Stephen A. Smith Proves Kwame Brown's Point
In a steady stream of videos posted online, Kwame Brown has conveyed several important messages, including that Stephen A. Smith is not qualified to analyze basketball and that Smith has made a career out of personally attacking Brown.
Smith and his ESPN overlords decided that the best response to Brown is to give Smith over eight minutes to do voiceover narration of a selection of lowlights from Brown's career. During the narration, Smith repeatedly mispronounces Brown's first name. Smith is not intelligent or funny. He has demonstrated that he is a petty person who does not deserve a national platform to spread his ignorance and disrespect.
Brown last played in the NBA in 2013, so lowlights of his career are hardly newsworthy footage--and I am pretty sure that you could splice together a few minutes of lowlights from any player's career, including some of the greatest players of all-time (to cite just one example, Magic Johnson once dribbled out the clock in a tied game in the NBA Finals). There is no reason for ESPN to show Brown's lowlights other than to humiliate him. It is breathtaking that ESPN thought that this was a good idea.
Brown has posted a response video noting that it is easy to verify that the lowlights footage comes from games during which Brown was limited by various injuries, but that is not even the main point--though it does show how disingenuous Smith and ESPN are. The main point is that one of the NBA's primary media partners ran an eight minute video to mock a retired player. This is not Shaqtin' A Fool, Shaquille O'Neal's lighthearted clips of active players (and O'Neal often makes fun of himself as well); this is a video designed to prove that Brown was a bad player.
Who appointed Smith to determine that Kwame Brown must be mocked as a bad NBA player?
Smith's 15 minutes of fame have lasted a lot longer than they should have. Brown has exposed Smith as the fraud that intelligent observers of the NBA always knew him to be. It is well past time that ESPN reassign Smith to a role befitting his qualifications, as opposed to placing him front and center of the network's NBA coverage. The longer that Smith is on the air, the more that he embarrasses himself and his employers. I don't know how NBA Commissioner Adam Silver handles his business, but former Commissioner David Stern made a regular practice of contacting media organizations that portrayed the league in an unfair or disparaging manner. Silver should consider calling ESPN and asking the network to focus its coverage on the 2021 NBA playoffs, not a blooper reel of a retired player.
Labels: ESPN, Kwame Brown, Stephen A. Smith
posted by David Friedman @ 7:26 PM
Kwame Brown's Important Messages
Unless you are completely disconnected from any form of social media, you have seen, heard, or at least read about the videos that Kwame Brown has posted recently. Brown's first video included his reaction to an exchange on a recent episode of the "All the Smoke" podcast hosted by Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson. During an interview with Jeanie Buss, Buss discussed the Lakers' trade of Marc Gasol and Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol when Barnes and Jackson interrupted Buss to assert that there was only one player on the other side of the Pau Gasol trade, as if Brown has no value. Brown has been the butt of insults dating back to when he was the number one overall pick of the 2001 NBA Draft, and Brown fired back with an extended NSFW response.
It is easy to dismiss Brown as angry or say that he is ranting; that is often the reflexive reaction of people who do not want to address the substance of another person's message. In the initial video and then a steady stream of follow up videos, Brown has delivered several important messages, which I will paraphrase here in no particular order and without the NSFW language:
1) The very use of "All the Smoke" in the title of the podcast endorses both marijuana use and a confrontational approach to life; Barnes and Jackson pride themselves on being marijuana users who do not back down from conflict.
2) Barnes and Jackson are delivering negative and destructive messages to youth in general, and specifically minority youth. Brown urged Jackson to pull up his pants, act like an adult, and stop spending all night smoking weed and playing cards. It should be noted that this is not about whether or not marijuana use is legal (or should be legalized) in a particular jurisdiction, but rather about whether or not that lifestyle is the best lifestyle to promote to youth.
3) Jackson tries to portray himself as both a Black Lives Matter activist and a "gangsta," but Brown considers both stances to be inauthentic. Jackson's response on Instagram (since deleted), a veiled threat to meet Brown on the street, only adds to Brown's credibility while diminishing Jackson's credibility.
4) Brown questioned why certain people are given media platforms and asserted that to get a media platform you have to be willing to compromise your values and compromise truth. Stephen Jackson is best known for running into the stands to confront fans in Detroit, and he has revealed himself to be an antisemite who unapologetically endorses Louis Farrakhan, so it is certainly reasonable to ask why major media corporations are so eager to work with him, and why so many people are eager to associate themselves with him.
5) Brown noted that Jackson brags about how much money he spent on, shall we say, "entertaining" himself, and Brown asks why Jackson does not use his wealth and resources to help others.
6) Brown said that the only jokes people have about him are basketball jokes and he asked when people will get tired of that same old joke. He made over $60 million playing pro basketball, so he does not consider himself a bust in life; he owns property, grows his own food, and answers to no one.
Paraphrasing a line from the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer," I would note that when Kwame Brown played in the NBA he was better at basketball than the vast majority of people will ever be at anything. How many people rank in the top 350-400 in the world at anything?
7) Brown said that his frequent critics Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless are losers who never accomplished anything, and Brown asked what qualifies them to talk about basketball. Brown said that if he is a "scrub" and a bust like they asserted then he should be called "Houdini" for fooling so many teams into paying him to play basketball, and he asked if being a number one draft pick who plays in the NBA for over a decade constitutes failure then what are we to think of the athletic careers of guys like Smith and Bayless?
8) Brown talked about how former player Jalen Rose tried to explain to Smith and Bayless that someone who plays for over a decade in the NBA is not a scrub and not a bust, but they just kept shouting Rose down.
9) Brown pointed out the NBA's double standard in punishing Lou Williams for violating COVID-19 protocols but not punishing LeBron James for violating the same protocols.
10) Brown praised his mother for her good advice, and he noted that he is a success story who overcame a difficult background. He is in no way a "scrub," and he contrasts his life path with what he termed the "degenerate" lifestyle afflicting minority communities, a lifestyle that he feels is encouraged and promoted by Barnes and Jackson.
I don't think that Brown is lashing out in anger. Ignore the NSFW language, and he has made a series of powerful statements. He is right about Barnes and Jackson not being good role models, and not being qualified for the huge media platform that they have been blessed to have. He is right that Smith and Bayless generally have no idea what they are talking about, and that they often take personal shots at people instead of just making a skill set analysis. Rose kept telling them that there is a difference between evaluating a person's basketball skills and just calling that person names, but Smith and Bayless disregarded what Rose said.
Brown is frustrated by the stupidity of so much that is said and depicted in the media. I share that frustration. Brown often predicts how his targets will respond to his videos, and he has been on target; he says that he is going to expose these people for who they really are, and to this point he has outsmarted them and made them look foolish. For instance, Brown has mentioned that people try to tear him down based on things that his family members did years ago, but Brown rightly noted that actions of family members when he was a young child have nothing to do with him and nothing to do with his message. Charlamagne tha God--and what person who has self-awareness gives himself such an outlandish name?--went on his podcast to talk about Brown's family history, and Brown just eviscerated the rapper, calling him out as a child rapist and asking why companies keep hiring him after the crime he committed. Charlamagne tha God, not quite understanding when to quit when he was only a little behind, had his lawyer send Brown a cease and desist letter stipulating that Charlamagne tha God pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency of the minor, not rape. Brown read the letter during his next video, said that he retracts calling Charlamagne tha God the "r word," and then expressed his opinion (in words that I will not repeat here) about the character of a person who contributes to the delinquency of a minor. Brown said that he does not care about the lawyer's letter, that he will keep expressing his opinion about Charlamagne tha God, and that he appreciates the lawyer informing him the exact name of the crime to which Charlamagne tha God admitted his guilt.
Brown was living in quiet obscurity until Barnes and Jackson decided to crack sophomoric jokes on their big-time show. They had a chance to reach out man to man to apologize but did not do so. Every target of Brown's videos went after Brown first, often in personal ways. They asked for what they are getting, and it seems like Brown is going to keep giving it to them.
Kwame Brown is speaking truths that many are afraid to speak, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
Labels: Kwame Brown, Matt Barnes, Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, Stephen Jackson
posted by David Friedman @ 9:52 PM
Kobe Bryant: "I'm a Difficult Person to Deal With"
In an All-Star Weekend interview, a reporter asked Kobe Bryant if his reputation for being a "difficult teammate" might hinder the Lakers' rebuilding efforts. Bryant replied:
No, not necessarily. I'm a difficult person to deal with. For people who don't have the same kind of competitiveness or commitment to winning, then I become an absolute pain in the neck. Because I'm
going to drag you into the gym every single day. If you need to be drug in, that's what I'm going to do.
And for players that have that level of commitment, very, very, easy. And we can wind up enhancing the entire group and elevating them to that type of level. But if we don't have that commitment, man, I'll absolutely be very, very tough to get along with. No question about it.
Bryant may be a "difficult teammate" but it is also rewarding to be his teammate; his impact on the Lakers goes far beyond what statistics can measure: many players have championship rings only because they were fortunate enough to play alongside Bryant during Bryant's prime--and many players had their best individual seasons while playing alongside Bryant, including Shaquille O'Neal, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum.
If I had been blessed with the opportunity to play in the NBA, I would not have found it difficult at all to play with an MVP-caliber player whose main goal is to win championships--but I would have found it very difficult to play with Carmelo Anthony or Gilbert Arenas or Stephon Marbury or any other All-Star caliber player who only gives consistent effort at one end of the court and who often seems to have an agenda that is focused on something other than winning (playing in a big city, getting paid, being quirky, etc.). I don't understand a guy like James Harden; he probably could have won multiple championships playing the Manu Ginobili role for the Oklahoma City Thunder but he preferred to force a trade to Houston so that he could get paid and "prove" that he is "the man." If you are "the man," then beat out Russell Westbrook for the number two role on the team--or, better yet, do whatever it takes to win a championship (a la Ginobili with the Spurs) and don't worry about who gets the credit or who gets paid. The Thunder have not missed a beat without Harden and the Rockets had to acquire the best center in the NBA just to move one step up from battling for the eighth seed.
Harry Truman was renowned for "giving hell" to his opponents but he said, "I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Bryant, like Michael Jordan before him, tells his teammates the truth: if they are not playing hard or if they are making stupid plays, he lets them hear about it in no uncertain terms. That may seem "difficult" or feel like "hell" but it also creates a no excuses, no slacking allowed environment. When Bryant plays with an avulsion fracture in his finger or other injuries that would force most players out of the lineup, he sets an example that no one should be visiting the trainer's room unless that player is at death's door.
The Lakers face a challenging rebuilding task not because Bryant is "difficult" but rather because Bryant can no longer carry the Smush Parkers and Kwame Browns of the world into the playoffs; with Bryant injured or absent, all of the Lakers' weaknesses are exposed and there is no relief in sight: that was true during the 2013 playoffs even when the Lakers had a twin towers pairing of Dwight Howard and Pau Gasol and it is true during this season even though the Lakers have at least as much talent now as they did circa 2006 when Kwame Brown and Smush Parker became two of the most improbable playoff starters in NBA history.
Labels: Carmelo Anthony, James Harden, Kobe Bryant, Kwame Brown, L.A. Lakers, Manu Ginobili, Smush Parker, Stephon Marbury
posted by David Friedman @ 2:32 AM
Kobe Bryant's Impact on the Lakers Goes Far Beyond What Statistics Can Measure
Quantifying something is very valuable, if it is truly possible to accurately do so--but there is no value in quantifying something if adequate measuring tools do not exist. I frequently use basketball statistics as a tool to illustrate a point about the performance of a player or a team but I make sure to indicate the limitations of what basketball statistics can quantify; for instance, while I do sometimes mention assist totals and averages I have also
documented that assists are very subjective. I would never evaluate a player's playmaking ability based solely on his assist totals but if I watch a game in which a player has several legitimate assists then I will certainly mention this in a subsequent game recap.
It is much easier to accurately quantify individual player effectiveness in baseball than it is in basketball because baseball consists of a series of discrete actions that can be measured separately while basketball involves multiple players acting simultaneously and having various effects on other players. "Advanced basketball statistics" can provide some useful information about the relative effectiveness of various five man combinations but basketball "stat gurus" struggle to accurately determine the value of individual players; scientific measurements are supposed to involve a margin of error but have you ever heard a basketball "stat guru" mention a margin of error after supplying a "player rating" that is supposedly accurate to one or even two decimal points?
A "stat guru" can tell you that Kobe Bryant is more valuable than Shannon Brown but no one needs to do a scientific study to figure that out--and it seems like many "stat gurus" struggle with the concept that Kobe Bryant is more valuable than Pau Gasol, which is really funny considering how Gasol somehow morphed from a one-time All-Star into--by some accounts--the most versatile big man in the NBA simply by joining forces with Bryant a little more than two seasons ago. If you actually look at Gasol's numbers then you will note that, statistically speaking, he is essentially the same player that he was in Memphis except for two changes: his field goal percentage and offensive rebounding have improved. The reason for those improvements is obvious if you watch Lakers' games with understanding: Gasol's path to the hoop for easy baskets and offensive rebounds is made easier because opposing defenses have to focus on trying to contain Bryant.
As a result of playing alongside Bryant and being coached by Phil Jackson, Gasol has worked to add some physical strength and mental toughness in order to better hold his position on the post defensively, though it is hard to quantify Gasol's improvement in that regard (his shot blocking has not increased as a Laker, though he did average a career-high in defensive rebounds in 2009-10 after performing around his career norm in that department during his first season and a half as a Laker).
I can chart plays and write descriptive game recaps that deeply analyze how basketball players and teams really function but no matter how proficiently I do those things I will never convince a diehard "stat guru" that in order to accurately make an individual player rating one must somehow give credit to a player who draws a double team and thus blesses his teammate with a wide open shot or an opportunity to get an uncontested putback. I am not sure if this is because "stat gurus" are morons or because they have a strong economic incentive to insist that they alone know how to properly evaluate basketball players (though one could argue that both things may be correct in the sense that it is moronic to place a higher value on making money than searching for truth).
Kwame Brown is 28 years old and, in theory, should be in the prime of his basketball career, but the only time that he was a regular starter for a playoff team was in 2005-06 and 2006-07 with the L.A. Lakers. He had the best field goal percentage of his career in 2007 and the best offensive rebounding average of his career in 2006 (he also had his third best field goal percentage in 2006 and his third best offensive rebounding average in 2007).
I cannot "prove" that Bryant is a major reason why Brown and Gasol performed so much better in terms of field goal percentage and offensive rebounding but by watching many games involving those players one can certainly see recurring patterns of defenders swarming Bryant while Gasol and Brown head to the hoop (with Gasol obviously being a much more talented finisher and overall player than Brown). I do not pretend to know how to specifically quantify how much value Bryant adds to the statistics of post players who get to team up with him but I think that it should be obvious that a formula that pretends that all field goals and rebounds were obtained equally easily is flawed; there is a difference between Hakeem Olajuwon catching the ball on the block, being trapped because he is the focal point of his team's offense but still managing to score and Pau Gasol setting a screen for Kobe Bryant, rolling to the hoop and catching a pass for an uncontested dunk. Individual player ratings do not capture such nuances and do not factor in skill set considerations--i.e., a screen/roll set involving Gasol and another player would not be as effective if that other player does not possess Bryant's quickness, ballhandling skills, passing ability and shooting range: those things make Bryant almost impossible to guard in screen/roll sets, while most other players have a weakness that can be exploited in at least one of those areas (for instance, they can be forced to the left or dared to make a jump shot).
It would be great if someone could actually come up with a way to derive a number than accurately takes all of these factors into account but don't expect that to happen any time soon; after all, at this point the NBA is struggling just to properly keep track of the basic box score statistics that are the raw numbers that go into the formulas invented by "stat gurus." How can a "player rating" be definitive when it includes assist, turnover, steal and blocked shot numbers that are highly subjective? Even rebounds can be fishy at times when there are taps/tips. Rick Barry has long insisted that the only pure statistic is free throw percentage, because every other number can either be manipulated or is deceptive in some way (field goal percentage is presumably accurate yet it is deceptive because by itself it tells you nothing about a player's skill set in terms of shooting range and/or creating his own shot).
Then, there are other aspects of player value that are completely unquantifiable and yet very important. Bryant's leadership of the Lakers and of the 2008 Olympic team is unquestioned by any intelligent person who watched those squads compete but how does one "rate" leadership? I know that any self-respecting "stat guru" will respond that anything that cannot be quantified is meaningless and that leadership is a subjective factor that either does not exist or else is captured in some way by the boxscore numbers--but that is another example of thinking that is moronic and/or influenced by economic motives, because if a "stat guru" concedes that leadership is important while also admitting that he cannot measure it then his days of selling books are over.
LeBron James had every right to decide to sign with the Miami Heat but he deserves a lot of criticism for three things: (1) quitting during the Boston series, (2) refusing to try to recruit players to come to Cleveland and (3) turning his free agency situation into a narcissistic spectacle. The second point, in particular, makes for an interesting contrast with Bryant; for the past several years, James paid lip service to how important it was to him to win a championship as a Cavalier yet he consistently refused to help the Cavs recruit free agents to come to the team. Bryant has won two Finals MVPs while leading the Lakers to back to back championships but he is hardly resting on his laurels: this summer
he has very actively helped the Lakers woo potential free agents, including players with whom he has had prior on court confrontations (Raja Bell, Matt Barnes). Bryant actually respects anyone who dares to stand up to him (including Ron Artest, who joined the Lakers last summer and played an important role in their most recent title run), which is very reminiscent of Michael Jordan's attitude: in his book
The Jordan Rules, Sam Smith noted that Jordan would ride his teammates very hard in practice because he wanted to weed out anyone who was weak minded; Jordan figured that if you could not stand up to him on the practice court then you would disappear during crucial moments in a game. Similarly, Bryant seems to feel that players who confront him in games have the right attitude to be championship-level performers for the Lakers.
Artest played great defense throughout the playoffs and he had a great all-around performance in game seven of the NBA Finals but why was he even a Laker in the first place? Why did Artest display more focus during this season than at any prior time during his career? Artest has made it clear in several interviews that he took less money than he could have potentially made specifically because he wanted to be Bryant's teammate and Artest has also said that he is willing to follow Bryant's lead because he respects Bryant but that at previous times in his career he was not willing to follow his team's presumed leaders because he did not truly respect them.
There is no way to quantify leadership, heart, work ethic, determination--but that does not mean those things don't exist.
Labels: Kobe Bryant, Kwame Brown, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Pau Gasol, Ron Artest
posted by David Friedman @ 1:59 AM
Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and the Kobe Bryant Effect
Yesterday, the Clippers gained some salary cap room by renouncing their rights to Smush Parker, who has played for six NBA teams since 2002-03.
One of the best testaments to Kobe Bryant's greatness is that he led the Lakers to the playoffs twice despite having Parker as the starting point guard and Kwame Brown as the starting center. Point guard and center are arguably the two most important positions on a basketball team and while it is not necessary that the players at those positions be the two best players on the team it is usually vital that a team receives a certain amount of consistent production from those positions.
Parker started 162 of the 164 games that he played as an L.A. Laker but hardly played--let alone started--prior to or subsequent his time with the Lakers. Check out his
career statistics; those middle two years should have an asterisk, followed by this designation: "performance enhanced by playing alongside Kobe Bryant."
As for Brown, the
statistical story is not quite so dramatic but check out his year by year field goal percentages: they are never above .489 in his non-Laker seasons and they do not drop below .526 in his Laker seasons. Playing with Bryant had a similar positive effect on Pau Gasol's field goal percentage this season; this is because Bryant draws double-teams that lead to wide open shots for his big men, whether or not Bryant makes the final pass that is credited with the assist.
People often talk about which superstars "make their teammates better." I'd like to know which other NBA superstar could carry a team to the Western Conference playoffs twice with Brown and Parker as starters. It will be interesting to see if Brown or Parker ever become regular starters again in the NBA, let alone start alongside each other on a playoff team.
Labels: Kobe Bryant, Kwame Brown, Smush Parker
posted by David Friedman @ 2:17 PM
