Diaw/Amare suspended 1 game, Horry suspended 2 games - Page 39

Lottery Larry · #**381** 05-17-2007, 04:40 PM

I wish I'd thought of this

"San Antonio declares May 16 David Stern Day"

Triumph36 · #**382** 05-17-2007, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike Tirico today on Mike&Mike show recommended suspending players for first half of next game if they don't get involved in the fight. Sounds reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a silly compromise solution that has no point other than saving face. It doesn't really address what is a fairly silly rule to begin with.

Aces commented on what I feel is the basic problem. This is a rule that has very little to do with the actual competitive part of the game, but violations of it have huge competitive impact. That doesn't seem right to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

the more i think about it, the more stern has a problem with incidents like this. on the one hand, it's easy to say change the rule - but to what? to a rule that requires interpretation? that will cause only more questioning of the league office when superstar A doesn't get a suspension but scrub B does.

i think almost everyone who's not clarkmeister agrees they shouldn't've been suspended - but what's the alternative?

JordanIB · #**383** 05-17-2007, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mike Tirico today on Mike&Mike show recommended suspending players for first half of next game if they don't get involved in the fight. Sounds reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a silly compromise solution that has no point other than saving face. It doesn't really address what is a fairly silly rule to begin with.

Aces commented on what I feel is the basic problem. This is a rule that has very little to do with the actual competitive part of the game, but violations of it have huge competitive impact. That doesn't seem right to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

the more i think about it, the more stern has a problem with incidents like this. on the one hand, it's easy to say change the rule - but to what? to a rule that requires interpretation? that will cause only more questioning of the league office when superstar A doesn't get a suspension but scrub B does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

gusmahler · #**384** 05-18-2007, 08:10 PM

Silly thing I saw in Simmons column today:

[ QUOTE ]
From Alex in Puyallup, Wash.: "I was reading the comments of some of the other NBA experts on ESPN and one of them mentioned the fact that people would see the NBA as a bunch of 'thugs' if they allowed bench-clearing fights. Don't you think it's odd that baseball players aren't referred to as 'thugs' when they engage in a bench-clearing brawl, yet NBA players are often seen in this manner? Often times, a brawl in baseball is looked upon as a positive by the fans of the team. They see it something that gets the team fired up or it 'shows that they care.' So why are NBA players considered 'thugs' for doing something that's almost celebrated (in some circles) when it occurs in baseball? I have a suspicion as to why this is, and it has little to do with one sport wearing shorts and the other wearing pants. Just some food for thought."

My response: One of David Stern's biggest concerns has always been marketing a mostly black league to a mostly white fan base. The NBA has always battled covert racism to some degree -- if Kyle Farnsworth charges out of the bullpen and decks nine Red Sox players during a brawl, he's a bad-ass and it's all in good fun, but if Stephen Jackson does it, the black/white thing hangs over everything, right? My Page 2 buddy Jemele Hill and I exchanged some e-mails about that on Wednesday -- Jemele believes that the Horry/Nash incident wouldn't have received as much play if Barbosa had been sprawled below the press table instead of Nash. And you know what? I agree. Nash's involvement reminded me of the O.J. trial for this reason -- if Nicole looked like Regina King and Ronald Goldman looked like Usher, that wouldn't have been the most famous American trial of the 20th century. Same for the Nash/Horry play. It's still a big deal if Barbosa is involved ... but not as big of a deal as seeing America's favorite white point guard lying there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Bench clearing in baseball is accepted for one simple reason: numbers. There's one batter against 9 people on defense. They have to clear the benches to make the numbers fair. There's no bench clearing allowed in the NFL or NHL or NBA because the numbers are even.

2) This situation had *nothing* to do with Nash and everything to do with Stoudamire.

3) True, the reaction wouldn't have been the same if Barbosa was on the floor. Why? HE'S A BACKUP. Nash is the two-type MVP. There's a difference there. Stoudamire and Diaw reacted because their best player was checked. Not because their white guy was checked. (They would have cared a lot more if Barbosa was checked than if Burke was checked). Cleveland players (and the media) would have reacted the same way if Lebron was cheapshotted. Same with San Antonio and Duncan, or Golden State and Baron Davis. (Or are you silly enough to think that San Antonio fans care more about Barry than Duncan or the GSW fans care more about Biedrins than Davis?)

RacersEdge · #**385** 05-18-2007, 08:17 PM

That's a dumb argument by Simmons. The incident got play because one team was unjustly punished.

Taraz · #**386** 05-18-2007, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Silly thing I saw in Simmons column today:

[ QUOTE ]
From Alex in Puyallup, Wash.: "I was reading the comments of some of the other NBA experts on ESPN and one of them mentioned the fact that people would see the NBA as a bunch of 'thugs' if they allowed bench-clearing fights. Don't you think it's odd that baseball players aren't referred to as 'thugs' when they engage in a bench-clearing brawl, yet NBA players are often seen in this manner? Often times, a brawl in baseball is looked upon as a positive by the fans of the team. They see it something that gets the team fired up or it 'shows that they care.' So why are NBA players considered 'thugs' for doing something that's almost celebrated (in some circles) when it occurs in baseball? I have a suspicion as to why this is, and it has little to do with one sport wearing shorts and the other wearing pants. Just some food for thought."

My response: One of David Stern's biggest concerns has always been marketing a mostly black league to a mostly white fan base. The NBA has always battled covert racism to some degree -- if Kyle Farnsworth charges out of the bullpen and decks nine Red Sox players during a brawl, he's a bad-ass and it's all in good fun, but if Stephen Jackson does it, the black/white thing hangs over everything, right? My Page 2 buddy Jemele Hill and I exchanged some e-mails about that on Wednesday -- Jemele believes that the Horry/Nash incident wouldn't have received as much play if Barbosa had been sprawled below the press table instead of Nash. And you know what? I agree. Nash's involvement reminded me of the O.J. trial for this reason -- if Nicole looked like Regina King and Ronald Goldman looked like Usher, that wouldn't have been the most famous American trial of the 20th century. Same for the Nash/Horry play. It's still a big deal if Barbosa is involved ... but not as big of a deal as seeing America's favorite white point guard lying there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Bench clearing in baseball is accepted for one simple reason: numbers. There's one batter against 9 people on defense. They have to clear the benches to make the numbers fair. There's no bench clearing allowed in the NFL or NHL or NBA because the numbers are even.

2) This situation had *nothing* to do with Nash and everything to do with Stoudamire.

3) True, the reaction wouldn't have been the same if Barbosa was on the floor. Why? HE'S A BACKUP. Nash is the two-type MVP. There's a difference there. Stoudamire and Diaw reacted because their best player was checked. Not because their white guy was checked. (They would have cared a lot more if Barbosa was checked than if Burke was checked). Cleveland players (and the media) would have reacted the same way if Lebron was cheapshotted. Same with San Antonio and Duncan, or Golden State and Baron Davis. (Or are you silly enough to think that San Antonio fans care more about Barry than Duncan or the GSW fans care more about Biedrins than Davis?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say that race plays absolutely no role? I wouldn't call it racism, but there is a lot of unconscious bias. I doubt many people would even realize they have them.

gusmahler · #**387** 05-18-2007, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Silly thing I saw in Simmons column today:

[ QUOTE ]
From Alex in Puyallup, Wash.: "I was reading the comments of some of the other NBA experts on ESPN and one of them mentioned the fact that people would see the NBA as a bunch of 'thugs' if they allowed bench-clearing fights. Don't you think it's odd that baseball players aren't referred to as 'thugs' when they engage in a bench-clearing brawl, yet NBA players are often seen in this manner? Often times, a brawl in baseball is looked upon as a positive by the fans of the team. They see it something that gets the team fired up or it 'shows that they care.' So why are NBA players considered 'thugs' for doing something that's almost celebrated (in some circles) when it occurs in baseball? I have a suspicion as to why this is, and it has little to do with one sport wearing shorts and the other wearing pants. Just some food for thought."

My response: One of David Stern's biggest concerns has always been marketing a mostly black league to a mostly white fan base. The NBA has always battled covert racism to some degree -- if Kyle Farnsworth charges out of the bullpen and decks nine Red Sox players during a brawl, he's a bad-ass and it's all in good fun, but if Stephen Jackson does it, the black/white thing hangs over everything, right? My Page 2 buddy Jemele Hill and I exchanged some e-mails about that on Wednesday -- Jemele believes that the Horry/Nash incident wouldn't have received as much play if Barbosa had been sprawled below the press table instead of Nash. And you know what? I agree. Nash's involvement reminded me of the O.J. trial for this reason -- if Nicole looked like Regina King and Ronald Goldman looked like Usher, that wouldn't have been the most famous American trial of the 20th century. Same for the Nash/Horry play. It's still a big deal if Barbosa is involved ... but not as big of a deal as seeing America's favorite white point guard lying there, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Bench clearing in baseball is accepted for one simple reason: numbers. There's one batter against 9 people on defense. They have to clear the benches to make the numbers fair. There's no bench clearing allowed in the NFL or NHL or NBA because the numbers are even.

2) This situation had *nothing* to do with Nash and everything to do with Stoudamire.

3) True, the reaction wouldn't have been the same if Barbosa was on the floor. Why? HE'S A BACKUP. Nash is the two-type MVP. There's a difference there. Stoudamire and Diaw reacted because their best player was checked. Not because their white guy was checked. (They would have cared a lot more if Barbosa was checked than if Burke was checked). Cleveland players (and the media) would have reacted the same way if Lebron was cheapshotted. Same with San Antonio and Duncan, or Golden State and Baron Davis. (Or are you silly enough to think that San Antonio fans care more about Barry than Duncan or the GSW fans care more about Biedrins than Davis?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say that race plays absolutely no role? I wouldn't call it racism, but there is a lot of unconscious bias. I doubt many people would even realize they have them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It plays some role. But not nearly to the extent Jamele Hill thinks it does.

Taraz · #**388** 05-18-2007, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It plays some role. But not nearly to the extent Jamele Hill thinks it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, agreed.

gusmahler · #**389** 05-18-2007, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It plays some role. But not nearly to the extent Jamele Hill thinks it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're probably right that the OJ case would not have been as important if Nicole were black. But they are wrong about the Nash/Horry incident. It's not even right to call it the "Nash/Horry" incident. It should be called the Stoudamire incident. Nash's involvement was only peripheral--the incident was all about Stoudamire's reaction and subsequent punishment, not about "the white dude being hit by the black dude."

Lottery Larry · #**390** 05-18-2007, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
3) True, the reaction wouldn't have been the same if Barbosa was on the floor. Why? HE'S A BACKUP. Nash is the two-type MVP. There's a difference there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having been there before, that wouldn't make ANY difference to me. If it's one of my guys, whomever that is, my first reaction is to come after the opponent. I'm not thinking about it at all, I'm reacting.

After college was done, I was playing in an intramural work softball league. I was in right field, the ball went to left and I went to back up first as a right fielder should.

The runner in scoring position decided to try to take out our catcher... in an INTRAMURAL game! The catcher was pretty solid, so he wasn't really hurt.... but when I came flying in from right field after the ahole, there was a bit of a bench-clearing tussle. Unfortunately, I was never able to get a hand on the schmuck.