(Subtitle: Palaver (noun) a: idle talkb: misleading or beguiling speech)
NBA Commissioner David Stern used the above word in an interview with Dan Patrick last spring. It was used as he was referring to all of the backlash over the Suns-Spurs series and the “palaver” being bandied about regarding the suspension of two Suns, while a similar violation committed by the Spurs in the same game went unpunished. When Patrick confronted him with it, (prompting the use of the “P word”) Stern’s arrogance and defensiveness instinctively kicked in. Not to his discredit though, as apparently he can’t react any other way. After all, we all know his officials are the most knowledgeable, most well-trained, and most competent in all of sports. If you don’t believe me, just ask him. And to those who thought his opinion may be muffled a bit after the Tim Donaghy disaster, think again. It’s almost as if it had never happened. Donaghy was a “rogue, isolated criminal” according to Stern in his late June press conference. Sure he was. And you, Mr. Stern, are a top-notch commish, despite all the palaver that you deflect. Well, you’re no Bud Selig, but you’re well on your way.
Chris Sheridan wrote earlier today, (Quoting Stern here) “Technically, it turns out every single current NBA referee has gambled in some form, after all -- although none of them are going to be punished for it. And, strange as it may seem, those very same referees will now be permitted to gamble in a multitude of ways.”
That can do nothing but help the game, right Mr. Stern? Who doesn’t want refs gambling? (Public Service Announcement: Are you an NBA official who’s tired of those annoying phone calls saying “When are you going to pay up, punk?” Call 1-800-DONAGHY. We’ll handle any case, no matter how big or small. Stern & Co. We'll go to bat for you. We're so sure we'll come out ahead, we'll bet on it).
Sheridan continues, “Stern said an internal review had found that all [ALL? So you admit it and stillchoose to do nothing??] of the league's 56 referees violated the contractual prohibition against engaging in gambling, with more than half of them admitting to placing wagers in casinos. But Stern said none of the violations was major, and no referees had admitted to wagering in a sports book or with a bookie.
‘ “Our ban on gambling is absolute, and in my view it is too absolute, too harsh and was not particularly well-enforced over the years," ‘ Stern said. ‘ "We're going to come up with a new set of rules that make sense." ‘
Uh, folks, if that ain’t “palaver,” I don’t know what is. Or dare I say absolute palaver? And did an official leave the general vicinity of the blackjack table during a hand? After all, a rule is a rule . . .
But wait, it gets better, in the same article from Sheridan. "It's too easy to issue rules that are on their faith violated by $5 Nassau, sitting at a poker table, buying a lottery ticket and then we can move along," Stern said. "And by the time I got through and I determined going into a casino isn't a capital offense ... I'm the CEO of the NBA and I'll take responsibility."
No, you won’t. That’s obvious, you arrogant no-mind. And no matter how often
you try to convince us otherwise, we’re not buying it. Just like we haven’t
bought your assertion, or should I say insistence, regarding your stellar
officiating crew. What they did on the court has always been there for all the
world to see. Obviously, what they do off the court doesn’t really matter either.
And neither do these rules you speak of. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Stern, is
that your employees broke your rule, and you are doing nothing about it.
Responsibility? Sounds like more palaver from you if you ask me. But I wouldn’t
ask me if I were you.
Mr. Stern will be at The Improv all week. Don’t forget to tip your bartenders and
waitresses.
Thanks for taking the time to read my palaver.
(And for even more intriguing prose on related topics, see my post from 06/27/07, entitled "David Stern, Teflon No More.)
In the past week, we were hit with another perfect example of why Pete Rose has yet to sniff Cooperstown. Depending on our allegiances, we sports fans will put up with just about anything. Michael Vick still has his supporters, as do Pacman Jones and Barry Bonds. But blindside the American public with a revelation that the playing field wasn’t level, and that we were fooled in the process? Different story, indeed. When we learn that we put stock into a competition where the outcome may have been unduly and unnecessarily influenced, we don’t take it too well. Once a shred of credibility is attached to a falsified outcome, conspiracy theories run amok. Whether it’s a fixed game or the JFK assassination, they are there, although most are simply too far-fetched, too over the top, or can be made to sound far too convenient. What fueled the fire of the problem, of course, is that doubt was created in the first place.
At his recent press conference regarding Tim Donaghy, David Stern appeared as we’d never seen him before; a defendant painted into a corner on the witness stand, rather than the confident-some would say over confident-head of the NBA. Stern has been lauded often for his achievements as commissioner, though one has to wonder how difficult it must have been to take over a league that had already had the kick-start of a lifetime courtesy of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, who were entering their prime, and was about to add a soon-to-be-superstar named Michael Jordan in Stern’s first season.
Critics of Stern would cite things such as a sometimes arrogant and condescending manner, (witness his interview with Dan Patrick on ESPN radio during the Suns-Spurs series, which, in a classic bit of irony, came roughly a week after Donaghy officiated game three), his staunch position that his officials were the most well-trained, best qualified, and most highly monitored in all of sports, and his tendency to sound as though he was lecturing us feeble-minded basketball fans. And those critics wouldn’t be too far off on any of these.
Without a doubt, NBA basketball is the most difficult to officiate of all the major team sports. Nearly every call, from traveling to three seconds to almost every foul, is a judgment call, and being an NBA referee is an unenviable task indeed. However, Stern’s unconditional defense, or should I say outright praise, of his referees in the past has grated on many. Especially since the product on the floor has not measured up, in the opinion of the vast majority of fans. And when one takes into consideration his decisions regarding the situations of some of his officials in recent history, i.e., the cash-for-first-class-tickets and some bouts with tax evasion, his track record suddenly becomes very ordinary. I’m all for giving folks a second chance, but since Stern tried to convince us ad nauseum that his league’s standards were much higher, one has no choice but to come to the conclusion that Stern did not meet his own verbalized standards. On the credibility scoreboard, he needs a slump-buster.
Stern said in his press conference, “I feel betrayed by what happened on behalf of the sport, regardless of how protective I’ve been.” Two observations come to mind. First, at least he admitted he’s been protective. We all knew it, and he’s now acknowledging it. That’s a start. Secondly, he is not the only one who feels betrayed. NBA fans do too. And when all is said and done, we are the ones who dictate the success of his league. With the finals ratings spiraling downward, Mr. Stern cannot afford to misstep on this one. Since some cynics will say, for example, that Mr. Stern is more of the problem rather than the solution, since it may come out and be verified that Donaghy had prior gambling issues that the league knew about, Stern is now in a zero tolerance position.
Stern’s new ball didn’t work out very well. Neither did his own zero tolerance answer to players, coaches and in some cases owners, who complained about the quality of officiating, only to have Stern respond with quicker technical fouls being called and even stiffer fines for the critics. His “best officials in all of sports” never were, and it was downright laughable that he consistently preached otherwise. Mr. Stern is living in our world now, his attention diverted towards trying to figure out how to fix a game that once was great, (and that a great game was only once fixed?), rather than trying to convince us that all is well, and how dare we infer otherwise. And if the trade off is his paying less attention to what his players wear off the court and more to the legitimacy of the game on the court, I will gladly take it. If another trade off is the ceasing of his convoluted view of the quality of officiating for a consistent, unbiased application of the rule book, I’ll take that too. In a heartbeat. It’s what we’ve all been yearning for all along.
We may learn down the road that the problem runs deeper than “A rogue, isolated criminal,” as Stern said in reference to Donaghy in the press conference. He also said that it was limited to only one, as far as he knew. But a couple months ago he would have STERN-ly admonished us for implying that there was even one doing it. For the sake of you and the league, Mr. Stern, I certainly hope you’re right this time. The ball--the classic leather version hopefully--is in your court. Now tap into those millions of dollars in fines you’ve collected and address an upgrade in officiating. It's unfortunate it's taken this dilemma for you to do so, but at least the funds will be put to good use.
There have been more twists in this series than some teams see in a year. Steve Nash gets his nose split wide open late in game one, and I’m sure everyone immediately thought that he may miss significant time in the next game, which of course he did not. Then came the Bruce Bowen leg flail in game two, after which Amare Stoudemire referred to the Spurs as a “dirty team.” Stoudemire later said he was specifically referring to Bowen and Manu Ginobili. (Earlier this season, Ginobili gave Bell a forearm shiver that cost Bell a game due to injury, a play I’m sure all the Suns remember.) If you haven’t heard, Robert Horry committed a flagrant foul on Steve Nash late in game 4. Perhaps out of frustration, perhaps with intent. Following the subsequent suspensions of Horry, Stoudemire, and Diaw, Commissioner David Stern and NBA Punishment-Hander-Outer Stu Jackson were fried by every media outlet in the country. (Isn’t it just a little ironic that the player who called the Spurs dirty sits out a game as a result of a dirty play by Horry?) The phrases “a rule is a rule,” “immediate vicinity,” and “gray area” were thrown around more often than Bowen shows up on youtube. A couple of my favorites were, “It’s not a matter of fairness, it’s a matter of correctness.” Huh? Actually Stu, it turned out to be neither. In fact, it wasn’t in the “immediate vicinity” of either. Better luck next time. And “The rule is the rule . . . We intend to apply it consistently.” Strike two. (Look for a breaking ball low and away, Stu Mendoza.)
A dangerous precedent was set with the Jackson/Stern decision. What is there to stop a team from sending out it’s 12th man to bodycheck with the intent of inciting a reaction from the other team, which would result in a suspension of one or more players? For this, I bring in Alex Trebec. “The answer is: nothing.” I’m sure the league will change the rule after the season. But for now, I’ll take “Gray Areas for $500, Alex.”
And what does “immediate vicinity” mean, anyway? Stu Jackson-Mendoza, still trying to raise his average above .150, said in a local radio interview that Stoudemire and Diaw were 20 to 25 feet away from their seats. So, had their seats been nearer to the “altercation,” would they have been, say, only 10 to 15 feet away? Would that still be in the “immediate vicinity?” Ah, the metric system is a beautiful thing, isn’t it Mr. Mendoza? Perhaps we should apply it to your batting average. It may help. Or to your gray area, if you had one. Which we know you don’t. You told us over and over. But repeating an ambiguous rule makes neither your decision nor the rule right.
___________________________________________
Phoenix. Pronunciation: \'fe-niks\ Function: noun
: a legendary bird which according to one account lived 500 years, burned itself to ashes on a pyre, and rose alive from the ashes to live another period; also: a person or thing likened to the phoenix
Through five games of one of the better series in recent memory, the San Antonio Spurs lead the Phoenix Suns 3-2. And the better team almost always wins in a seven game series. Which is why I like the Suns chances of winning two straight. Through the five games, the Suns have outscored the Spurs 497-486. One could be so bold as to say that, save for a Nash-Gash and an unfortunate suspension, this series may be over. But I'm getting a little ahead of myself.
In the ’05 playoffs, Joe Johnson took a vicious fall against the Mavericks. He basically broke his face, yet the Suns still prevailed without him, only to fall the Spurs in five games. (Happy in Atlanta, Joe? At least you’re the main guy now, aren’t you?) Heading into the following season, Amare Stoudemire was thought to be lost for the season after micro-fracture surgery on one knee and a more common surgery to his other knee. Most NBA scribes labeled the Suns a .500 team at best. Mike D’Antoni though, said that his team would still win 50 games and be a force in the playoffs. After winning 54 and losing 28, and Kurt Thomas and Raja Bell to injury, the Suns made it to the western conference finals. (Granted, the seeding was a bit out of whack, which has since been fixed. But you can only play who they tell you to play.) Stoudemire wound up playing in three mid-season games before it was decided that he would be put on the shelf, as his knees were not recovered enough for the rigors of the NBA. And with his removal from the lineup came more predictions of a lost season. Yet the Suns rose again. And I believe they will in this series.
There is one glaring reason why the Suns lost game five to the Spurs last night. Mike D’Antoni has answered the usual questions about his coaching ability.
His style can’t win a title. Yes, it can. And even the biggest nay-sayers know it, I believe. They may not admit, but they can see it happening.
His team doesn’t play any defense. Yes, it does. No, they’re not the Detroit Pistons, and never will be. But I doubt even the Pistons could have played the defense the Suns did in the fourth quarter of game four. Or in game five, save for the last two minutes when the Suns ran out of gas.
Which brings me to the one criticism that D’Antoni has failed to quell:
His bench is too shallow. Yup, it is. No argument there. It would be easy to say that he should have played Pat Burke, Marcus Banks, or, especially, Jalen Rose in game five. And he should’ve played all three to give his starters more rest, with Stoudemire and Diaw sidelined. But it’s hard to play your bench when you don’t have confidence in them. And this is where I fault D’Antoni. Yes, he should have played his bench more last night. But I don’t know how much it would have helped. The real problem is that he didn’t play them on a consistent basis during the season. And therefore didn’t feel comfortable doing it last night. And that falls squarely on the D’Antoni’s shoulders, since he made the personnel decisions in the off-season, as far as anyone can tell, and the playing time decisions during the season.
The worst thing about the game four incident is that the enormity of Suns effort in seizing the game from the Spurs was lost, due to all the Horry/Nash rhetoric and ramifications. The Suns shut down the Spurs defensively in the closing minutes and won a game no one thought they would win. Including Robert Horry, apparently. To think that the Suns can’t do it again in San Antonio in game six is a more than a little presumptuous. And when it goes to a game seven, I'll take the Suns. And since my nerves will be shot, I can guarantee you I'll be leaving the "immediate vicinity" of my couch. Who knows, I'll probably get so excited that I may wind up 20 feet away. Hopefully I won't have to miss game one of the western conference finals because of it. That would give Shooter an advantage.
Spent half my life in North Dakota. The other half, so far, in the Valley of the Sun. As a kid, I was always playing, watching, reading, or writing about sports. I lost most of the "playing" along the way, but the rest remains the same. I pledge to refrain from commenting on a blog unless I've read it in its entirety. If I have time, of course.
Carry on.
Email address: rickoblog@ear thlink.net
