20 Second Timeout

New All-Star Format Produces Same Desultory Results

At least some of the players tried some of the time.

Sadly, that is the best that can be said about the NBA's new All-Star Game format featuring four teams playing a mini-tournament consisting of games that are each an untimed race to 40 points. TNT's Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kenny Smith picked the rosters for three of the four teams out of a player pool consisting of this year's 24 NBA All-Stars. Barkley's Global Stars included players with an international connection, O'Neal's OGs included veteran American players, and Smith's Young Stars included young American players. Trae Young was selected by Commissioner Adam Silver as a replacement for the injured Giannis Antetokounmpo on the Global Stars, and Silver tapped Kyrie Irving to replace the injured Anthony Davis on the OGs. LeBron James (OGs) and Anthony Edwards (Young Stars) waited until the day of the game to decide that they could not play, and thus no replacements were selected for either of them. The fourth team, Candace Parker's Rising Stars, included rookies and second year NBA players who won the Rising Stars event on Friday night.

I've been following the NBA since the 1970s, and the NBA All-Star Game used to be one of my favorite events, but recently it has become something that I watch more out of a sense of duty than a feeling of joy; during the 1980s, I loved watching the East's Julius Erving, Larry Bird, Moses Malone, and Isiah Thomas compete against the West's Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and George Gervin because the players had fun and showed off their individual skills while playing to win--but in recent years the All-Star Game has featured various gimmicky formats while the only thing the players competed at was showing who was least interested in playing hard. 

Last night, after numerous breaks in the action for Kevin Hart to ham it up, the OGs defeated the Global Stars 41-25 in the championship game. The OGs raced out to an 11-0 lead and never looked back. Bay Area hero Stephen Curry was the inevitable choice for the Kobe Bryant All-Star Game MVP award after he scored 12 points on 4-8 field goal shooting (attempting no shots inside the arc), though a credible argument could be made that Jayson Tatum (15 points on 6-7 field goal shooting, three rebounds, two assists) had a bigger impact. The Stephen Curry All-Star moment that I will never forget--and that symbolizes how far the All-Star Game has plummeted--did not happen in 2025, but was when he lay down on the court in 2017 to permit an uncontested dunk.

The Global Stars qualified for the championship game by defeating the Young Stars 41-32, while the OGs beat the Rising Stars 42-35. It would have been fitting if the Rising Stars had won against an OGs team packed with star power, but the OGs closed the game on an 18-9 run after the Rising Stars enjoyed a brief 26-24 lead. The OGs played some defense down the stretch, but still flirted with disaster by missing four three pointers after scoring their 37th point before they closed the game out with a Kevin Durant dunk and a long Damian Lillard three pointer; it never seemed to occur to the OGs to take two easy two pointers instead of firing away from long range, which says a lot not only about the All-Star Game but also about the way that "stat gurus" have skewed basketball with their emphasis on "advanced basketball statistics" as opposed to sensible basketball strategy focusing on attacking the paint, defending the paint, and not relying on high variance long range shots. The Rising Stars played hard but just did not have enough talent to match up with a squad featuring four players on the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team.

Recent All-Star Games have been defined by the players jacking up three pointers and playing no defense, culminating in last year's fiasco featuring 168 combined three point field goal attempts and just five combined free throw attempts. This year, some players--most notably Victor Wembanyama of the Global Stars and Jaylen Brown of the OGs--played defense, but in the championship game the teams combined to attempt 33 of their 59 field goal attempts from three point range while shooting just four combined free throw attempts. Wembanyama scored a team-high 11 points on 5-7 field goal shooting in defeat.

The inescapable conclusion is that some of these players do not want to participate at all, and most of the players refuse to play hard. During the 2025 Legends Brunch--the highlight of the weekend--Rick Barry reminisced about the 1967 NBA All-Star Game, a contest during which the teams combined to attempt 63 free throws. At that time, the players had enough personal pride to compete against each other, but that started to fade in the early 2000s after Michael Jordan retired, and then in the past 10 years or so it completely disappeared. None of the NBA's experimental All-Star Game formats have worked because no amount of begging or extra money will induce these players to compete.

There is only one solution, and I proposed it during my 2024 All-Star Game recap: get rid of the All-Star Game. The players don't want to play, and I can't imagine that many fans enjoyed watching these choppy games interrupted by goofy skits (though it was fun watching a fan win $100,000 after making one half court shot before Lillard could make three half court shots). The NBA should not only stop having an All-Star Game but it should restructure existing contracts that have bonus clauses for being selected as an All-Star, and those bonuses should be tied to objectively measurable performance goals combined with a minimum number of games played. If the NBA thinks that fans just want to see three point shooting interspersed with musical performances and comedic skits then the league should end the pretense of calling that event an All-Star Game and instead just have an "NBA Entertainment Extravaganza" featuring those things. 

It was hilarious to hear Draymond Green--a guest commentator on TNT who is preparing for the next stage of his life when he can no longer bask in Stephen Curry's reflected glory--complaining all night about the All-Star format. He whined that the All-Star court is "sacred" ground and that the Rising Stars have no right to even set foot on the court, and he griped that the new format prevents players from ever breaking single game All-Star records. Charles Barkley challenged Green, bluntly declaring, "His generation messed the game up." As noted above, I don't like any All-Star format other than East versus West with both teams playing hard, but Green has no credibility criticizing anything in the NBA; he is lucky to even be in the league--let alone featured as a commentator--after a career that includes numerous dirty plays and violent actions. If modern All-Stars had taken the All-Star Game seriously then they would not have had to worry about their "sacred" ground being sullied by the presence of basketball players who are not superstars.

Note that the 2025 All-Stars were given the opportunity to play for more money in a shorter format; players on the winning team received $125,000 each, an increase from the $100,000 that each player on the winning team received last year, which was an increase from the $50,000 that each player on the winning team received prior to 2018. Yes, All-Star Game winners receive more money for a few hours of "effort" than most people earn in an entire year--and that money is on top of their huge salaries, plus the six or seven figure bonuses that many players get just for being selected as an All-Star.

No, Draymond, we don't feel sorry about "sacred" ground being sullied, but many of us are offended by the combination of greed and sloth displayed by so many players. Unlike some people, I don't have a huge issue with the general concept of athletes making a lot of money: they are the best in the world at what they do, and what they do generates billions of dollars in revenue. However, I am increasingly offended by the entitled attitudes of so many players who want more and more money for doing less and less work, and who have no compunction about breaching their contracts on a whim when they decide that they would prefer to play somewhere else. For those of you who do not understand contract law, teams have the legal right to cut or trade players (and the players with guaranteed contracts still get paid anyway), but players do not have the legal right to get out of shape and stop playing hard if they decide that they don't like their current employment circumstances; the notion that teams "have no loyalty so it is OK for players to have no loyalty" reflects a misunderstanding of the employer-employee dynamic. If the players want the absolute right to play or not play whenever they want, then they should agree to not have their contracts guaranteed. Then, guys like Jimmy Butler and James Harden can stop getting paid right after they stop playing hard, and guys like Joel Embiid can get paid if and only if they show up for work.

Green was not content to rain on Silver's All-Star parade. Green provided more comic relief than Hart, declaring that the Golden State Warriors will win the 2025 NBA title. When Joe Namath made his famous guarantee prior to Super Bowl III, he was the best player on the New York Jets and arguably the best player in pro football. In marked contrast, Green has never been better than the third best player on his own team except for the one season when all of the great players left or got injured, after which Green led the Warriors to a 15-50 record while posting his typical "triple single" averages. Adding Jimmy Butler should make the Warriors a better team in the short term, but the Warriors currently are clinging to the 10th seed in the West; if they move out of the Play-In Tournament field and into the top six that would be an accomplishment, and if they win a playoff series that would be a surprise--but imagining them winning four playoff series is delusional, and making such a prediction as the team's third best player is absurd and delusional. 

If Commissioner Silver does not cancel the 2026 NBA All-Star Game, then he should at least put a clown's hat on Green and replace Hart with Green so that the audience understands that Green is there for comic relief and not serious commentary.

Recent NBA All-Star Game Recaps:

The 2024 NBA All-Star Game Descends to New Lows as Any Pretense of Defense is Abandoned (2024)

"The 2023 NBA All-Star Game may have been not only the worst NBA All-Star Game ever, but possibly the worst basketball game ever played by high level players--until the 2024 NBA All-Star Game sunk to a new low: the teams launched 168 three point shots while attempting just five free throws as the Eastern Conference All-Stars routed the Western Conference All-Stars, 211-186. That is not competitive basketball, and it is unrecognizable compared to what the All-Star Game used to be: in 1994, the East beat the West 127-118 in a game featuring a combined 60 free throw attempts but just 30 three point field goal attempts; there was no shortage of highlight plays/moments but the most important thing is that the players competed.

During the wonderful 2024 NBA Legends Brunch, Larry Bird praised today's players and made a request: "The one thing I would really like to see is they play hard in tonight's All-Star Game. I think it's very important when you have the best players in the world together you've got to compete and you've got to play hard." 

Instead, the players disrespected themselves, the sport, and the legends who built the game that provides them with the opportunity to receive generational wealth. No one is expecting the All-Star Game to resemble game seven of the NBA Finals, but the refusal of the modern players to even pretend to want to compete is sad...

We hear so much about how great Commissioner Adam Silver is, but it appears that he is praised because he tends to let the players do whatever they want, in contrast to his predecessor David Stern, who viewed himself as a caretaker of the sport as a whole. 

Considering how little today's best players care about putting even forth minimal effort, the NBA should get rid of not just the All-Star Game but even the concept of being an All-Star: retain All-Star Saturday Night (it could be renamed something else, like NBA Showcase Saturday) and of course retain the Legends Brunch, but the All-Star Game serves no purpose, and being selected as an All-Star in today's NBA has no meaning. Only the awards given after the season matter, so let the players grumble about having to play at least 65 out of 82 games--oh, the suffering!--to be eligible to win those awards. 

Here is the challenge to Silver: fix the All-Star Game, or have the intestinal fortitude to not only get rid of it but to publicly say that he is getting rid of it because the players do not take it seriously enough to deserve to have it and to receive the bonuses associated with being selected for it."

The 2023 NBA All-Star Game May Have Been the Worst Basketball Game Ever (2023) 

"The 2023 NBA All-Star Game was not only the worst NBA All-Star Game ever, but it may have been the worst basketball game ever 'contested'--and I use that word with hesitation--by high level players. Denver Nuggets Coach Michael Malone, who coached Team LeBron, made this statement after Team Giannis prevailed 184-175: 'It's an honor to be here, and it's an honor to be a part of a great weekend with great players, but it's the worst basketball game ever played.' Malone also admitted that he has no idea how to fix the game.

The NBA All-Star Game began its horrific slide to irrelevance several years ago (see game recaps appended to this article for more details), but yesterday the league's showcase midseason event descended to a nadir from which there may be no recovery. 

At its best, NBA basketball is about the world's greatest athletes competing at a high level at both ends of the court while working together to help their team win. At its worst--and its worst was on full display last night--NBA basketball is about players flaunting their individual skills without any connection to team success while their 'opponents' step aside and watch instead of competing on defense. The 2023 NBA All-Star Game was such an abomination that it is difficult to decide which moment was the worst."

NBA Formally Honors the 75th Anniversary Team, Stephen Curry Wins the All-Star Game MVP (2022)

"How much has the All-Star Game devolved from an actual competition featuring the league's best players to an exhibition of players demonstrating individual skills devoid of competition or team play? Free throws are a quick way to gauge physicality/defense. The 2022 All-Star Game included eight fouls, four of which were called in the fourth quarter, and Team LeBron shot 2-2 from the free throw line while Team Durant shot 7-7 from the free throw line. This season, NBA teams average a little over 21 free throw attempts per game, so it is obvious that the All-Star Game featured few fouls, few free throws, very little physicality, and token defense compared to a normal NBA game.

All-Star Games used to be played much differently. In the first NBA All-Star Game, the East beat the West 98-93 in overtime in 1954 with the East shooting 36 of 44 from the free throw line and the West shooting 17-26 from the free throw line. In 1962, Wilt Chamberlain set an All-Star single game scoring record (42 points) that stood for 55 years. Chamberlain shot 8-16 from the free throw line, and his East squad shot 24-43 from the free throw line. The West, which won 150-130, shot 36-51 from the free throw line. Chamberlain's scoring record took place during a competitive game, and the record stood until long after NBA All-Star Games ceased to be competitive; his record is so exceptional that even in an era during which it is much easier to score in All-Star Games only two players have surpassed the standard that he set--and Curry did so by making a bunch of uncontested three pointers.

For most of All-Star Game history, players from both sides played hard, played defense, and committed a normal amount of fouls. Things began to change in 2007, when the victorious West only attempted nine free throws and the East only attempted 13 free throws, a big decline from 24 and 28 respectively in the 2006 All-Star Game. The 2008 All-Star Game was more of the same. Matters improved a bit during the next several All-Star Games, but in 2014 the East attempted nine free throws and the West attempted 12 free throws. Since 2014, single digit free throw attempts per team have been the norm rather than the exception--and on the rare occasion that a team has attempted more than 10 free throws most of those free throw attempts have happened in the fourth quarter, when the new scoring rules inspire (or shame) the All-Stars into playing some defense."

Giannis Antetokounmpo Wins All-Star MVP With Perfect Shooting, Leads Team LeBron to 170-150 Win Over Team Durant (2021)

"Giannis Antetokounmpo did not have the first perfect shooting performance in NBA All-Star Game history--Hal Greer shot 8-8 from the field en route to scoring 21 points and winning the 1968 NBA All-Star Game MVP--but he set the NBA All-Star Game record for most field goals without a miss (16), and he captured his first All-Star Game MVP by scoring a game-high 35 points as his Team LeBron routed Team Durant, 170-150. Antetokounmpo played just 19 minutes, so he scored nearly two points per minute. Most of Antetokounmpo's shots were lightly contested--if not uncontested--dunks, but he also shot 3-3 from three point range. Each team shot 3-5 from the free throw line as both teams spent most of the game not even pretending to care about defense. Perhaps the league and/or the players think that the fans want to see uncontested dunks and wide open three pointers, but I think/hope that true basketball fans want to see competition. A contested dunk is a great play; an uncontested dunk is just performance art."

Kawhi Leonard Leads Team LeBron to 157-155 Win over Team Giannis as New Format Results in Exciting Fourth Quarter Competition (2020)

"After three quarters, it seemed that the new NBA All-Star Game format had not inspired many players from either team to even pretend to play at a fraction of their full capabilities. Fortunately, the fourth quarter--a race to 157 points based on adding 24 points (in honor of Kobe Bryant) to the 133-124 lead enjoyed by Team Giannis over Team LeBron at the end of the third quarter--featured high level play as both teams looked fully engaged: Team Giannis' Kyle Lowry seemed to try to take a charge on every defensive possession, players from both teams contested almost every shot, and the level of physicality ramped up to top notch regular season levels, if not even first round playoff levels.

It is mystifying that most NBA players seem to need external motivation to play their best in the All-Star Game, but with a substantial portion of the weekend's festivities dedicated to the memory of Bryant--including naming the All-Star MVP award for him--it would have been a travesty for the players to just sleepwalk through the entire proceedings. Kawhi Leonard is a pioneer of the less than commendable load management scourge, but at least he always plays hard when he is on the court. Leonard scored a game-high 30 points on 11-18 field goal shooting (including 8-14 from three point range), grabbed seven rebounds, dished for four assists, and received the first Kobe Bryant All-Star Game MVP Award as his Team LeBron won, 157-155."

Kevin Durant Wins his Second All-Star MVP as Team LeBron Overcomes 20 Point Deficit to Defeat Team Giannis, 178-164 (2019)

"The All-Star Game sunk to such depths a few years ago that there were even whispers that it might be discontinued. Instead, the league changed the format from East versus West to a format in which the top two vote-getters conduct a draft consisting of a pool of other All-Stars selected by fans, coaches and media members. LeBron James faced off against Giannis Antetokounmpo in this year's All-Star draft. Popular consensus was that James, whose draft strategy seemed to be focused on acquiring every major player who will be a free agent soon, got the better of Antetokounmpo--but it did not look like that initially, as Team Giannis led 53-37 after the first quarter and 95-82 at halftime. Antetokounmpo scored a game-high 38 points on 17-23 field goal shooting, including 10 dunks. He also had 11 rebounds and five assists. He set the tone in the first quarter with 16 points. Antetokounmpo's Milwaukee teammate/All-Star teammate Khris Middleton added 20 points on 7-13 field goal shooting, including 6-10 from three point range. Middleton scored 12 first quarter points.

To coin--or repeat--a phrase, it seemed like Team LeBron was in 'chill mode' during the first half, but in the second half they exerted at least some defensive effort and they rained down a barrage of three pointers. Team LeBron outscored Team Giannis 96-69 in the second half while shooting 22-49 from three point range. The teams combined to attempt 167 three pointers during the game, compared to 108 two pointers attempted.

Kevin Durant earned MVP honors by scoring 31 points on 10-15 field goal shooting (including 6-9 from three point range) while also contributing seven rebounds. He had 11 points on 4-4 field goal shooting in the fourth quarter. Durant's Golden State teammate Klay Thompson finished second on Team LeBron with 20 points on 7-16 field goal shooting (6-12 from three point range) and he had eight rebounds and four assists as well."

LeBron James Earns Third All-Star Game MVP as Team LeBron Outlasts Team Stephen, 148-145 (2018):

"LeBron James scored a game-high 29 points on 12-17 field goal shooting, grabbed a game-high tying 10 rebounds and dished eight assists as Team LeBron defeated Team Stephen 148-145 in the first year of the NBA's new All-Star selection format; instead of the traditional matchup featuring the Eastern Conference facing the Western Conference, a team of All-Stars picked by LeBron James faced a team of All-Stars picked by Stephen Curry. The NBA tweaked the All-Star Game in the wake of several subpar All-Star Games, culminating in last year's farce.

Before the 2018 All-Star Game, James already held the NBA All-Star Game career scoring record (314 points) and yesterday he surpassed Julius Erving (321 points) to set the record for most points scored in ABA and NBA All-Star Games combined. Bob Pettit (1956, 58, 59, 62) and Kobe Bryant (2002, 2007, 2009, 2011) share the record with four All-Star Game MVPs each, while James joined Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal as three-time winners; James previously earned the All-Star Game MVP in 2006 and 2008."

The NBA All-Star Game Has Become a Farce (2017):

"The Western Conference's 192-182 victory over the Eastern Conference is without question the worst NBA All-Star Game that I have ever watched. Other than the MLB All-Star Game that ended in a tie (and many NFL Pro Bowls of recent vintage) it may be the worst major professional league All-Star Game ever. When the reigning two-time regular season MVP literally lies down on the court instead of attempting to play defense, you know that the event has jumped the shark."

Labels: 2025 NBA All-Star Game, Charles Barkley, Draymond Green, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, Kenny Smith, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Curry, Victor Wembanyama

posted by David Friedman @ 12:56 PM

10 comments

Edwards and Towns Outduel Doncic and Irving as Timberwolves Avoid Being Swept

I enjoy analyzing complex basketball strategies, but--as Charles Barkley succinctly put it during TNT's Western Conference Finals game four telecast--sometimes basketball is a simple sport: if your team's stars outplay the other team's stars then your team has a great chance to win. That simple story explained what happened in the Minnesota Timberwolves' 105-100 win versus the Dallas Mavericks: Anthony Edwards and Karl-Anthony Towns outplayed Luka Doncic and Kyrie Irving. Edwards scored a game-high 29 points on 11-25 field goal shooting, and he led the Timberwolves in both rebounds (10) and assists (nine). Towns scored a series-high 25 points on 9-13 field goal shooting, including 4-5 from three point range. Towns was far from perfect--he fouled out in just 30 minutes of playing time as he still has not cured his habit of committing stupid fouls, and he grabbed just five rebounds--but the good outweighed the bad: he shot efficiently from the field, he attacked the paint more often than he had in recent games, he was both more accurate and more judicious on this three point attempts, and he posted his highest scoring total in his last nine playoff games. Mike Conley was steady as always (14 points on 5-9 field goal shooting along with seven assists and no turnovers in 34 minutes), and Rudy Gobert scored 13 points while tying Edwards for team-high honors with 10 rebounds. 

Doncic posted his league-leading sixth triple double in the 2024 playoffs (28 points, game-high 15 rebounds, game-high 10 assists), but he shot just 7-21 from the field, had a game-worst -13 plus/minus number, and shot 1-5 from the field in the fourth quarter with the outcome up for grabs. Irving scored 16 points on 6-18 field goal shooting while dishing for four assists but amassing a team-high four turnovers. Dallas keenly felt the absence of Dereck Lively II, an active and energetic center who suffered a neck injury in game three of this series. Minnesota outrebounded Dallas 40-38 and outscored Dallas in the paint 46-36. 

Facing not just elimination but the humiliation of being swept, Minnesota stormed out to a 24-12 first quarter lead, but Dallas trimmed that margin to 27-20 by the end of the first quarter and then went ahead by three points in the second quarter before settling for a 49-49 halftime tie.

Minnesota won the third quarter 29-24 as Towns scored 10 points on 4-4 field goal shooting after scoring just five first half points. Minnesota enjoyed a fourth quarter lead in each of the first three games of this series only to fall apart down the stretch, but in this game Towns (10 points), Gobert (eight points), and Edwards (six points) dominated the final stanza. Dallas countered with balanced but inefficient fourth quarter scoring, matching Minnesota with 27 points but shooting just .435 from the field while Minnesota shot .526 from the field.

Game five will be very interesting, because the Timberwolves will show if they are satisfied just to avoid being swept, or if they are excited about the opportunity to win at home and put the pressure on the Mavericks to win game six in Dallas to avoid game seven in Minnesota. The Timberwolves are bigger and deeper than the Mavericks, but that did not matter in the first three games because of how much Doncic and Irving outplayed Edwards and Towns. The Timberwolves are capable of replicating in game five at home the effort level and efficiency that they displayed in game four on the road.

What struck me most about this game, though, is the pregame commentary about Kyrie Irving. Many media members are pushing the Kyrie Irving redemption narrative, but Barkley is one of the few media members who has the courage to speak the truth about Irving. Barkley declared that many of Irving's problems were "self inflicted," noting specifically, "You can't say antisemitic stuff." Barkley concluded that Irving deserved both the criticism he received and the suspension handed down by the Brooklyn Nets in 2022 in response to Irving's unrepentant antisemitism. It is very disappointing that Ernie Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kenny Smith--who rightly do not hesitate to speak out about a host of social issues--remained silent about Irving's antisemitism, particularly at a time when both antisemitic vitriol and antisemitic violence are at unprecedented levels. In their initial response to Irving's unrepentant antisemitism, Johnson and the TNT studio crew did better, with the exception of Smith, who has consistently been off target about this issue.

Some points that I made in my November 4, 2022 article about Irving being suspended are worth repeating and emphasizing:

I know better than to try to persuade people who are willfully blind to the truth, but when thinking about who has power, what are the limits of free speech, and what is the nature of objective historical truth, it is interesting to keep in mind a few facts that I have mentioned in my previous articles about Irving:

1) Irving has more social media followers than the Jewish population of the world. Irving has over 20 million followers, while there are fewer than 15 million Jews in a world that has a population of nearly 8 billion people. When Irving boasts that he has an "army" supporting him, that is not an exaggeration. He is far from powerless both in terms of his personal, generational wealth, and in terms of the influence that he wields. If each of his followers spreads his messages to just five more people, Irving potentially reaches 100 million people every time he makes a social media post.

The Jewish people are so powerful that less than 80 years ago a third of their population was massacred in Europe while the Jewish people were unable to get immigration quotas lifted in any major Western country, including America.

2) No one has challenged Irving's free speech right to post whatever he wants to post. The First Amendment protects against government restriction of a citizen's free speech rights--but just like Irving has a right to say what he wants to say, other people have a right to respond to him, to question him, and to decide to not employ him or do business with him.

3) I have seen some people assert that the film that Irving promoted speaks the truth, and I have seen other people say some version of "everyone has a right to speak his truth." 

Regarding the first sentiment, the movie that Irving promoted asserts that the Holocaust never happened, that Jews controlled the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that Jews worship Satan. Those statements are all demonstrably false. This would be equivalent to a white supremacist stating that slavery never happened, that Black people are responsible for harming white people on a massive scale, and that Black people worship Satan. If you support Irving's promotion of antisemitic falsehoods, then you have no standing to challenge white supremacists who state that they are not attacking Black people but rather defending white people, and you definitely need to stop talking about so-called "micro-aggressions." To be clear, I find both white supremacy and Holocaust denial to be offensive; I condemn both. I just don't want to hear about "micro-aggressions" from people who endorse "macro-aggressions" that contradict historical truth and contribute to a climate in which antisemitic violence is soaring to unprecedented levels.

Regarding the second sentiment, this notion that there is not an objective truth but that each person has his or her own "truth" is precisely what George Orwell warned about in his classic dystopian novel 1984. If words lose their objective meaning and if history can be whatever each person believes it to be then we have no shared past and no shared future because there are no longer standards for what is right, what is wrong, what is true, and what is false. There are far too many people in our society who would love to take our educational system in that direction. The Soviet Union tried it, China is doing it now, Cuba is doing it now, and we have seen--without fail--that every nation that goes down this path ends up persecuting its own people and terrorizing its neighbors.

To anyone who suggests that the above commentary does not belong in a game recap, my response is that Irving's on court revival and his off court issues are two separate matters, but too many people are acting as if Irving's willingness to be a better teammate has some connection with the abhorrent views that he promoted and refused to disavow--and as long as that confusion is being propagated and as long as even otherwise standup people like Ernie Johnson are silent I will speak loudly to confront the confusion and the silence. 

It is demonstrably true that Irving had a negative impact on team chemistry with multiple teams prior to being acquired by Dallas last season. He has not been in Dallas very long, but up to this point it appears like he has become a better teammate and--for the first time in his career--is demonstrating leadership qualities. Good for him as a basketball player--but what Irving says, does, and stands for away from the basketball court is far more important, and I will conclude by repeating the key point that I made two years ago when Irving promoted antisemitic tropes, and that I repeated in this article, because the truth about this simply cannot be stated too many times:

If you support Irving's promotion of antisemitic falsehoods, then you have no standing to challenge white supremacists who state that they are not attacking Black people but rather defending white people, and you definitely need to stop talking about so-called "micro-aggressions." 

During yesterday's pregame show, Kenny Smith made the bizarre statement that he urged Stephen A. Smith to stop criticizing Irving because they are all from the same neighborhood. Would Smith apply that same reasoning to preclude white people from criticizing racists who come from their neighborhoods? The normalization of antisemitism is frightening, and portends doom for our society, because any society that targets the weakest groups has lost its moral bearings.

Labels: Anthony Edwards, Charles Barkley, Dallas Mavericks, Ernie Johnson, Karl-Anthony Towns, Kenny Smith, Luka Doncic, Minnesota Timberwolves, Rudy Gobert, Shaquille O'Neal

posted by David Friedman @ 12:40 PM

10 comments

Inside the NBA Crew Discusses Giannis Antetokounmpo's Message About Failure

After the Miami Heat eliminated the Milwaukee Bucks in the first round, a reporter asked two-time NBA regular season MVP/2021 NBA Finals MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo if he considered this season to be a failure. Antetokounmpo's answer is, as TNT's Kenny Smith later put it, a masterclass or TED Talk:

You asked me the same question last year, Eric. Do you get a promotion every year? No, right? So, every year you work is a failure? Yes or no? No. Every year you work, you work toward something--toward a goal--which is to get a promotion, to be able to take care of your family, to be able to provide a house for them or take care of your parents. You work toward a goal. It's not a failure. It's steps to success. If you've never--I don't want to make it personal.

Michael Jordan played 15 years. Won six championships. The other nine years was a failure? That's what you're telling me? I'm asking you a question...Exactly, so why you ask me that question? It's the wrong question. There's no failure in sports. There's good days, bad days, some days you are able to be successful, some days you are not, some days it is your turn, some days it's not. That's what sports is about. You don't always win. Some other group is gonna win, and this year somebody else is gonna win. Simple as that. We’re gonna come back next year and try to be better, try to build good habits, try to play better--not have a 10 day stretch of playing bad basketball. Hopefully we can win a championship.

So, 50 years from 1971 to 2021 that we didn't win a championship, it was 50 years of failure? No, it was not. There were steps to it. And we were able to win one and hopefully we can win another one.

Sorry, I didn't want to make it personal, because you asked me the same question last year, and last year I wasn't in the right mind space to answer the question back--but I remember it.

TNT's Inside the NBA crew just had a heartfelt discussion about what Antetokounmpo said. Charles Barkley recalled that when he grew up in the projects of Leeds, Alabama he could have never imagined living the life that he has lived. He rightly considers himself to be a great success, and he refuses to be defined by not winning an NBA title. Barkley feels sorry for anyone who defines himself by what he did in sports, because sports is a very small part of life.

Shaquille O'Neal offered a different perspective. He said that he grew up with a military background, and based on that background he has a simple definition of success versus failure: if you accomplished the mission then you succeeded, and if you did not accomplish the mission then you failed. He emphasized that he is not criticizing or disrespecting Antetokounmpo and he added that failure is not necessarily a bad thing because often you must fail before you succeed. O'Neal said that as the number one overall pick in the NBA Draft he felt that his mission was to be the most dominant big man and to win a championship every year, so he is OK with being told that he was only successful during the four years that he won NBA titles.

Kenny Smith said that Antetokounmpo had given a TED Talk for adults in terms of how to think about their lives and put things in proper perspective. Smith suggested that O'Neal's definition of success versus failure is accurate but incomplete. Smith said that each person should ask himself if he took every necessary step that he was supposed to take. If you have taken every step that you were supposed to take, then you did not fail. You may be disappointed with the outcome, but that is not the same as failure. Smith said that after hearing Antetokounmpo's answer, he now understands why Antetokounmpo and Russell Westbrook play so hard every possession of every game: they know that they cannot control the outcome of the game, but they can control taking every step that they are supposed to take. 

By nature, my attitude is more like the one that O'Neal expressed: if you have the necessary talent to dominate, then every time you don't dominate is a failure. My second grade teacher, Miss Day, said that I put way more pressure on myself than anyone else did; I turned everything into a competition, and I was very driven to win every competition. Some of us are just hard-wired to be very intense, very driven, very competitive. Such people view anything less than dominance as abject failure. Think about Bill Russell winning two NCAA titles, an Olympic gold medal, and then capturing 11 NBA titles in 13 seasons. That does not just happen; that is a product of a laser focus on domination, and a deep inner belief that you can never win enough to be satisfied.

It is funny to hear O'Neal take this position on failure now, because the main thing that he and Kobe Bryant used to feud about as teammates was that Bryant did not think that O'Neal worked hard enough to be dominant; Bryant tried to destroy everybody not just in every game, but in every practice, while O'Neal may have aspired to that mentality but he did not live it in terms of work: O'Neal is not cut from the same mold as Antetokounmpo or Westbrook--or Bryant. Everyone wants to win--but few people will suffer to win. Bill Russell used to throw up before every game. Bryant played through an assortment of injuries that would sideline most current NBA players for weeks or months. People like that don't talk about how much they want to win nearly as much as they show how much they want to win through their behaviors, their habits, and their willingness to suffer to win.

As I get older, I am starting to understand that it is healthy to have a growth mindset like the one that Anteotkounmpo expressed and that such a mindset is not incompatible with being fiercely competitive. Anyone who listens to what Antetokounmpo said and concludes that Antetokounmpo is not competitive enough or does not care about winning missed the point. The key concept to grasp--as Smith noted--is that we are all responsible for taking all of the steps that we can take to get the best possible outcome. After we do that, we can accept what happened--and if we are disappointed by the outcome, then we can learn from it and do more work. Note that Antetokounmpo repeatedly mentioned the steps to the process, the building of correct habits, and doing the work so that his team can win a title next year. Of course Antetokounmpo is disappointed that the Bucks did not win the NBA title--but he does not view himself as a failure because losing is part of sports and part of life.

Antetokounmpo is remarkably mature for someone so young who is at the top of such a competitive profession. I am much older than he is, but I may not have reached that level of maturity.

In Turning Failure Into Success, I wrote, "Julius Erving endured six years of frustrating playoff setbacks before winning an NBA championship and throughout that period he stayed true to his core belief: 'I've always tried to tell myself that the work itself is the thing, that win, lose or draw, the work is really what counts. As hard as it was to make myself believe that sometimes, it was the only thing I had to cling to every year--that every game, every night, I did the best I could.'"

That is what Antetokounmpo is talking about--not accepting losing, but accepting outcomes as they happen while also learning, growing, and continuing to do everything possible to obtain better outcomes. 

Ernie Johnson and Barkley emphasized another important point: Antetokounmpo took great pains to not personally attack or insult the questioner. When Antetokounmpo said, "If you've never..." and then stopped himself, you could tell that he was about to say something about that reporter never doing something at an elite level--but then Antetokounmpo switched gears, and used Michael Jordan as an example. At the end of his answer, Antetokounmpo again emphasized that he did not want to make his answer personal. Smith noted that Antetokounmpo tried very hard to make this a teaching moment. It was beautiful to watch Antetokounmpo try to educate the reporter instead of just belittling him.

I think that Antetokounmpo provided great insight into the thought process of someone who, by virtue of hard work, intelligence, and toughness--rose from poverty to becoming the best in the world at his craft.

It will be a shame if people misunderstand or misinterpret his message.

Labels: Bill Russell, Charles Barkley, Ernie Johnson, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Inside the NBA, Julius Erving, Kenny Smith, Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal

posted by David Friedman @ 2:04 AM

16 comments

"Inside the NBA" Crew Weighs in on Kyrie Irving, the Departure of Steve Nash

Kyrie Irving and Kanye West have both made antisemitic social media posts recently. It does not seem likely that the NBA will discipline Irving despite Irving being unrepentant about how his post dehumanizes Jews. In a classic--and clumsy--attempt to control the narrative and distract attention, the Brooklyn Nets parted ways with Coach Steve Nash on the first day that Irving's Nets appeared on national TV since Irving made his now infamous social media post. Nash's departure is being presented as a mutual decision, but it is not hard to imagine that the Nets preferred for TNT's pre-game show to focus on the Nets' dysfunctional play instead of the Nets' resident antisemite.

TNT played along--for one segment. The first segment of TNT's pre-game show for the Brooklyn Nets-Chicago Bulls game focused on the Nets' coaching situation. Earlier in the day, reports suggested that the Nets plan to replace Nash with Ime Udoka, who the Boston Celtics suspended for the entire 2022-23 season, but that rumor caused so much media consternation that now the Nets are claiming that they have not determined who their next coach will be; assistant coach Jacque Vaughn will serve as their interim coach.

After the TNT crew spent 11 minutes talking about how bad the Nets are as a basketball team, Ernie Johnson tossed to a break by saying that in the next segment the crew would talk about Irving. After the advertisements ran, Johnson opened the discussion by describing Irving's behavior in the past year or so as "unpredictable and unsettling"--referring to, among other things, Irving's anti-vaccination stance and his embrace of lunatic conspiracy theorist Alex Jones--before directly addressing Irving's antisemitic tweet. Johnson said simply and directly of Irving, "That is promotion," contradicting Irving's disingenuous press conference statement that when he posts something for millions of his social media followers to see he is not promoting what he posts. Johnson noted that Irving has over 20 million followers across his various social media platforms.

Shaquille O'Neal mentioned that he was one of the first athletes to frequently utilize Twitter, and he knew from the beginning, "I had to be responsible." O'Neal said of Irving, "He's not conscious" and O'Neal expressed frustration because "We [the "Inside the NBA" crew] have to answer for what this idiot has done." O'Neal said that he tries to bring people of all different backgrounds together instead of tearing them apart, but that it is obvious to him that Irving does not think that way and "does not care."

Charles Barkley summed up the issue concisely and accurately: "I think the NBA dropped the ball." Barkley insisted that the NBA should have immediately suspended Irving. Barkley noted that NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is Jewish--which is not relevant, as Irving deserves to be suspended regardless of who the Commissioner is--and declared that Silver should have said, "You can't take $40 million (a rough approximation of Irving's annual NBA salary) and insult my religion." Barkley is correct that the NBA should have suspended Irving--not because Irving insulted Silver's religion, but because Irving insulted every intelligent human being and because Irving's promotion of vile antisemitism is inexcusable (Amazon.com's willingness to sell the video that Irving promoted should also be addressed, but that is not something that the NBA controls). 

Johnson pointed out that discussions are ongoing within the Nets organization and the NBA offices, so it is possible that the NBA may still discipline Irving, and Barkley was right on target when he replied, "It's too late now." Barkley added that if the NBA suspends Irving now then it looks like the NBA caved in to public pressure as opposed to taking a stance based on right and wrong.

Kenny Smith, who used to be a voice of reason, was way off target. He started off by saying that he will take Irving at face value when Irving says that he is not antisemitic. If that is how Smith thinks, then he also needs to take white supremacists at face value when they say that they are pro-white, not anti-Black. At least Smith conceded that reporter Nick Friedell has a right to question Irving about why Irving made the social media post, but that is so obvious that it should go without saying. Friedell and all journalists have a responsibility to ask pertinent questions, and there is no question more pertinent now for Irving than asking Irving why he promoted antisemitism on his Twitter feed. I am the first to note that many press conference questions are as stupid as they are irrelevant, but in this situation Friedell did his job--which makes him stand out in a room (and profession) where far too few people are willing or even capable of doing the job.

Anyone who does not understand how far off target Smith is regarding Kyrie Irving should just watch the segment and then imagine that Kyrie Irving is your least favorite politician and that Kyrie Irving tweeted about a video filled with vile, hateful stereotypes of Black people claiming that slavery never happened, that Black people worship Satan, and that Black people are responsible for the suffering of white people, who are actually the original and true Black people. In that hypothetical situation, can you picture Smith saying that he will take at face value the politician's insistence that he is not a racist?  

A person is defined by what he does, not who he claims to be. In just a few days, Irving's words and actions have told the world so much about who he really is, and by not listening carefully Smith is telling us something about who he really is. Smith has generally been a thoughtful person, so maybe he will reconsider his position.

Ernie Johnson gently brought the segment back on track by passionately saying of our society "We've lost our way" and emphasizing that anyone who posts to social media--particularly a person who has as many followers as Irving--should first think, "If I put this out there, who am I going to hurt?" Johnson then cut to a clip from his podcast with Barkley when they had a conversation with Rabbi Erer Sherman. Rabbi Sherman said that the answer here is to communicate, and he invited Irving to come to his congregation, meet his family, and increase his understanding. Rabbi Sherman opined that the way out of our society's troubles will be through sport, because sport and religion "intersect in a deep way." It is true that historically sports have brought people from different backgrounds together, but I am not sure that it will be so easy to mend the deep fissures tearing apart our society. 

During the game telecast, Reggie Miller said, "The players have dropped the ball on this one...Right is right and wrong is wrong. If you are going to call out owners, then you have to call out players as well." I have made that same point repeatedly: if NBA players are going to declare that they are more than just athletes and that they are social justice warriors then they have to accept the full weight of that responsibility, and they have to be willing to speak out about players who say or do hateful things.

The Nets announced that Irving will not speak to the media today, and he will not speak to the media for the foreseeable future. I can understand why the Nets prefer that Irving shut his mouth, but putting him under wraps so that he can keep scoring points is not the right way to go. Irving should take responsibility for what he posted and for the tremendous influence that he has. Also, league policy requires players to be available to the media on game day. It is not clear what, if anything, the suddenly silent and apparently impotent NBA office will do about this violation of league policy.

If this is not the Nets trying to protect Irving from himself but rather Irving using the team to shield himself from scrutiny then shame on him for being so cowardly. Irving claims that he has an "army" supporting him--and the scary thing is that may be true. If Irving feels so powerful, righteous, and smart, then he should not be afraid to listen to questions without interrupting and then to answer those questions. Dictators control the press, but freethinking leaders are not afraid to be questioned and challenged. 

Earlier today, after Nets General Manager Sean Marks was asked why the team had not fined or suspended Irving, Marks stated that the Nets are communicating with the Anti-Defamation League regarding the Irving situation. That is weak. If Irving is willing to be educated about history, then the ADL and other groups can play a role, but it is not up to the ADL to punish Irving or set workplace policies for the NBA.

The NBA, its teams, its coaches, and its players are not shy about expressing their opinions about a host of political, economic, and social issues, so their silence about Irving sends a loud and clear message: the NBA does not care about antisemitism.

Labels: antisemitism, Brooklyn Nets, Charles Barkley, Ernie Johnson, Inside the NBA, Kenny Smith, Kyrie Irving, NBA, Shaquille O'Neal, Steve Nash

posted by David Friedman @ 9:56 PM

2 comments

Bob Lanier, Hall of Famer and NBA Ambassador, Passed Away at Age 73

Bob Lanier, one of the NBA's best centers in the 1970s during an era when the league had several Hall of Fame centers, has passed away after a brief illness. The 73 year old Lanier was just as renowned for being a great person as he was for being a great player. He won the 1978 J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship award in recognition of his contributions to the world away from the basketball court. 

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver issued the following statement shortly after Lanier's death was confirmed:

Bob Lanier was a Hall of Fame player and among the most talented centers in the history of the NBA, but his impact on the league went far beyond what he accomplished on the court. For more than 30 years, Bob served as our global ambassador and as a special assistant to David Stern and then me, traveling the world to teach the game’s values and make a positive impact on young people everywhere. It was a labor of love for Bob, who was one of the kindest and most genuine people I have ever been around. His enormous influence on the NBA was also seen during his time as President of the National Basketball Players Association, where he played a key role in the negotiation of a game-changing collective bargaining agreement.

I learned so much from Bob by simply watching how he connected with people. He was a close friend who I will miss dearly, as will so many of his colleagues across the NBA who were inspired by his generosity. We send our deepest condolences to Bob’s family and friends.

Early in his career, Lanier faced off against older legends who started their careers in the 1960s, including Wilt Chamberlain and Willis Reed. Lanier also battled against great contemporaries, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo, Moses Malone, Wes Unseld, and Bill Walton. Lanier twice finished in the top five in regular season MVP voting (third in 1974, fourth in 1977). He won the 1972 ABA-NBA All-Star Game MVP, and he won the 1974 NBA All-Star Game MVP. Lanier ranked in the top 10 in scoring six times, and he finished in the top 10 in rebounding four times. He finished his career as a member of the elite 20-10 club (20.1 ppg, 10.1 rpg).

In 1972, Lanier was crowned as the NBA's one-on-one champion, defeating Jo Jo White in the finals and winning $15,000 plus a fancy trophy:

The NBA on TNT crew just did a nice tribute segment about Lanier, and what Charles Barkley said during that segment echoed what he told me when I interviewed Barkley during the 2006 NBA All-Star Weekend: "I know Bob personally. He lives in Arizona. Obviously, he was a great, great, great player, but the one thing that I'll say about Bob is that Bob is one of the nicest men I've met in my life, period. He's a wonderful person. You can look at his stats and the fact that he's in the Hall of Fame and see that he was a great player. Living in Phoenix, I've gotten to know him really well and he's just a wonderful person."

I interviewed Lanier in person during the 2005 NBA All-Star Weekend, and then in August 2005 I did a more extensive phone interview with him. That second interview provided a lot of the background material for a profile that I wrote about Lanier in 2006.

It was an honor and a treat to interview Lanier, because he was one of the NBA's best players when I first fell in love with the sport, and he was one of the players profiled in one of the first basketball books that I read as a child, Basketball's Biggest Stars by Angelo Resciniti.

The Lanier quote that always resonated the most with me is what he told me during our first interview after I asked him to describe the greatest moment of his NBA career. Lanier replied, "Greatest moment? To me--and I know that this might sound a little trite--the greatest moment is that basketball has enabled me to touch other people's lives. I've always been able to do that. Since day one, being an NBA player and visiting a hospital or going to a senior citizens' home and listening to an elderly person who has much more wisdom than I'll ever have and brightening their day and giving my energy. It's something that is very, very special that the NBA has been able to do. It's terrific for me. (NBA Senior Vice President) Kathy (Behrens) talked about seeing our players making words come to life. That is very special because I see them in gyms and community centers with these kids, bright eyed kids draped all around them. They've got their hands on these books that they almost cover up because their hands are so big. Then, the energy that they have by making the words come to life and then going over to a tech center where they get on these computers. It's funny sometimes, because really the kids know more about how to do online stuff than our players, so they end up teaching our players. It's really, really nice."

Labels: 1972 ABA-NBA All-Star Game, Bob Lanier, Charles Barkley, Detroit Pistons, Jo Jo White, Milwaukee Bucks

posted by David Friedman @ 2:33 AM

0 comments

NBA TV Celebrates Julius Erving's 72nd Birthday by Airing "Sir Charles and The Doctor"

Julius Erving turns 72 tomorrow, and NBA TV provided a birthday gift for basketball fans by airing "Basketball Stories: Sir Charles and The Doctor," featuring a conversation that Erving had with Charles Barkley (Barkley celebrated his 59th birthday on February 20). Erving and Barkley were Philadelphia 76ers teammates from 1984-87, Erving's final three NBA seasons and Barkley's first three NBA seasons. 

Barkley remembered that before he joined the 76ers he was nervous about meeting Erving for the first time. Barkley asked his college teammates how he should address Erving, and they told him they were not sure. Erving took all of the pressure off by approaching Barkley, and introducing himself. 

Thinking back to his first meeting with Barkley, Erving said that he did not follow college basketball very closely, but his philosophy was always to "extend a hand of friendship" to rookies who joined the 76ers. Erving recalled that there were questions about how Barkley would fit in with the 76ers, and that the 76ers had drafted Barkley hoping that Barkley could provide rebounding. 

Barkley said that every NBA team needs helpful veterans like Julius Erving and Moses Malone, who were Barkley's mentors early in his pro career. Erving agreed that veterans should help young players, but he pointed out that not all young players will listen to advice from veterans.

Barkley told Erving that Moses Malone provided a very blunt reply when Barkley asked Malone why he was not getting more playing time. Malone said, "Young fella, you're fat and you're lazy." Malone offered to help Barkley improve his conditioning. Erving said that as a professional athlete it is important to be in good enough condition to deal with the physicality of the game and to avoid injuries. Erving noted that Barkley, Wes Unseld, and Shaquille O'Neal are among the few players who could carry a lot of weight but still be mobile and avoid serious ankle or knee injuries.

Barkley soon got into better shape, and established himself as a threat to take a defensive rebound and go coast to coast for a dunk. Barkley's direct approach did not fit in with Coach Billy Cunningham's concept of how to play the game. Erving said that Cunningham's philosophy was "Get the rebound, make the outlet pass, and fill the lane," but Barkley's philosophy was the shortest distance between two points was a straight line--so Barkley just grabbed the rebound and dribbled down court without making the outlet pass. Erving said that Cunningham told him that he was going to retire because Barkley was driving him crazy. Cunningham retired from coaching after Barkley's rookie season, and Cunningham never coached again in the NBA, though he was part of the Miami Heat's ownership group for a while. Cunningham has the second highest regular season winning percentage in NBA history (.698, just behind Phil Jackson's .704), and he led the 76ers to one championship and three NBA Finals appearances in eight seasons.

Barkley said that he would have scored 2000 more points if Maurice Cheeks would have passed to him more often on the fast break. Erving laughed, and he said that Darryl Dawkins also thought that Cheeks had a "Dr. J eye," but Erving added that Cheeks loved getting assists and Cheeks knew that if he passed to Erving then the ball was going in the basket with no nonsense.

Barkley remembered that the intensity of the Philadelphia-Boston rivalry surprised him as a rookie. Barkley asked Erving to talk about what that rivalry meant to him. Julius Erving versus Larry Bird was the NBA's best rivalry in the early 1980s, but Erving is too modest to say that. Instead, Erving replied,  "Respect is more important than popularity." Erving remembered how the Boston fans chanted "Beat L.A." in the waning moments of game seven of the 1982 Eastern Conference Finals after it became clear that the 76ers were going to beat the Celtics and move on to face the Lakers in the NBA Finals. Erving finished with 29 points and was the CBS Player of the Game for game seven, though it must be noted that Andrew Toney (game-high 34 points) was also sensational. Erving said that Boston hated Philadelphia and Philadelphia hated Boston, but "When I say 'hate' I don't really mean hate. We all survived it. Everybody got their trophies, and their stats, and life goes on." Erving's approach to life and basketball is different from the Michael Jordan "I took that personally" meme.

The conversation shifted to the beginning of Erving's pro career. Erving described how he signed with the ABA's Virginia Squires after his junior year at the University of Massachusetts (UMASS). In typical Erving style, he said that Charlie Scott was the best player on the team, even though it is obvious that Erving quickly established himself as a better all-around player than Scott. Erving said that he became the team's best player after Scott jumped to the NBA's Phoenix Suns. 

Erving said of going to the ABA, "It was absolutely the right move. I have no regrets about it." Erving won three regular season MVPs (1974-76) and led the New York Nets to two championships (1974, 1976) before the ABA merged with the NBA prior to the 1976-77 season. Erving noted with pride that when he retired he was just the third player in pro basketball history to score at least 30,000 regular season points, trailing only Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain. Erving expressed frustration that ABA statistics are disregarded by the NBA and by media outlets, resulting in him erroneously not being listed as a member of the elite 30,000 point club. Erving declared, "The ABA takes a slap to the face, big time...Maybe they'll wait until I die (to count the ABA numbers)."

I have said it for over 20 years, and I will say it again: ABA Numbers Should Also Count. The NFL counts AFL statistics, awards, and championships, and it makes no sense that the NBA ignores ABA statistics, awards, and championships. 

Barkley asked Erving about navigating the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, when Erving was a young adult and Barkley was still a child. Erving said that Arthur Ashe, Reggie Jackson, and Bill Russell provided good guidance. "You don't get through it by yourself," Erving concluded. 

Barkley and Erving talked about mortality. Erving's brother was just 16 when he died from lupus, and Erving's sister died at 34. Erving's son Cory died at 19. Those losses have shaped Erving's thoughts and perspective about mortality. "All of this is gravy," said. "You think about mortality based on what happens in your life. How you react to what happens in your life determines if you are happy."

Erving is proud of how his 1982-83 76ers won the NBA title in dominating fashion with a 4-0 sweep of the L.A. Lakers in the NBA Finals, but he pointedly notes, "Nobody wants to count the ABA. I won two championships in the ABA...If you are going to make me a rookie, then maybe I should have won Rookie of the Year." That latter sentiment is a thought that I have expressed before: if the NBA is not counting ABA experience and ABA statistics, then Erving should have been the Rookie of the Year for the 1976-77 season.

Barkley asked Erving how and when he knew that it was time to retire. Erving recalled the exact moment in the 1985-86 season: "The year before I retired we were in Cleveland. It was a blizzard. The arena was cold. My knees hurt so bad I could not even sleep in the hotel bed. That's when I knew."

Erving mentioned that now players are sticking around to play 20 seasons or more (he played 16 seasons) and he said,  "If I wanted to stay out there, there was a way. But I wanted to go out the front door. I left college early and came in through the side door. That Farewell Tour was second to none."

Barkley said that being a member of the 76ers during Erving's 1986-87 Farewell Tour was a career highlight, and he said that he learned a lot about leadership by watching how Erving conducted himself. Barkley recalled one piece of advice that Erving gave to him at that time: "When you are the leader of the team, you are an amateur psychiatrist." 

Barkley said that he was a great player, but he did not earn a Farewell Tour the way that Erving did. Barkley knew it was time to retire when guys who could not play were outplaying him. Erving said that he had a story along those lines, recalling when rookie Ron Harper dunked on him. Erving was a shot blocker who was not used to players staying in the air longer than he did.

Barkley gave Erving several rapid-fire questions. Erving tapped Kevin Loughery as his best coach, recalling that when he played for Loughery with the Nets, "I had the green light. I had the freedom to express my gifts. That was the greatest feeling." Erving made a similar point years ago in an NBA TV show titled "The Last Night of the ABA": "That was the time when I had the most fun playing basketball. Between age 21 and age 26, I genuinely was empowered with this ability to do anything that I wanted to do on a basketball court and anything that I had ever dreamed of doing." 

Erving said that Moses Malone was the best player he ever played with, and that the teammate he was closest with was Steve Mix, who remains a close friend to this day. Erving's biggest basketball regret is "Not being a little bit more selfish." After Erving joined the 76ers, General Manager Pat Williams instructed Erving that the team wanted Erving, George McGinnis, and Doug Collins to each score around 20 ppg instead of Erving scoring 28-30 ppg like he did in the ABA. Erving went along with this, and the 76ers advanced to the 1977 NBA Finals before losing to Portland, but I agree with Erving that the best player should not have been sacrificing the most. 

Erving said that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the best player that he ever played against: "If I'm starting a team tomorrow, I'm starting with Kareem."

Barkley and Erving ended their conversation by talking again about mortality, and also about legacy. Erving said that he does not focus on what he accomplished or where he ranks all-time: "I don't want to live in the past. I want the carrot out in front of me." Erving hopes that his accomplishments and honors are "inspirational" to his family.

Labels: ABA, Andrew Toney, Billy Cunningham, Charles Barkley, Julius Erving, Kevin Loughery, Moses Malone, New York Nets, Pat Williams, Philadelphia 76ers

posted by David Friedman @ 10:59 PM

0 comments

"Inside the NBA" Should Have Discussed DeSean Jackson's Comments and the Farrakhan Issue

It was great to see the original "Inside the NBA" crew tonight. "Inside the NBA" is probably the greatest sports studio show ever, providing a deft combination of intelligence and humor while covering a broad range of topics beyond who won and who lost. "Inside the NBA" has a long track record of thoughtfully discussing a wide variety of issues.

The high standard long set by "Inside the NBA" is why I am disappointed that tonight's episode ignored recent pro-Louis Farrakhan statements made by several high profile people, including Ice Cube, DeSean Jackson and Stephen Jackson.

Ice Cube has been a guest on "Inside the NBA" and he collaborated with Kenny Smith for a Kobe Bryant tribute aired by TNT. DeSean Jackson is an NFL player, but "Inside the NBA" discussed at length comments recently made by NFL player Drew Brees. Stephen Jackson is an NBA champion and a prominent sports media personality.

Ice Cube tweeted, "The Honorable Louis Farrakhan continues to warn America to this very second and he's labeled one of your 'evil names' and you turn your ears off. Why is the truth so offensive that you can't stand to hear it?"

DeSean Jackson tweeted with approval a quote that he (incorrectly) attributed to Adolf Hitler stating that Jews "will blackmail America" and Jackson also tweeted his support for Louis Farrakhan.

Stephen Jackson reacted to DeSean Jackson's tweet by repeating the classic antisemitic trope that Jews run all of the banks: "You know who the Rothschilds are? They own all the banks...I haven't said one thing that's untrue yet." Stephen Jackson also said, "I'm a fan of Minister Farrakhan because nobody loves Black people more than him. He hasn't told me to hate somebody one time. He's teaching me how to be a leader. Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean I'm gonna not like him."

It never should be acceptable to promote hatred, and one would hope that in today's climate any kind of hatred would be deemed unacceptable. Perhaps you are not familiar with Louis Farrakhan; perhaps you agree with Chuck D, the front man for Public Enemy--unquestionably one of the greatest rap groups ever--who once sang, "The follower of Farrakhan/Don't tell me that you understand/Until you hear the man."
The SPLC article about Farrakhan is worth reading in full. Here is an excerpt:

Farrakhan’s antisemitism has earned him some strange allies. Former Klan and White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger was so impressed with Farrakhan's anti-Semitic bombast that he donated $100 to NOI after attending a Farrakhan rally in Los Angeles in September 1985. Given that white supremacists share NOI’s belief in separation of the races, a month later, Metzger and 200 other white supremacists from the United States and Canada gathered on a farm about 50 miles west of Detroit, where they pledged their support for the Nation of Islam.

Antisemitism is only one of Farrakhan's many prejudices. Over the years, his comments have consistently been rabidly anti-gay. "God don't like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female," he told a Kansas City crowd in 1996. "If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you're out of your damn mind."

"Inside the NBA" is watched by millions of people, and the "Inside the NBA" crew is highly respected and influential. They missed a golden opportunity to educate their audience about these issues. Ray Allen would have been a perfect guest. Allen has discussed how moving it was for him to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Speaking of the Holocaust Museum, New England Patriots' receiver Julian Edelman provided a heartfelt response to DeSean Jackson: "How about we go to DC and I take you to the Holocaust Museum. And you take me to the Museum of African American history and culture...And we have those uncomfortable conversations." It would have sent a wonderful and positive message if "Inside the NBA" had spoken truth to power, and had asked Allen to give his thoughts about Edelman's statement.

I have often criticized Mike Wilbon for his basketball analysis, but I will give him credit for addressing directly and unequivocally the comments made by Stephen Jackson. On "Pardon the Interruption" Wilbon declared, "This is not tolerable...It undermines everything Stephen Jackson said so eloquently on behalf of Black Lives Matter. He has no credibility now. He has undermined his own previous good work with this garbage. And it's garbage. I know Stephen Jackson. I like him. If I was sitting with him now--I have worked with him--I would say, 'Stephen, stop! You're wrong. You're not speaking any truth. You're going to have to become more familiar with the truth via history. Let's read some. We'll read it together. This is insane. You are ruining weeks of actually trying to appeal to people on one level and then bringing your own bigotry and prejudice in at a time when no one can afford to say that, to have that, to entertain it.'"

Wilbon is right. It is a shame that Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley, and Shaquille O'Neal did not step up and deliver a similar message. For that matter, where are NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Louis Farrakhan has spent decades making it very clear who he is and what he believes. The time has past for the sports figures, celebrities, politicians, and public figures who have invoked his name to make it clear who they are and what they believe.

Labels: Charles Barkley, DeSean Jackson, Ernie Johnson, Ice Cube, Inside the NBA, Julian Edelman, Kenny Smith, Louis Farrakhan, Mike Wilbon, Ray Allen, Shaquille O'Neal, Stephen Jackson

posted by David Friedman @ 11:56 PM

6 comments

NBA Finals Notes and Comments: Warriors’ Dominance, LeBron’s Hand/Mind and How Legacies Are Defined

The 2018 NBA Finals featured the league's emerging dynasty team versus a player who is being increasingly touted as the greatest player of all-time. Sometimes the historical storylines and subplots threatened to overtake coverage of what was happening in the moment and--as is too often the case--context, perspective and balance went out the window as various commentators tried too hard to make definitive statements about the greatness (or lack thereof) of a team or of a player.

Now that the series is over and that the Golden State Warriors won their third championship in four years while dropping LeBron James' career Finals record to 3-6, it is worth trying to put both the Warriors and James into proper context.

Let's start with James, since that is where the media tends to start anyway; it often seems like every story about the NBA is spun in some way to reflect how that story affects James or how James could affect that story. "The 76ers are an emerging team--but how good would they be if LeBron James signs with them?" is one constant theme, while "The Houston Rockets won 65 games and pushed the Warriors to seven games--but should they rearrange their roster to sign James?" is another one.

We can stipulate for the record that whether you love James or you hate James, he is without question one of the greatest basketball players of all-time. The abridged version of his extensive basketball resume includes three championships (2012-13, 16), three Finals MVPs (2012-13, 16), four regular season MVPs (2009-10, 2012-13) and 12 (soon to be 13) top-five finishes in regular season MVP voting (2006-17). He is the only player in pro basketball history who has amassed at least 30,000 points, at least 8000 rebounds and at least 8000 assists.

The only relevant question about James' legacy is how high he ranks on the select list of greatest players of all-time: top 15, top 10, top 5, 1?

These kinds of discussions are inherently impaired by a number of factors, including recency bias (the tendency to believe that what we are seeing right now is better than anything we have seen before), the personal biases (and/or ignorance) of whoever is doing the analysis and the very real challenges of trying to weigh the importance of rules changes, stylistic changes and so forth.

Over a decade ago, I wrote about the Pantheon, a group of 10 retired players (plus four players who were active at that time) who each have a credible case to be considered the greatest player of all-time. I did not rank the players within the Pantheon, choosing instead to focus on each player's greatness as opposed to pitting them against each other. Since that time, I have publicly indicated why I would take certain Pantheon players over others but I have still resisted ranking all of them. In September 2015, I wrote an addendum to my Pantheon series in the wake of a lot of discussions about whether or not Julius Erving belongs in the greatest player of all-time conversation and I explained why each Pantheon player at least belongs in that conversation; selecting a single greatest player in a team sport is an objectively impossible task, but I still think that it is reasonable to suggest that there is a finite number of players who are legitimately in that conversation because they have elevated themselves over everyone else based on skill set, accomplishments, peak value and longevity.

It is difficult to compare players who played different positions more than 40 years apart; anyone who really thinks he has figured out definitively whether or not Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain is a greater basketball player than Michael Jordan is fooling himself (or trying to fool others). Russell and Chamberlain played center in a league with much fewer teams than Jordan's NBA, a league that had no three point shot, had just started integrating (and featured few if any players from countries outside the USA) and differed in many other ways in terms of rules, playing style, etc.

It is a little easier to compare Jordan with LeBron James; Jordan is a 6-6 shooting guard who played in the NBA from 1984-85 to 2002-03, while James is a 6-8 small forward who has played in the NBA since 2003-04.

It is even easier to compare Kobe Bryant with LeBron James; Bryant is a 6-6 shooting guard who played in the NBA from 1996-97 to 2015-16. Bryant and James faced each other directly many times, guarded each other on some occasions, played against the same great players/teams (at least during the regular season) and they were teammates on Team USA's gold medal winning teams in 2008 and 2012. They even had some of the same teammates in their supporting casts; Shannon Brown could not crack the rotation on James' deep 2007 and 2008 Cleveland teams but he was part of the rotation for Bryant's 2009 and 2010 NBA championship teams.

Prior to the 2018 Finals, it seemed as if many media members decided to just bypass the logical Bryant-James comparison and jump straight into the cross-generational Jordan-James comparison. The same thing happened during last year's Finals and after Golden State took a 3-0 lead over Cleveland in that series I wrote:

Is it James' fault that the Warriors are poised to sweep his Cavaliers? No, but if James had the mentality to reach the gear that Russell, Jordan, Bryant and other Pantheon members often reached in the Finals then this series would, at the very least, be more competitive than it has been.

The bottom line is that James is not playing badly but he is providing a lot of footage that can be shown to put a stop to the foolish comparisons to Jordan; let's just put a moratorium on such talk and see if James can actually get within striking distance of O'Neal, Duncan and Bryant.

Game three was a winnable game in a must win situation and O'Neal, Duncan and Bryant did not let many of those slip away during the primes of their respective careers. Golden State hit Cleveland with a barrage of 39 points (including a Finals record nine three pointers) in the first quarter but the Warriors only led 67-61 at halftime. The Cavaliers attacked the paint in the first half and James led the way with 27 points. The argument that the Cavaliers are a flawed team because they need James to score a lot of points flies in the face of basketball history. Were the Bulls flawed because Jordan scored over 40 ppg versus the Suns in the 1993 Finals? That Bulls team had one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players of All-Time (Scottie Pippen), an All-Star caliber power forward (Horace Grant) and several outstanding role players but Jordan still scored at a record-setting clip; that is the responsibility of a Pantheon-level player in such situations. Let's not compare James to Russell Westbrook, either; in the 2017 playoffs, Westbrook's second best teammate was Andre Roberson, who spent significant portions of the series running around playing tag because he did not want to be fouled since he cannot make a free throw. In marked contrast, in game three James had another superstar on his own team matching him point for point: Kyrie Irving finished with 38 points on 16-29 field goal shooting, including 16 points in the third quarter as James cooled off.

If you are comparing James to Jordan then you are arguing that Jordan would have found a way to lose a Finals game in which his sidekick dropped nearly 40 points and in which his team had a two possession lead with barely two minutes to go. Sorry, I am not buying that for one second.

After game four of the 2018 NBA Finals--when James played very passively in the second half of a winnable contest--Charles Barkley put it succinctly and bluntly in his inimitable fashion, looking into the NBA TV cameras and declaring that the next time any media member states that James is better than Jordan he will punch that person in the face.

While I do not advocate resolving the debate through violence, I agree with Barkley's point. If we are going to make intergenerational comparisons (which are difficult to make for the reasons that I listed above) then we have to go beyond statistics (which do not always translate between eras and which were amassed under different rules against different competition) and consider intangible but relevant factors such as mindset and leadership; James may be at or near the top of the Pantheon in terms of athletic ability but he does not crack the top 10 in mindset or leadership.

Forget the numbers for a moment and leave aside whatever you may think about Golden State's roster compared to Cleveland's roster. Consider the "little" storyline that James dropped in the media's lap after game four: James admitted to injuring his right hand by punching a whiteboard due to an emotional outburst after losing game one of the series in overtime.

Frank Isola put it best during his Monday show on SiriusXM NBA Radio: "LeBron is getting the pass of the century" for a self-inflicted injury incurred at the most important time of the season. Isola noted that James' action immediately demoted J.R. Smith's game one flub from the dumbest mistake of the series to the second dumbest and Isola said that what James did was both dumb and selfish. Isola made an apt analogy to Yankees' closer Mariano Rivera, saying that if Rivera had punched something with his pitching hand and hindered his ability to pitch in the World Series then he would have justifiably been roasted by the media. Of course, the media treated James with kid gloves after James showed up after game four with some kind of brace or soft cast on his previously unbandaged right hand (was James expecting Mark Schwartz to take a shot at his hand while he walked up to the podium?).

Isola also stated that James' hand injury does not explain or justify the way that James lay down in the second half of game four. Finally, Isola noted James' word choices: "Pretty much played with a broken hand." Did James actually break his hand or not? That is a simple question to ask and to answer but not one media member stepped up to ask the question, which is particularly sad considering that a previous post-game press conference in the series featured SiriusXM NBA Radio's Justin Termine--a self-styled historian of the game--wasting time asking Draymond Green about his wardrobe. The next day, Isola justifiably roasted his colleague Termine for asking such an inane question at a press conference when other media members are working on deadline to put out their game stories. Termine, who spends most of his show screaming at co-host Eddie Johnson (who is a knowledgeable and insightful commentator), seems to operate under the delusion that he was hired for his basketball knowledge as opposed to his ability to banter and be an on-air agitator. The NBA would benefit greatly if its broadcast partners hired more people like Isola--and fewer people like Termine--to provide commentary and to ask questions at post-game press conferences

James' injury and the ensuing coverup also raises the not so minor issue of the NBA's "integrity tax" regarding gambling. The NBA is poised to profit from sports gambling becoming legalized on a national basis, yet the best player in the game just got away with not reporting a supposedly serious injury for the last three games of the Finals. Do you think that James having an injured hand might have affected the betting line for those games? Between the rampant tanking and the league's apparently non-existent (or unenforced) injury reporting protocols, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver may soon be presiding over a league that resembles professional wrestling more than a legitimately competitive sport. You may recall some media members lauding Silver as a kinder, gentler leader--in contrast to their opinion of his predecessor, David Stern--but Stern's stronger leadership style helped him navigate the league through troubled waters on many occasions.

The bottom line in terms of the greatest player of all-time conversation is that James has not only failed too often on the sport's biggest stage but he has quit too often and made too many excuses to ever pass Bryant, let alone Jordan. Even if James wins three more titles (which is doubtful) to tie Jordan and move one ahead of Bryant, what are we to make of the several series during which James has played below his considerable abilities--if not outright quit--and then made weak excuses?

Maybe James thought that his press conference antics would elicit sympathy but what those antics did is provide further evidence of how James falls short in comparison to the very best of the best.

Bryant has made some interesting comments in the past week or so about comparing James to himself and to other great players (as quoted in a recent article by Howard Beck): "Phil used to say this thing to me a lot, when I was doing a lot on the court. He'd say, 'You have to do less.' And I'd say, 'Well, my teammates got to step up more.' Phil would say, 'Well, it's your responsibility to thrust the game upon them.'"

Bryant added these pertinent thoughts and observations:

All I thought about as a kid personally was winning championships. That's all I cared about. That's how I valued Michael. That's how I valued [Larry] Bird. That's how I valued Magic [Johnson]. It was just winning championships. Now, everybody's going to value things differently, which is fine. I'm just telling you how I value mine. If I'm Bron, you got to figure out a way to win. It's not about narrative. You want to win championships, you just gotta figure it out. Michael gave me some really good advice after the '08 Finals: "You got all the tools. You gotta figure out how to get these guys to that next level to win that championship." Going into the 2010 series, I said, "Listen, Boston, they got Ray Allen, they got Paul Pierce, they got [Kevin] Garnett, they got Sheed [Wallace], the talent is there. They're stacked." That was the first superteam. [Michael] kind of heard me lament about it, and he just goes, "Yeah, well, it is what it is; you gotta figure it out. There's no other alternative." And that's the challenge LeBron has. You have pieces that you have to try to figure out how to work with. Excuses don't work right now...

It has everything to do with how you build the team, from an emotional level. How do you motivate them?...Leadership is not making guys better by just throwing them the ball. That's not what it is. It's about the influence that you have on them to reach their full potential. And some of it's not pretty. Some of it's challenging, some of it's confrontational. Some of it's pat on the back. But it's finding that balance, so now when you show up to play a Golden State or a Boston, your guys feel like you have the confidence to take on more.

There is a lot of wisdom contained in those remarks but three points stand out: (1) This is not about "narrative" but about results. James is too often concerned more about controlling the "narrative" than he is about doing whatever it takes to win; (2) great players historically have been judged largely based on championships won, because every player has possible excuses/contextual factors to mention but the best of the best figure out how to get the job done; (3) leadership is not just about throwing the ball to players (particularly in situations when the great player should be assuming the obligation to score) but about empowering those players to improve on a daily basis.

The media narrative states that James is a great teammate and leader. The reality is that his tenure ended badly the first time in Cleveland (and may end badly this time as well) and his tenure in Miami ended with the great Pat Riley referring to "smiling faces with hidden agendas." 

At some point, a resume contains too many black marks to go to the top of the list, no many how many positives are on the resume as well. I have often said that James confounds me more than any other Pantheon level player and that remains true. I am disappointed that he not only injured himself during the 2018 Finals but that he waited until he got swept to reveal the injury, an announcement that not only comes across as a weak excuse but also takes attention away from what the Warriors accomplished. For me, the enduring image of this series will be the several sequences in game three during which the Warriors set fake screens and James switched off of Durant unnecessarily as opposed to accepting the challenge of guarding the eventual Finals MVP down the stretch.

James is now 1-2 versus Tim Duncan in the NBA Finals, 0-1 versus Dirk Nowitzki, 1-2 versus Kevin Durant and 1-3 versus Stephen Curry. I will not put things as bluntly as Barkley did but he is right that there needs to be a moratorium on the Jordan-James comparisons. Sparky Anderson once said that he would not embarrass another catcher by comparing him to Johnny Bench; that line of thinking applies here.
__________

The focus at this time should be on the Warriors. Few teams have won at least three titles in a four year span and each team is legendary (most of them won additional titles before and/or after capturing three titles during four years): Mikan's Lakers (1949-50, 52-54), Russell's Celtics (1957, 59-66, 68-69), the Abdul-Jabbar-Magic Johnson Lakers (1980, 82, 85, 87-88), the Jordan-Pippen Bulls (1991-93, 96-98), the O'Neal-Bryant Lakers (2000-02).

Are the Warriors the greatest team of all-time?

That question is as unanswerable as the question about who is the greatest player of all-time.

The Warriors are clearly on the short list, much as James is on the short list of greatest players of all-time. The challenge is that teams can only meaningfully be compared against their contemporaries.

The Warriors are the best team of this era. Would they beat the O'Neal-Bryant Lakers? To answer that, we first need to stipulate the rules and the style of play. It is hard to picture Draymond Green having much success guarding O'Neal under the early 2000s rules. Meanwhile, O'Neal's presence in the paint shuts down the Warriors' lob game while Bryant, Ron Harper and Robert Horry menace the Warriors' perimeter players.

It is even harder to picture the Warriors winning three titles in four years in the 1980s while facing the Lakers, Celtics, 76ers and others under the rules of that time. During that era, you had to have a dominant Hall of Fame caliber center to win a championship. Julius Erving takes a back seat to no perimeter player from any era but when he played alongside center Darryl Dawkins several of his championship quests were foiled by teams featuring Hall of Fame centers such as Bill Walton, Wes Unseld/Elvin Hayes (those two argued publicly about who was actually the team's center), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Robert Parish. It would have been difficult for any perimeter player to lead a team to a title in that era--but when Erving teamed up with Moses Malone suddenly the 76ers were not only title contenders (as they had been for the previous six years) but they were now perhaps the most dominant single season team in the sport's history.

In that era, Durant-Parish would have been a much deadlier duo than Durant-Curry. In the 1980s, a team with a lot of perimeter firepower and no post up game had a ceiling of reaching the Conference Finals. Think of squads such as the Milwaukee Bucks and the Denver Nuggets. They were excellent teams with many talented players but in that era under those rules they just could not quite beat the Celtics, 76ers or Lakers. One might argue that the modern Warriors are better defensively than those Milwaukee and Denver teams but it should be noted that the defensive rules in this era are vastly different from the rules in that era--and it is doubtful that the increased physicality of the 1980s would be advantageous for Durant and Curry at either end of the court.

We can speculate about which players/teams are best equipped mentally and physically to adapt to different conditions but there is no objective way to determine this.

I tend to go in the opposite direction of recency bias and operate with a default assumption that players/teams from the past are underrated to some extent.

I suspect that the great teams from previous eras would adjust quite well to the modern game, while some of the modern teams would struggle to adjust to the old school rules and style of play. That supposition is not meant to diminish the value of what the Warriors have accomplished. The Warriors are one of a handful of elite dynasties in pro basketball history. Whether or not they would fare well in head to head matchups against the dynasties listed above does not change the Warriors' well-earned place in pro basketball history.
__________

Speaking of legacies and dynasties, what are we to make of Kevin Durant? He has now been the Finals MVP for back to back championship teams. He has twice outplayed James on the sport's biggest stage with the biggest prize on the line.

It is no secret that I dislike the way Durant handled his business off of the court. Instead of embracing the challenge of facing the Warriors with Russell Westbrook at his side, Durant ran to the Warriors just one season after he and Westbrook's Oklahoma City Thunder had taken a 3-1 lead against the Warriors. It would have been better for the sport if we had seen a few more matchups of those two teams.

That being said, (1) Durant had every right to sign with the team of his choice and (2) no championship is cheap or worth less than another. Yes, Durant signed with a team that was already a powerhouse but he has been that team's best player during two championship runs. His on court contributions since joining the Warriors are beyond reproach. At the end of the day, Durant will be remembered as a basketball player for how many championships and MVPs he wins, just like every great player before him. The funny thing is that James is the first modern player who tried to play GM by building a super-team in Miami and then hand-picking his teammates the second time around in Cleveland but Durant has one-upped James as a player-GM; Durant signed with a team full of unselfish players who sacrificed money, glory and statistics to win titles. The Warriors built their roster in a balanced way, as opposed to just signing players who are represented by Durant's management team. In contrast, part of the Faustian bargain the Cavaliers made with James was to sign all of James' "guys," which is yet another reason that James' complaints about his supporting cast ring hollow.

Bryant said it best: Magic, Bird and Michael were judged by rings, not excuses and not context. There can be excuses made or context provided for every season in NBA history but the best of the best rise above those circumstances. Magic, Bird and Michael "could" have won more titles had things gone differently and they also "could" have won fewer titles.

It is interesting how the media is trying to not so subtly shift the narrative to shortchange anyone who is a "threat" to placing James at the top of the list.

Supposedly Jordan did not face tough enough competition, even though he played during the Magic/Bird/Isiah era at the start of his career and the Dream Team era during his prime. Jordan prevented a lot of great players from winning even one ring.

Supposedly, Bryant's five titles in seven Finals don't "count" compared to James' three rings in nine Finals because Bryant played with O'Neal during three Finals runs--but Russell had a fleet of Hall of Famers next to him during his 11 title runs, as did Magic, Bird and most other Pantheon players. James has been handpicking his teammates for nearly a decade and he has played with multiple future Hall of Famers yet he still is stuck on three rings as opposed to challenging the ring total amassed by the sport's premier winners of the past 40 years, including Abdul-Jabbar (six), Jordan (six), Magic (five), Bryant (five) and Duncan (five, with two wins in three tries against James).

Supposedly, Conference Finals wins now are a metric for greatness. We keep hearing about James making eight straight Finals appearances. That is a great accomplishment, no doubt about it--but Magic not only made it to eight Finals in 10 years during the 1980s but he won five of them. Going back further in time, Julius Erving made it to 10 Conference Finals and six Finals in a more competitive era when he had to often face multiple teams with future Hall of Famers as opposed to cruising to the Finals.

When did making the Finals or Conference Finals become more significant than winning championships? The answer is that it became more significant when the media decided to elevate James above all other basketball players but James did not cooperate by winning enough championships to earn that consideration the way that James' predecessors did.

Durant is one ring short of James right now. If Durant keeps winning and keeps outplaying James in the Finals, Durant is going to play his way into Pantheon consideration the old fashioned way: by his accomplishments on the court, not by trying to control the "narrative."

Labels: Bill Russell, Charles Barkley, Cleveland Cavaliers, Golden State Warriors, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant, Larry Bird, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Stephen Curry

posted by David Friedman @ 4:40 AM

44 comments