriors, Jordan Poole, Jusuf Nurkic, NBA, New Orleans Pelicans, Rudy Gobert

posted by David Friedman @ 12:05 PM

2 comments

How Significant is the NBA Cup?

The third annual NBA Cup began with eight games on Friday October 31, and will continue until a champion is crowned on Tuesday December 16. The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder to win the 2024 NBA Cup, and the L.A. Lakers beat the Indiana Pacers 123-109 to win the inaugural NBA Cup in 2023. Most of this year's NBA Cup games will be played on Friday nights. All NBA Cup games also count in the regular season standings except for the championship game, which paradoxically is not classified as a regular season game or as a playoff game.

In a two year sample size, winning the NBA Cup has not correlated with winning the the NBA title. Milwaukee lost to Indiana in the first round of the 2025 playoffs, and the Lakers lost to the Denver Nuggets in the first round of the 2024 playoffs. The losers of the NBA Cup championship game have fared better in the NBA playoffs than the winners, with Oklahoma City capturing the 2025 NBA title and Indiana reaching the 2024 Eastern Conference Finals a year before losing to Oklahoma City in the 2025 NBA Finals.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver openly dreamed for many years about creating an in-season tournament modeled after the in-season tournaments that already exist in other sports leagues around the world. He believes that such an in-season tournament heightens fan interest and lessens the incentive to tank--and he no doubt also believes that an in-season tournament provides revenue generating opportunities for the league.

There is little doubt that the league is using the NBA Cup to create revenue generating opportunities through sponsorships and through promotion by the league's media partners, but the other supposed advantages of the NBA Cup are difficult to quantify. There is not a direct, obvious way to measure the extent to which fan interest is impacted by the NBA Cup; did fans attend a particular game because it was an NBA Cup game or because they like one of the teams or because that game happened when they had enough time or money to go to a game? 

The race to the bottom that happened in both 2023 and 2024--and will almost certainly happen this season as well--belies the notion that the NBA Cup curbs tanking; it made no sense to assume that--even if every team cared a lot about winning the NBA Cup--the existence of an in-season tournament would have an impact on teams happily losing for most of the season.

It will be interesting to see how the NBA Cup is viewed in 10 years. The Lakers raised a banner to commemorate their 2023 NBA Cup title, and the Bucks raised a banner in honor of their 2024 NBA Cup title, but it is difficult to imagine legendary players of the past such as Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant putting much stock in a banner celebrating anything other than an NBA title. How important can the NBA Cup championship game be if the statistics are not counted as either part of the regular season or the playoffs? The NBA Cup championship game is essentially an exhibition game for which the players are richly rewarded, as each member of the winning team receives more than $500,000.

Great players are evaluated based in large part on NBA championships, NBA MVPs, All-NBA selections, and overall individual statistics. Will NBA Cups eventually considered to be an important--or even relevant--part of a great player's resume? That seems doubtful.

Labels: Adam Silver, Indiana Pacers, L.A. Lakers, Milwaukee Bucks, NBA Cup, Oklahoma City Thunder

posted by David Friedman @ 12:13 AM

0 comments

Legalized Gambling Poses a Significant Threat to NBA Specifically and Sports in General

During a recent appearance on the "One Night With Steiny" podcast, Brooklyn Nets forward Michael Porter Jr. offered a candid assessment of the negative impact that legalized gambling has had on the NBA specifically and sports in general: "The enjoyment of the game isn't for the game anymore. It's so that people can make money. In reality, way more people are losing money than making money." 

Porter Jr. mentioned a specific problematic scenario: "Think about it, if you could get all your homies rich by telling them, 'Yo, bet $10,000 on my under this one game. I'm going to act like I've got an injury, and I'm going to sit out. I'm going to come out after three minutes.' And they all get a little bag because you did it one game. That is so not OK, but some people probably think like that. They come from nothing, and all their homies have nothing." This scenario is not only plausible; it has already happened: Porter Jr.'s brother Jontay was banned for life from the NBA for violating the league's gambling policies because he feigned an injury so that his co-conspirators could win an "under" bet based on his statistics for a specific game. 

Porter Jr. suggested that sports betting should be restricted to in-person wagering in Las Vegas, and he concluded, "The whole sports gambling entity...it's bad and it's only going to get worse." 

The issue it not merely that legalized sports betting opens up a Pandora's Box of cheating possibilities; the way that sports betting is being marketed is also problematic: the leagues, their betting provider partners, and the media outlets that cover sports are all relentlessly promoting not just sports betting but the riskiest, least favorable types of sports betting. It is challenging enough to correctly handicap the outcome of a game, but the prop bets and the parlay bets are structured in a way that favors the house significantly. Think about it this way: these betting providers did not become big, highly successful businesses by paying out a lot of winners on prop bets and parlay bets--and the reason for that is that the odds of the bettor winning such bets do not match up with the payouts provided, which means that in the long run even if a few bettors get lucky these bets are sucker bets that are lining the pockets of the betting providers.  

It does not take a genius to figure out that widespread, legalized sports betting will lead to a host of problems, including but not limited to (1) an increase in the number of families ruined by compulsive gamblers betting way beyond their means, (2) an increase in the number of games that are fixed or that at least have some kind of point shaving/stat shaving, (3) an increase in hostility directed by losing bettors toward athletes whose play caused the bettors to lose, and (4) decreased confidence in the legitimacy of sports results because of the assumption that players and/or officials either bet on the games or were bought by people who bet on the games. You used to have to actively seek out opportunities to wager on sports; now, legalized sports betting is advertised and promoted throughout sports broadcasts, and is readily available on your mobile device. 

For the above reasons and more, U.S. professional sports leagues consistently opposed the legalization of sports betting, but the leagues changed their tune when they realized how much money they could make by partnering with betting providers; the leagues went from actively lobbying against the legalization of sports betting to actively lobbying for sports betting to be legalized. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver went from opposing legalized sports betting to writing Op-Ed pieces supporting legalized sports betting--and he made that transformation not because he has the best interest of society or individual bettors on his mind but because he heard the cash register ringing.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for widespread legalization of sports betting by ruling that the federal ban on sports betting was unconstitutional; therefore each state can determine whether to ban sports betting within that state. Sports betting is now legal in 38 states.

Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder is credited--or blamed--for making sports betting a mainstream activity, so it is worth noting that at the height of his fame in 1980 he publicly opposed widespread legalization of sports betting:

Gambling should be made difficult for the average man. It should be something he budgets to do once or twice a year. Vegas was best when it was hardest to reach.

You see, it isn't the two or three percent, the house edge, that beats you. Otherwise, people would only lose two or three percent, and so what? It's the psychology. A guy goes to a casino. He wins $500, he's ecstatic. He goes home, buys his wife a present, springs for a night out. Fine. Now he goes back. This time he loses $500. O.K., altogether he's even. But does he quit $500 down the way he did $500 up? No. He takes another $500 out of the bank. And now he's pressing, so he blows that and borrows $500. Now he's out $1,500, and this is a guy who only makes 20 to 25 grand a year. He goes home, gets into his wife's checking account. 

This is what happens when gambling is too accessible. Everybody gets hurt but the casino. The guy can't buy the new summer suit or the new shoes for his wife. He lets the tune-up go. The stores are hurt, the restaurant, the gas station. This is the kind of stuff you'll start to see soon at Atlantic City.

And if they legalized sports betting, the little guy would be just as dead. We'd find a way to beat you. Right now, if we—me, anybody—tried to bet more than $50,000 on any game, we'd have a hard time. And when you only got $50 riding, you can't pay enough to fix a game. Put a pencil to it. But with legalized gambling, there'd be so much money bet you could get down a million or more on one game. So now it's worth it to pay for a fix, isn't it? And that's easy. You don't need the quarterback. Just gimme the center. Gimme the referee. All I'd need is one offside at the right time. You don't even need to get a guy to throw it for you. Suppose we just pay a big star $50,000 to stay home with the flu? Nobody ever thought of that before, did they?

The leagues and the betting providers would push back by arguing that they closely monitor suspicious wagering activity and that if sports betting were illegal it would still take place but it would be unregulated--and it is in their interest to push back, because they are making tons of money: they are the "casino" now and, as Snyder noted, "Everybody gets hurt but the casino."

It may sound like a great idea to legalize vices and then regulate/tax them. We are running a nearly nationwide experiment of this concept not only with sports betting but also with marijuana (which could be the topic of a separate article). The problem is that the damage caused by vices ripples out, and impacts innocent people who did not partake in the vice but are now suffering the consequences, ranging from games being rigged to being injured or killed by a marijuana-impaired driver. It is true that too much regulation or regulation that is too strict can backfire; we learned that with Prohibition. It is also true that too little regulation can lead to negative consequences for society as a whole.

Legalized sports betting is just one aspect of a larger societal shift; we are reshaping society to value instant gratification, instant wealth, and instant fame. This is not healthy or sustainable collectively or individually. It may be 15-20 years before the impact of widespread legalization of sports betting is fully evident and better understood, but Snyder's concerns were correct, have already been validated to some extent, and will be validated to a much greater extent in the future. 

Labels: Adam Silver, gambling, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, Jontay Porter, Michael Porter Jr., NBA

posted by David Friedman @ 1:53 AM

3 comments

NBA and NBPA Jointly Announce New All-Star Game Format

The NBA All-Star Game has become an embarrassment and a travesty, culminating in the 2024 fiasco during which the teams combined to score 397 points while attempting 168 three point shots and just five free throws. A strong Commissioner would have announced right after that game that--due to lack of player interest in participating in a meaningful game--the All-Star Game will be discontinued; sure, the NBPA would have been outraged because many players have contract clauses promising them bonuses for being selected as an All-Star, but a strong statement by the Commissioner would have put the players on blast and put the onus on the players to do better. 

Unfortunately, the NBA does not have a strong Commissioner like David Stern. The NBA is stuck with Adam Silver, who is a weak Commissioner, as I recently noted: 

Throwing more cash at players who act entitled and spoiled will not make things better. Radical measures are needed: if All-Stars refuse to play hard, then cancel the All-Star Game and render null and void any contract bonuses related to being selected as an All-Star; if players think that the season is too long to play all 82 games, then slash the schedule to 60 games, and reduce player salaries proportionately to make up for the lost TV revenue. We all know that Commissioner Adam Silver--who prides himself on getting along with the players--would never do such things, which is why we all also know that the NBA that we love is going to continue to decline until the owners suffer financial losses as a result of selling a second-rate product.

Instead of fixing the All-Star Game problem, Silver--as I expected and predicted--is giving the All-Stars more money and begging them to play hard; the NBA and NBPA jointly announced yet another change to the All-Star Game format:

For the first time, the NBA All-Star Game will feature a mini-tournament with four teams and three games.  Two teams will meet in one semifinal (Game 1), and the remaining two teams will meet in the other semifinal (Game 2).  The winning teams from Game 1 and Game 2 will advance to face each other in the championship (Game 3).  For each game, the winner will be the first team to reach or surpass 40 points.

Each team will have eight players and be named for a TNT NBA analyst.  The 24 NBA All-Star selections will be divided evenly into three teams, with the rosters drafted by TNT’s Inside the NBA commentators and honorary team general managers Charles Barkley, Shaquille O’Neal and Kenny Smith.  The three analysts will make their respective picks for Team Chuck, Team Shaq and Team Kenny live on TNT in the NBA All-Star Draft, which will be conducted on Thursday, Feb. 6 just before the network’s doubleheader that night.

The fourth team will be the winning team from the championship game of the Castrol Rising Stars, the annual showcase of top first- and second-year NBA players and NBA G League standouts, which will be played on Friday, Feb. 14 during NBA All-Star 2025... 

The four teams participating in the NBA All-Star Game will compete for a prize pool of $1.8 million, with each player on the championship-winning team receiving $125,000, each player on the second-place team receiving $50,000 and each player on the third- and fourth-place teams receiving $25,000.

The first thing that comes to mind after reading the above paragraphs is that when the format cannot be explained simply the format is too convoluted. The NBA All-Star Game format used to be "The best players from the Eastern Conference and the Western Conference--as selected by the fans and the players--will play one game under normal rules." The NBA All-Star Game did not have the intensity of game seven of the NBA Finals, but it also did not feature players running up and down the court shooting crazy shots without playing a lick of defense. 

The second thing that comes to mind about the "new and improved" NBA All-Star Game format is that each player on the winning All-Star team received $100,000 last year, while the players on the losing team received $25,000 each; in other words, as a reward for embarrassing themselves and the league by not taking the All-Star Game seriously, the players are being given a larger All-Star game prize pool.

The new format is gimmicky, and is yet another example of just how clueless and weak Adam Silver is. A strong Commissioner would not "fix" the All-Star Game by turning it into something completely different; a strong Commissioner would either convince the players that it is in their best interest to take the All-Star Game seriously, or he would discontinue the All-Star Game: in 1998, David Stern replaced the Slam Dunk Contest with the WNBA-NBA 2Ball competition (which is not to say that 2Ball was great, but the point is that when the Slam Dunk Contest declined Stern got rid of it--and when he brought it back in 2000, Vince Carter had one of the most memorable performances in the event's history).

The players run the league now, and at this rate they are going to run it into the ground; ratings are down this season, which is the first sign that the golden goose of huge media rights deals may not live forever: if the ratings continue to decline, then the price for the rights fees will be cut, which will in turn lower the salary cap and lower salaries. Maybe that won't happen, or maybe today's players don't care about that possibility because their goal is to get as much cash as they can get now regardless of what happens later--but for those of us who love the game and love the history of the game, it is disheartening to watch the current version of the NBA that is marred by a general lack of competitive spirit, tanking, load management, and excessive reliance on high variance three point shooting. 

In an unrelated yet related story, the NBA is reportedly considering doubling the length of the NBA Cup from four games of group play to eight games. The possible unintentional comedy that will not be funny that could result from lengthening the NBA Cup is that if the league lengthens it too much then some players may start engaging in load management during the event! Maybe the NBA Cup could even have its own All-Star teams and All-Star Game so that the players have yet another opportunity to receive more cash for not playing hard!

Here is a novel concept for the NBA to consider: have an 82 game regular season as a qualifier for a four round playoff system that culminates by crowning a league champion.That is not nearly as convoluted as the new NBA All-Star Game format or the NBA Cup format, but if the players are willing to actually try then it just might work.

Labels: 2025 NBA All-Star Game, Adam Silver, David Stern

posted by David Friedman @ 1:39 AM

10 comments

Joel Embiid, Marcus Hayes, and How to Deal with Irresponsible Media Members

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Marcus Hayes recently criticized Joel Embiid for missing so many games throughout his career--a factual and valid criticism--but Hayes veered from factual and valid to irrelevant and irresponsible when he asserted that Embiid's lack of professionalism dishonors Embiid's young son and the memory of Embiid's deceased brother. 

Embiid played in just 39 of 82 regular season games last season, he has never played in more than 68 games in a season, and he has missed all five of the Philadelphia 76ers' games this season--but he was in the locker room after Philadelphia's 124-117 loss to Memphis on Saturday night, and he told Hayes, "The next time you bring up my dead brother and my son again, you are going to see what I'm going to do to you and I'm going to have to...live with the consequences." Embiid and Hayes exchanged words, Embiid did not accept Hayes' apology, and then Embiid pushed Hayes on the shoulder/neck area. A 76ers' security official urged media members in the locker room to not report what Embiid had done, but Embiid declared, "They can do whatever they want. I don't give a ----."

The NBA is investigating Embiid's conduct, and the NBA will presumably consider not only that Embiid made physical contact with a media member but also that Embiid repeatedly stated that he does not care about the consequences of his actions. Embiid dared the NBA to punish him. When David Stern was the NBA's Commissioner, he would have accepted that dare, and levied discipline commensurate with the severity of Embiid's actions combined with Embiid's lack of remorse. It will be interesting to see how current NBA Commissioner Adam Silver handles this situation. One could joke that the appropriate discipline would be to force Embiid to play in games right now and to play in back to back games, but this situation is no laughing matter, and unless Silver fancies the idea of NBA players teeing off on every media member who they dislike he must suspend Embiid without pay for multiple games. It may be fun to joke about Kevin Durant punching Stephen A. Smith or LeBron James punching Skip Bayless, but if those things actually happened then the NBA would rapidly descend into a sideshow instead of being a professional sports league.

The fact that Embiid's actions are way out of bounds in no way justifies what Hayes wrote. Bringing up Embiid's deceased brother and Embiid's young son was not only cruel and heartless but it was also irrelevant: the issue that Hayes supposedly cared about is Embiid's professionalism, and that issue can and should be discussed without ever bringing up Embiid's family. Embiid has rarely if ever been in tip top physical condition during his NBA career, and it can reasonably be argued that this lack of professionalism--and not "luck," which is how Embiid explained his large number of missed games--explains why Embiid has been so injury-prone. If Hayes had stuck to discussing Embiid's history of missing games, not being in shape, and playing poorly in the playoffs then Hayes could have produced a timely, relevant column--but, instead, Hayes went for the cheap shot, the clicks, and the attention. 

In short, Hayes showed that he is unprofessional, and lacks the judgment that should be a requirement for a columnist.

Unfortunately, Hayes is far from an exception. I have documented many examples of writers and TV commentators who often demonstrate their lack of professionalism.

Justin Termine, one of Sirius XM NBA Radio's main hosts, has a website that declares that he is "an entertainer, not a journalist," and he consistently lives up to the low standard that he sets for himself, including but not limited to the false narratives that he applies to the careers of Rick Barry (who he adores) and Julius Erving (who he denigrates as being overrated compared to Barry); to be clear, Barry and Erving are both all-time greats, but Termine's descriptions of their respective careers are not accurate or objective.

Amin Elhassan and Zack Harper think that it is amusing to mock Bob Cousy and Russell Westbrook. It is fair to say that Cousy and Westbrook will be remembered as significant figures in basketball history long after Elhassan and Harper will be forgotten. A little humility, a bit of knowledge about basketball history, and a modicum of respect for sustained greatness are three traits that Elhassan and Harper lack.

Before parlaying his friendship with LeBron James into an opportunity to become coach of the Lakers despite having no coaching experience at the college or pro levels, J.J. Redick worked as a media member who repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance about basketball history, culminating in his disrespectful comments about Bob Cousy.

Stephen A. Smith and Kendrick Perkins regularly spout hot takes that are cold as ice and disconnected from reality. The problem is not just that many of their evaluations and predictions are wrong--no one is always right about evaluations and predictions--but rather that their evaluations and predictions have no logical basis. What qualifies them to be paid so much to pontificate about the NBA? The answer is that they are not hired to be journalists but--like Termine--to be entertainers, and their bosses apparently think that they are entertaining.

It is problematic that so many of the most prominent media members who receive credentials to cover the NBA do not even pretend to be qualified journalists. When Stern was the NBA's Commissioner, he would call out media members who did not have their facts straight and who acted in an unprofessional manner; this was not about censoring opinions, but rather about insisting that media members should be held to a professional standard. 

Hayes is just the latest example of a media member who has been blessed with an NBA credential despite lacking the judgment and professionalism that should be a prerequisite for receiving such a privilege. 

One might argue that the public is receiving the media coverage that it wants and deserves, but I would argue that media outlets have a professional obligation to hold themselves to a high standard regardless of what the public wants or expects. Contrary to what Termine explicitly states and what many of his colleagues implicitly accept as reality, it is possible to be entertaining while also being informative and professional. 

Jalen Rose was one of the few prominent commentators who would challenge Stephen A. Smith, Kendrick Perkins, Skip Bayless, and others when they made foolish and unprofessional comments--and we see where Rose's candor landed him: out of work.

It's your move, Commissioner Silver. Will you discipline Embiid sufficiently such that no NBA player will ever again make aggressive physical contact with a media member? Will you take a more active role in oversight of who receives NBA media credentials, and the ways that credentialed media members often sully the league's image and its proud history? Or will you attempt to sweep this Embiid/Hayes situation under the rug?

Labels: Adam Silver, Amin Elhassan, David Stern, J.J. Redick, Joel Embiid, Justin Termine, Marcus Hayes, Philadelphia 76ers, Stephen A. Smith, Zach Harper

posted by David Friedman @ 2:39 AM

0 comments

Attorney Roy E. Brownell II Makes the Historical, Logical, and Moral Case for the NBA to Officially Count ABA Statistics

For over 20 years, I have insisted that ABA Numbers Should Also Count. I noted that--among other things--the list of Julius Erving's 40 point games is incomplete without including his ABA statistics, Julius Erving still holds the Nets' franchise single game scoring record, and Erving should be acknowledged by the NBA and its media partners as a member of the elite 30,000 point club.

In Setting the Record Straight: Why the NBA Needs to Officially Adopt ABA Statistics, 76 Ark. L. Rev. (2024), attorney Roy E. Brownell II articulates detailed, powerful, and multi-pronged historical, logical, and moral arguments regarding why the NBA's record book should officially include ABA statistics. His 87 page article deserves to be read in full--and should be required reading for NBA Commissioner Adam Silver--but it is important to outline the framework of Brownell's arguments so that the general public understands why this is such an important issue. Perhaps a groundswell of public opinion favoring the inclusion of ABA statistics in the NBA's record book is what it will take to fix a wrong that has existed for nearly 50 years.

Brownell begins by noting that when other major sports leagues merged they also merged their statistics, citing the NFL-AFL merger in 1970 and the combination of the American League and National League into Major League Baseball in 1903. Thus, both history and logic support the notion that when leagues merge their statistics should be combined and granted equal status. 

Brownell bases the moral case on three prongs:  

1) Black players had a significant impact on the ABA, so erasing the ABA's statistics also erases the story of that impact. 

2) In 2022, the NBA and National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) agreed to provide additional pension benefits to ABA players, in essence acknowledging the ABA's major league status.

3) The NBA makes money by selling products with ABA logos, thus benefiting from the league's rich historical legacy while simultaneously refusing to officially recognize the ABA's statistics. 

Brownell demonstrates that the modern game of basketball is in many ways built on the foundation laid by the ABA. Brownell provides a detailed discussion of the extent to which the NBA profits from the ABA without officially recognizing the ABA's statistics. Here, he summarizes the key points (footnotes omitted):

By officially acknowledging the dissolved league's statistics, the NBA would formally recognize that the ABA left a major impact on the surviving league in numerous interrelated ways: (1) contributing to a spike in interest in the NBA; (2) driving widespread acceptance of dunking and individual play; (3) pushing the NBA to adopt the three-point line; (4) moving the emphasis of the game from the post to the wing; (5) influencing the location of NBA franchises; and (6) providing new financial and marketing opportunities for the NBA. Reflected former NBA great Walt Frazier, in today's game, "The whole NBA is the ABA...[A]ll we got to do is color the ball red, white and blue." George Karl, longtime NBA coach and veteran of both leagues, expressed similar sentiments. "[T]he way the game is played
today is very ABA-ish."

Brownell points out that the NBA and its teams have conducted marketing promotions when certain players have reached career milestones that include ABA statistics (including Dan Issel and Julius Erving joining the 20,000 point club), yet the NBA's official position is that those players did not achieve those career milestones. Brownell quotes Bill Livingston regarding the NBA's shameful hypocrisy:

My, how sagging attendance can change management's viewpoint. In the past, the 76ers, with all the haughty disdain of an old-line NBA team, treated records set in the old American Basketball Association as something darn near fraudulent. But the Sixers, trying to hype their gate by any means possible, have started trumpeting a 20,000-point night for Julius Erving...Only catch is, 11,662 of Dr. J's points came in the ABA. The old-line clubs won't recognize [ABA records]...but, when a few bucks can be made, it is apparently a different story.

The ABA originated the Slam Dunk Contest and the concept of All-Star Weekend (as opposed to just playing an All-Star Game without having other side events). The ABA helped popularize the three point shot, which the NBA began using in 1979 (three years after the ABA-NBA merger). The NBA has profited greatly from All-Star Weekend and the three point shot, so it is morally wrong to profit from the ABA's legacy while refusing to grant official status to ABA statistics. Unfortunately, the NBA has demonstrated that its top priority is increasing their profits, not doing what is right.

Brownell believes that his article provides the first long-form and in depth analysis of not just the specific issue of the NBA refusing to officially count ABA statistics but also of the broader issue of how to determine major league status across professional leagues. Brownell acknowledges the short form work of various authors (he cites my writing seven times).

It is inexcusable that the NBA arrogantly refuses to officially recognize the ABA's statistics. I hope that Adam Silver and the NBA's media partners read Brownell's article and immediately grant official recognition to the ABA's statistics. 

Labels: ABA, Adam Silver, Julius Erving, NBA, Roy E. Brownell II

posted by David Friedman @ 3:01 PM

2 comments

NBA Suspends Draymond Green Indefinitely for his "Repeated History of Unsportsmanlike Acts"

Less than a month after suspending Draymond Green for five games for "unsportsmanlike and dangerous" conduct, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has suspended Draymond Green indefinitely because of his "repeated history of unsportsmanlike acts," the latest of which was slugging Jusuf Nurkic in the face. The NBA's public statement added that Green "will be required to meet certain league and team conditions before he returns to play."

An indefinite suspension could last for just one game--although that seem unlikely here--or it could turn into a permanent ban (which also seems unlikely, though perhaps not impossible given Green's violent and volatile behavior). The last NBA player who received an indefinite suspension is Gilbert Arenas, who now just recklessly shoots off his mouth on his podcast instead of threatening to shoot people with guns. Arenas earned his indefinite suspension in 2010--and came close to being a Darwin Award winner--by bringing four guns into the locker room and challenging then-teammate Javaris Crittenton to choose one for a gun duel. After his NBA career ended, Crittenton served 10 years in prison for manslaughter; Arenas may have thought his locker room gun play was all (foolish) fun and games, but he was messing with someone who had no compunction about pulling a trigger and taking another person's life: Crittenton shot and killed a 22 year old mother of four in a drive-by shooting--and the victim's family is understandably outraged that he only served 10 years of his 23 year sentence (but that is a topic for a different article). Commissioner David Stern succinctly explained why he suspended Arenas by stating that Arenas "is not currently fit to take the court in an NBA game." Stern also suspended Crittenton for the rest of the season, and Crittenton never played in the NBA again.

Arenas' suspension lasted 50 games. He then returned to the Washington Wizards, and resumed jacking up wild shots for a losing team before the Wizards dealt him to the Orlando Magic. Arenas averaged 8.0 ppg on .344 field goal shooting in 49 games for the Magic in 2010-11 before concluding his career by scoring 4.2 ppg on .406 field goal shooting in 17 games for the Memphis Grizzlies in 2011-12. Now, Arenas--who won a grand total of one playoff series during his entire career--dispenses his peculiar perspective on basketball on a podcast featuring hot takes that are as off the mark as his erratic .421 career field goal shooting. Arenas' post-suspension NBA career lasted 87 games.

Stern's description of Arenas' lack of fitness to appear in an NBA game is applicable to Green as well. Hopefully, Green will seek help and make sincere efforts to change his mindset and behavior as opposed to just paying lip service long enough to get back on the court. Right now, Green is an overrated and emotionally erratic player for a sub.-500 team; he is not indispensable for the Warriors, and the Warriors are far from being a marquee team, so Green is on a trajectory taking him out of the league if he does not get his act together. The bottom line is that the Warriors don't need him--they can be sub-.500 without his extra baggage--and the NBA is fed up with him.

Labels: Adam Silver, David Stern, Draymond Green, Gilbert Arenas, Golden State Warriors

posted by David Friedman @ 1:16 AM

0 comments

When Will the NBA Take a Stand Against Draymond Green's Unacceptable Violent Behavior?

If once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern, then what is four, five or six times? Draymond Green has been suspended four times, and he is about to receive his fifth NBA suspension after delivering an open handed punch to the face of Phoenix' Jusuf Nurkic. Green was assessed a Flagrant Foul 2--which carries with it automatic ejection--at the 8:23 mark of the third quarter of the Suns' 119-116 win over the Warriors. Green's Warriors led 65-60 when Green was ejected.

In his post-game press conference, Green claimed that he did not intend to hit Nurkic and he apologized for hitting Nurkic. Green said that he was trying to "sell the foul" because Nurkic was pulling on his hip. If Green is asserting that he lacks control over his body movements to the extent that he cannot prevent himself from hitting someone in the face while playing basketball, then Green should immediately receive a neurological examination to determine what is wrong with him. I have played basketball for over 40 years. Although I never played in the NBA, I know what it means specifically to post up/play post defense, and I know in general what it means to control your body movements while sharing the court with nine other players. I don't possess Green's athletic abilities/body control, but I have never hit anyone on a basketball court the way that Green hit Nurkic, and I have never seen anyone hit someone like that on a basketball court by accident.

I don't know how good of a fighter Green is--because he very carefully avoids getting in fights (see below)--but he is a terrible actor and a worse liar. Anyone who has ever played basketball knows that (1) Green meant to hit Jurkic and (2) Green is lying when he suggests otherwise. TNT's Jamal Crawford noted that if Green had felt apologetic then he would have immediately said "My bad" and helped Nurkic up, which was also my immediate reaction when Green provided his disingenuous account of his actions.

After the game, Jurkic said that Green needs help, that he's glad Green did not choke him (a reference to what Green recently did to Rudy Gobert), and that what Green did had nothing to do with basketball.

Green has complained that the NBA singles him out for special, harsher treatment. I agree with Jeff Van Gundy's point that in fact Green receives special, beneficial treatment: Green is expected to behave poorly, so he is therefore given a benefit of the doubt that is not given to players who are more mild-mannered, and he is often not ejected despite behavior that results in ejections for other players. Last night, Denver's Nikola Jokic--a two-time regular season MVP and the 2023 NBA Finals MVP--was ejected after just one technical foul for complaining about a non-call in a manner that would be considered mild by Green's histrionic standards. 

The NBA has been way too easy on Green. Less than a month ago, the NBA suspended Green for five games for "unsportsmanlike and dangerous" conduct after Green put Minnesota's Rudy Gobert into a headlock. A five game suspension stacked on top of Green's previous suspensions, ejections, and technical fouls clearly was not sufficient to change Green's behavior, so I offer two suggestions to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver--one silly suggestion, and one serious suggestion (the reader can determine which is which):

1) Implement a special Draymond Green rule: any player--teammate or opponent--who is hit, kicked, choked, or otherwise accosted by Green has the right to immediately deliver exactly the same blow to Green without punishment, and if that player declines to do so then he may appoint a teammate to do so on his behalf. Green professes to be a tough guy who does not back down from anyone, so let's put that to the test, because so far we have only seen Green acting out in situations where he knows that the people he attacked will not strike back because (1) they are not prone to committing physical violence, and (2) they know that the NBA will punish them for striking back. So, let's remove those restrictions and put Green in a FOFO (Fool Around and Find Out) situation the next time he feels like hitting, kicking, or choking someone. Clearly, Green does not care about suspensions/fines because (1) he is self-centered and not concerned about how his behavior harms his team, and (2) he has made so much money already that the fines don't impact his lifestyle; my theory is that Green will suddenly become much better at anger management if there is 100% certainty that his next punch will be immediately met by a punch, particularly if that punch will be delivered by the toughest guy on the other team even if that is not the guy who Green hit.

2) Suspend Green for at least 10 games, and make his return to action conditional on successful completion of anger management classes. If the Players Association objects, then Commissioner Silver should point out how absurd it is for the Players Association to protect someone who is attacking fellow Players Association members. If a fan jumped out of the stands and clubbed Nurkic in the face, what punishment would the Players Association deem to be appropriate? It would be more than suspending the fan from attending the next 10 games. The Players Association would demand that the fan be banned for life and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

If the NBA keeps protecting Green from the natural consequences of his actions, Green is going to eventually do something so egregious that the NBA will no longer be able to protect him because the judicial system will be compelled to intervene. Draymond Green is a 6-6, 230 walking time bomb that is going to explode in the league's face if Commissioner Silver does not take strong action--and if time bomb Green explodes, the league is not going to be able to successfully argue in court that the explosion was not foreseeable given Green's track record of violent behavior.

Labels: Adam Silver, Draymond Green, Golden State Warriors, Jusuf Nurkic, Phoenix Suns

posted by David Friedman @ 2:51 AM

3 comments

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

16 comments

NBA Institutes Harsher Penalties for Load Management

Today the NBA's Board of Governors unanimously approved a new Player Participation Policy that will replace the Player Participation Policy implemented prior to the 2017-18 season. The new policy is a six page document, but the short version is that the NBA has defined a "star" as any player who has been selected as an All-Star or as an All-NBA Team member within the past three seasons, and the NBA has set forth conditions such that teams will face financial penalties if star players are held out of games without having a documented injury. The policy includes numerous exceptions, so it will be interesting to see if teams attempt to find ways to avoid consequences for resting their star players. While this policy focuses on punishing teams, it should be noted that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement stipulates that players who appear in fewer than 65 games will be ineligible for several major awards, including regular season MVP; the NBA expects and hopes that the possibility of losing the opportunity to receive individual awards will motivate star players to earn the money that they are paid from their guaranteed contracts.

There is no credible evidence that load management works in terms of increasing a team's chances for playoff success. There is also no credible evidence that load management enhances player safety, and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver admitted this during his press conference announcing the new policy: "I said this before, if the science were clearer that players should be resting, we would be favoring it," Silver said. The NBA has been damaged by "stat gurus" who use "advanced basketball statistics" to promote load management, tanking, and the notion that the only good shots are dunks and three pointers; it is past time that the league office reassert authority over the game. The limitations of "advanced basketball statistics" have been glaringly apparent for quite some time, but the "stat gurus" who make money off of their proprietary numbers have been quite effective in squelching informed discussion about their biased and flawed thinking.

The NBA was a much better and more entertaining league when load management and tanking did not exist, because players used to consider it a badge of honor to play all 82 games. It is sad that the NBA has to keep changing policies and rules to force healthy players to play, but this is symptomatic of a larger societal problem: too many people have an inflated sense of entitlement. Playing in the NBA is a privilege, not a right, and responsibilities are attached to that privilege for each NBA player--responsibilities to the league, to the sponsors and media outlets that fund the league, to the team that pays you, to your teammates, and to the fans. Instead of taking those responsibilities seriously, too many players act as if they are entitled to receive generational wealth in exchange for minimal effort. 

This sense of entitlement permeates Team USA, and goes a long way toward explaining Team USA's frequent failures in FIBA events: USA Basketball often acts as if Team USA is entitled to win as opposed to behaving as if building a winning team is a serious responsibility; it is often evident that either the coaching staff is not familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of opposing teams or that the players ignore the defensive game plan; superstar players feel entitled both to be selected to Team USA and also to skip some events (such as the FIBA World Cup) without losing their roster spots; American NBA players struggle to adjust to FIBA's physical play and to adversity in general, because in the NBA they are pampered every step of the way on and off of the court.

It has been five years since an American-born player won the NBA regular season MVP--and that player (James Harden) is vastly overrated by "stat gurus" and by media members who lack the intellectual rigor (or the courage) to push back when Daryl Morey made the ludicrous, demonstrably false assertion that Harden is a better scorer than Michael Jordan. Commentators like J.J. Redick and Amin Elhassan made ignorant, derogatory statements about the players who built the league, when the reality is that today's players would likely struggle if they were teleported into previous eras: are we supposed to believe that coddled American players who cannot win a medal in the FIBA World Cup would fare well versus Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and other all-time greats? The excess dribbling and showboating that is praised today would have been received quite differently in decades past: referees would not have tolerated much of the nonsense that is permitted today, and any player showboating his way into the paint would be more likely to be counting his missing teeth than counting on being rewarded with two free throws.

Commissioner Silver and the team owners have the right idea that load management is a pox on the game, but the rot that has set in to the sport is so deeply rooted that I fear it will be difficult to fix.

Labels: "advanced basketball statistics", "stat gurus", Adam Silver, load management

posted by David Friedman @ 11:49 PM

15 comments

NBA Gives Ja Morant A Path Away From Oblivion

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver suspended Memphis Grizzlies All-Star Ja Morant 25 games without pay for "conduct detrimental to the league." The NBA issued an official statement about why Commissioner Silver suspended Morant; here is the pertinent portion of that official statement:

Morant posed with a firearm in a car during a live-streamed video on May 13, less than two months after he was suspended eight games without pay for the live streaming of a video on March 4 in which he displayed a firearm while in an intoxicated state at a Denver area nightclub.

The league office found that, on May 13, Morant intentionally and prominently displayed a gun while in a car with several other individuals as they were leaving a social gathering in Memphis. Morant wielded the firearm while knowing that he was being recorded and that the recording was being live streamed on Instagram Live, despite having made commitments to the NBA and public statements that he would not repeat the conduct for which he was previously disciplined.

Regardless of whether or not Morant's conduct broke any laws, it is incorrect to suggest that Morant's Constitutional or legal rights are violated by this suspension. Morant's suspension is not a Second Amendment issue because the NBA is not challenging Morant's right to legally own a firearm; the NBA, like most corporate organizations, has its own internal rules and codes of conduct, and it has the legal right to enforce those rules and codes. The NBA has every right to make it clear to Morant that he must choose between two paths: he can be a highly paid NBA superstar who abides by the NBA's employment rules and guidelines, or he can be a guy who rides around in a car wielding a handgun in live social media videos. 

Far from punishing Morant, Commissioner Silver is providing Morant a path away from oblivion: if Morant proceeds down his current path, he will be out of the league and he will have thrown away hundreds of millions of dollars--but Morant now has an opportunity to seek counseling, make smarter and more mature decisions, and return to a path filled with riches, praise, and likely basketball immortality. 

Morant's suspension is far from the longest or most severe suspension in NBA history. Not including several players who received lifetime bans after repeatedly violating the league's anti-drug policies, here is a list of just a few of the players who have received longer suspensions from the NBA:

1) O.J. Mayo was suspended 164 games (two full seasons) in 2016 for violating the league's performance enhancing drug protocol.

2) Ron Artest was suspended 86 games in 2004 for his role in the infamous "Malice at the Palace."

3) Latrell Sprewell was suspended 68 games in 1997 for choking his then-coach, P.J. Carlesimo.

4) Gilbert Arenas was suspended 50 games in 2010 for bringing guns into the locker room during a dispute with teammate Javaris Crittenton (who was suspended 38 games for the same incident).

5) Stephen Jackson was suspended 30 games in 2004 for his role in the "Malice at the Palace."

The Arenas/Crittenton incident is perhaps most relevant to Morant's situation. By age 30, Gilbert Arenas--a three-time All-Star and three-time member of the All-NBA Team--was playing for the Shanghai Sharks. Arenas, who never seemed to understand the gravity of what he did, should consider himself lucky to be alive; he thought everything was a joke, but Crittenton was recently released from prison after serving 10 years for homicide, so if Arenas had pushed his luck a little further with Crittenton then Arenas may no longer be with us to offer weird NBA takes on his podcast. 

Hopefully, Morant will use his time off without pay to change his thought process and improve his behavior. It would be a shame if he threw away his promising career the same way that Arenas squandered his talent, and it would be a tragedy if Morant ended up like Crittenton.

NBA coaches Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich have been silent about Morant's public embrace of gun culture, and Morant's alleged involvement in multiple incidents during which he engaged in violence or threatened to engage in violence. I mention Kerr and Popovich by name because both men have not hesitated to loudly and repeatedly state their opinions about national gun laws and about politicians who they accuse of not taking gun violence seriously enough. Do Kerr and Popovich approve of Morant's conduct? Do they think that the suspension is long enough, too long, or not long enough? Once you open your mouth and assert that you have an opinion worth hearing on national policy issues, you accept the responsibility of speaking out about those issues moving forward. I am not naive enough to think that Kerr and Popovich will say anything about Morant other than "This is a league issue and I trust Adam Silver" or "I will not comment about discipline involving a player from another team," but those are cowardly responses. If you feel strongly about gun violence, gun laws, and the behavior of certain citizens, then let us know how you feel when a member of your corporate organization steps out of line. 

One would think that anyone who protests about systemic racism and lack of economic opportunities for various ethnic groups would be at the forefront of encouraging Morant to not squander the chance to obtain generational wealth that could be used not only to benefit himself and his family but also underserved communities, many of which are filled with young people who idolize Morant. In that regard, the critical response of the NBA Players Association to the 25 game suspension is as unsurprising as it is disappointing. The NBA Players Association presents itself as an organization that promotes social justice, but in fact it is an organization that primarily conducts public relations campaigns on behalf of players while remaining silent, at best, when players conduct themselves inappropriately; we saw this when Kyrie Irving exposed himself as an unrepentant antisemite.

Like the Commissioner, several coaches, and other members of the NBA community (including media members who work for companies with huge NBA contracts), the Players Association (and individual players) often makes statements about social justice and public safety. Does Morant's behavior fulfill their expectations? If a fan showed up at an NBA game or event behaving around NBA players as Morant behaved in public, would the Players Association defend the fan's Second Amendment rights and emphasize that the fan did nothing illegal? Or would the Players Association demand that the league and the police protect the players? Again, once you open your mouth about public policy issues, you accept the responsibility of speaking out about those issues moving forward.

It could be argued that the NBAPA is a union whose main task is to support its members no matter what, but if the NBAPA does not have a higher calling then it should be honest about that instead of purporting to be an organization filled with social justice warriors: an organization that is silent about antisemitism and complicit with Morant's reckless behavior is hardly an organization that is taking the lead to improve society.

One last point to consider is that some people suggest that Morant is being led astray by his friends and associates--but the reality is that Morant has been front and center leading the way in each incident involving him, so at some point we have to consider the possibility that Morant is the one leading the way as opposed to someone who is being led astray. Regardless of whether Morant is the leader or the follower, this may be his last chance to correct his course; hopefully, Morant will follow the path away from oblivion that Commissioner Silver has provided.

Labels: Adam Silver, Gregg Popovich, Ja Morant, Memphis Grizzlies, NBA, Steve Kerr

posted by David Friedman @ 10:36 AM

4 comments

Kyrie Irving Refuses to Apologize for his Antisemitism

It did not take long to find out how insincere, inadequate, and meaningless Kyrie Irving's joint statement with the Brooklyn Nets and Anti-Defamation League is. 

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: 

Merriam-Webster defines anti-Semitism as:

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.

Irving also expressed confusion about why he is being criticized for promoting a film that is available on Amazon.com. Amazon certainly should be held accountable for distributing antisemitic propaganda--and Amazon has a terrible record of being perhaps the world's largest promoter of Nazi propaganda films, which has resulted in public criticism of the company. Just because Irving or others are not aware that there are protests against Amazon does not mean that such protests have not happened. 

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. 

Labels: Adam Silver, antisemitism, Brooklyn Nets, Kyrie Irving, NBA

posted by David Friedman @ 8:50 PM

2 comments

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 government action. 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 has proven that it only cares about profits, not principle, and metes out punishment based not on the nature of the offense but rather on the popularity and power of the offender. That is why Donald Sterling was banned for life, Robert Sarver was suspended for a year, and Mark Cuban faced no punishment.

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.

Bill Reiter is right on target: 

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.

Labels: Adam Silver, antisemitism, Chris Paul, Donald Sterling, Draymond Green, Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, NBA, Robert Sarver

posted by David Friedman @ 8:13 PM

0 comments