I tend to agree with Ray here. I think offensive fouls should be mostly limited to players who lower their shoulder to ram a stationary defender out of the way to create space, lead with their forearms on drives, wipe defenders out of the way with their off arms during pivot moves, etc.

But to simply jump in front of someone who already has momentum (and in some cases is already in the air or just about to take off) and hope he runs you over is cowards D. And like I mentioned above, even if the league took away most the charging calls, things would balance out for the defense if the officials would stop calling little and no contact fouls on drives when the defender actually does run with the driver and makes an attempt at disrupting the shot.

More than anything, the game was not about Miller, but Wade. Wade has got to give LBJ more than he did (and has). Miller is a very limited player, obviously, but Miami can win if Wade plays up to his prior level. If he does not (or cannot) then it is very unlikely Miami will win.

Do we have confirmation on an injury?

Do we have confirmation on an injury?

After Game 3 of the Pacers series where Wade scored 5 pts, he had his knee drained and erupted for 30pts/9rbs/6ast. I'm not sure if its been diagnosed as a specific injury or just tendon wear, but there is something wrong.

Mike Miller really needs a DNP-CD next to his name. He's so totally useless at anything that doesn't involve jacking up a 3, and he's only hit 1 3 pointer in the last 5 games. Enough already. Give Jones those minutes. He's not good, but isn't a black hole of suckitude.

My biggest confusion about Spoelstra has been his use of James Jones. I've never seen James to be a bad defender and I think that its pretty clear that he's their best 3pt shooter, yet Spoelstra never even looks in his direction. Jones had to have pissed in his coffee this year to not even get a chance when Battier's shot isn't working.

OT, Harrison Barnes apparently blew away the competition in the athletic testing...which completely flies in the face of everything I saw whenever watching him play.

Jones apparently had migraines last night and couldn't play. It might be something he's been dealing with for awhile.

Currently, I think the model where the best players are the best because they're really good at getting to the FT line is flawed. It stagnates the game.

The best players have always been the ones who get to the line the most. Go back 10, 20 years and the names you see getting to the line most (excluding centers who have different reasons for being there, especially Shaq and Wilt) are Kobe, Jordan, Barkley, Malone. Go back 50 years and you'll find West, Robertson, and Pettit dominating the free throw line. At his ABA peak, Julius Erving was getting to the line 8 times a game, as was David Thompson.

The only time when the best players in the game were not doing a large part of it from the free throw line was the early 80's with Bird and Magic. Later in his career when he took on more of a scoring role, Magic's free throws increased, and he was in the top 10 3 times in a 4 year stretch.

OT, Harrison Barnes apparently blew away the competition in the athletic testing...which completely flies in the face of everything I saw whenever watching him play.

I think Barnes is destined to be shorter Derrick McKey. I remember hearing all of the rumours of his unbelievable athleticism in practice, but he could only show it for brief moments during games. McKey was unbelievably versatile, had really good skills and was a good to very good player for most of his career, but whether it was motivation or in between his ears, he just never became the player he should have been.

All you really have to do is just go back to the no-call on that play. The current situation is problematic because the NBA has decided that there must be a call when a body hits the floor (90% of the time at least).

I think this is exactly right. FPH said that drawing a charge is a good defensive strategy, but that is only true because the refs are overly willing to call charges and wipe out baskets. It is easy to see in older games (even as recent as early this decade) that guys tried to defend layups by going straight up and holding their ground. If they got hit hard, the guy usually missed the layup, and the game played on. As long as the refs incentivize drawing charges, defenders will necessarily exaggerate the contact, and flopping will continue.

Jalen Rose talks about flopping on his podcast frequently. As Harveys said, he believes that Rodman started the defensive flopping where he would let someone run into him then fall down like he got shot. He also says that Reggie Miller was one of the first big offensive floppers with his leg kicks and arm flailing. As long as refs keep calling it, smart players will keep doing it.

OT, Harrison Barnes apparently blew away the competition in the athletic testing...which completely flies in the face of everything I saw whenever watching him play.

Honestly, it is hard to gauge a guy's athleticism when all we have ever seen him do is shoot 20 foot jumpers standing still.

---

I don't think last night taught us too much about strategy or grand truths. When Durant shoots like that, OKC usually wins against anyone. If he does that every game, he is the best player in the world. But he doesn't average upwards of 40 points, and OKC does lose because he isn't always red hot from range. I guess I would prefer to see Lebron on him since Wade doesn't have the length to even bother his shots, but I don't think that would have done much last night other than get Lebron tired/in foul trouble. That was a hell of a game by Durant and there is not much more to say.

That was a hell of a game by Durant and there is not much more to say.

I kind of agree, but it wasn't just his shooting. He was so aggressive, some of those drives were just sick. If he stays that way, they're going to be trouble.

That said, I do think that game was winnable anyway. The Heat were up 13 or so, right? If LBJ gets more from Wade, I think they had a chance to take that game. Maybe Wade is hurt and that won't be forthcoming, but I thought he was pretty lethargic last night.

Haberstroh noted that all ten of Durant's turnovers v. the Heat this year were with James defending him and that, last night, Durant was 0-2, 2 pts when guarded by LBJ, 12-18, 34 pts otherwise.

I guess I would prefer to see Lebron on him since Wade doesn't have the length to even bother his shots, but I don't think that would have done much last night other than get Lebron tired/in foul trouble. That was a hell of a game by Durant and there is not much more to say.

This is related to my question from the previous page. If LeBron has to guard Durant that is going to place tremendous pressure on Dwyane Wade to…not suck and run the offense. Thus far he’s shown no signs of being capable of that.

And while Durant did make a high percentage of his looks last night, it wasn’t more impressive than the average Durant game IMO because, for whatever reason, he got a LOT of clean looks.

EDIT: Bosh's interior defense was laughable last night as well. For MIA's sake, hopefully that's just rust because this new OKC offense where they are ready and willing to move the ball is better than their ISO heavy regular season offense...which was already one of the league's best. How the hell did these guys get so good so fast?

Haberstroh noted that all ten of Durant's turnovers v. the Heat this year were with James defending him and that, last night, Durant was 0-2, 2 pts when guarded by LBJ, 12-18, 34 pts otherwise.

NJ might have been onto something yesterday. If LBJ is Miami's only effective offensive OR defensive weapon, that is asking him to carry a pretty freaking heavy load.

Edit: Ha! Good timing.

From ESPN:

Commissioner David Stern believes the NBA is in need of some tweaking even after following the black eye of the lockout with a better-than-expected regular season.

The first forum for change will come next Monday, when the competition committee will discuss ways to try and eliminate flopping for the sake of drawing a foul and to consider whether to expand instant replay.

"Flopping almost doesn't do it justice," Stern said Tuesday just prior to the start of the NBA Finals. "Trickery. Deceit designed to cause the game to be decided other than on its merits. We'll be looking at that.

"Flopping almost doesn't do it justice," Stern said Tuesday just prior to the start of the NBA Finals. "Trickery. Deceit designed to cause the game to be decided other than on its merits. We'll be looking at that.

Kudos to Stern and co for this. Long overdue.

[1412] I forget who, but someone pointed it out on Twitter yesterday that MIA is in a great position because LBJ allows them to solve any problem they have. Need to run the offense? LBJ at the 1. Need points in the paint? Post LBJ. Russell Westbrook lights D-Wade on fire in the 3rd? LBJ guards him in the 4th. Etc. At the same time, MIA is in a terrible position because if you’re getting nothing from Wade/anyone else, as soon as he solves one problem, you have to fix another. It’s like a boat with a bunch of holes taking on water and you only have one stopper.

There was a season where Jerry West and Elgin Baylor combined for more than 25 free throws a game.

***

LeBron has to guard Durant. I don't see any way around it. If LeBron wants to build his legacy and get a ring, he pretty much has to demand it. It's only one game, but Durant proved to be the better "Closer," etc.

There was a play I saw where Battier was in the right corner and decided to drive -- he missed, and it just didn't seem like that was Miami's optimal shot there. My thought was no way that Battier does that if he thinks Wade can make a jumper or take it to the hole. When does Chalmers start rolling his eyes at Wade?

Young Mike Miller was a terrific role player at one time who could do a variety of things, but he looks pretty toasty. I agree about James Jones, no idea why Spo buries him.

One is the legit charge, where an offensive player (a tank) lowers his shoulder or otherwise takes away a legitimate defensive position by brute force.

The problem with this black-and-white definition is that almost all post play begins with some lowering of the shoulder or some backing down into a defender with an established position. If we call all those moves charges, you'd eliminate post play completely. The difference between a foul and a good strong move is only in the degree of force, and that's tough to call.

LeBron has to guard Durant. I don't see any way around it. If LeBron wants to build his legacy and get a ring, he pretty much has to demand it.

Or if he just wants to win the series, this needs to happen. James is the best on-ball defender in the league with the size and mobility to give Durant problems, and he's much stronger to boot. It's not fair to James that he not only has to shut down Durant, but has to also be Magic Jordan on offense, but with Wade slowed and playing poorly, there's no other way the Heat can take OKC.

It’s like a boat with a bunch of holes taking on water and you only have one stopper.

You wasted a perfectly good opportunity to call Lebron the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike.

The problem with this black-and-white definition is that almost all post play begins with some lowering of the shoulder or some backing down into a defender with an established position. If we call all those moves charges, you'd eliminate post play completely. The difference between a foul and a good strong move is only in the degree of force, and that's tough to call.

I agree. I was distinguishing this from the "illegit" charge of the current state of the dribble drive. I agree with your point: this one is hard to call.

The problem with this black-and-white definition is that almost all post play begins with some lowering of the shoulder or some backing down into a defender with an established position. If we call all those moves charges, you'd eliminate post play completely. The difference between a foul and a good strong move is only in the degree of force, and that's tough to call.

This is the type of situation that will always have to be a gray area/judgment call. But I think what most of us were talking about earlier was the "jump in front of a driver with your hands covering your nuts and then fall down at the slightest contact" type of charge, and I think those could be eliminated altogether without crippling legitimate defenses at all.

As for the posting up issue you mentioned, if the offensive player uses his shoulder or ass to aggressively back into the post, they generally don't need to call an offensive foul, they just need to allow the defender to put his forearm in the guys back (they do) and use an equal amount of force to hold their ground (they rarely do).

When I used to play regularly with a group of friends, we didn't have refs so we'd just call our own fouls and any disputed calls would be decided by consensus opinion. One guy used to post aggressively every time he got the ball inside. Since we almost never called offensive fouls, timid players would pretty much let him bowl them over and get whatever position he wanted. But when I was on him I'd put my arm in his back and basically push him back as hard as he was pushing me. Even though he'd get mad every time, the consensus of the rest of the players was that I wasn't doing anything wrong and they'd overrule his constant whines for fouls. A defender needs to be allowed to hold his ground.

It's not fair to James that he not only has to shut down Durant, but has to also be Magic Jordan on offense, but with Wade slowed and playing poorly, there's no other way the Heat can take OKC.

I agree he's going to have to guard Durant. You've only got one Lebron so you might as well use him to slow down the best offensive player in the game. Westbrook and Harden might beat you, but that's a chance you have to take.

If Wade/Bosh play poorly the rest of the series then this team isn't getting a ring no matter what Lebron does. I think they'll have better games, and still make this a competitive series.

Okay, I will get on board with your guys' deletion of the "no play on the ball" charge in exchange for this: a defender can attack the ball as aggressively as he wants without getting a flagrant, except for strikes to the head.

I agree about James Jones, no idea why Spo buries him.

See post 1405- he wasn't available last night.

oh man, Jones' migraines make this a total footnote series.

oh man, Jones' migraines make this a total footnote series.

More than that, Eddy Curry's unavailability makes this pretty much a footnote season.

If Wade/Bosh play poorly the rest of the series then this team isn't getting a ring no matter what Lebron does. I think they'll have better games, and still make this a competitive series.

I agree with this.

Okay, I will get on board with your guys' deletion of the "no play on the ball" charge in exchange for this: a defender can attack the ball as aggressively as he wants without getting a flagrant, except for strikes to the head.

This is not a negotiation. Although I think this is technically how the rule already is.

---

So some trade ideas from BPro at ESPN and I still can't decide my thoughts on this one:

The Chicago Bulls trade C Joakim Noah and the No. 29 pick to the Sacramento Kings for G Tyreke Evans and the No. 5 pick.

Especially since he then suggests drafting Drummond. That Drummond/Asik platoon would be the worst offensive center in NBA history.

The Chicago Bulls trade C Joakim Noah and the No. 29 pick to the Sacramento Kings for G Tyreke Evans and the No. 5 pick.

That seems like a disaster for both teams. Why would the Kings do this? It is far, far, far too early to bail on Evans. On the Bulls' end, he seems like exactly the wrong type of guard to put next to Rose.

A little OT, but since we're talking about changing rules...

Does anyone else think 2 shots plus possession is too steep a penalty for a clear path foul? It's the same punishment as a flagrant, which should be the more severe of the two.

What if instead they just counted all clear path fouls as shooting fouls, so the offensive team gets free throws even if the defense wasn't in the penalty? Since it's taking away a near automatic basket, maybe the offensive team should even be allowed to choose who shoots them?

Another option would be to basically consider this a form of goaltending and count the bucket. But giving a team an opportunity for a 4 point play on something other than a flagrant just seems a little too generous.

Am I alone on this?

Clear path layups/dunks are visually exciting plays and can pump up a team/crowd. The clear path foul rules say "Don't be the ####### who messes with our entertaining product." NBA rules (see the continuation rule) make more sense to me when they're about an entertaining product, than about fairness and logic.

Even with choosing the free throw shooter, or even an automatic bucket, this would result more clear path fouls.

3 free throws?

Okay, I will get on board with your guys' deletion of the "no play on the ball" charge in exchange for this: a defender can attack the ball as aggressively as he wants without getting a flagrant, except for strikes to the head.

This is not a negotiation. Although I think this is technically how the rule already is.

Yes. So long as the player is playing the ball, he can go as hard as he wants, and any foul committed while playing the ball is just a regular defensive foul. At least, that's what the book says.

I don't like that Noah trade proposal for a lot of reasons, but aesthetics is one of them. The Bulls are the perfect team for Noah. Okay, he'd work on the Celtics too.

#1430 - I get that, I just don't really see why the defenders position should matter. If someone hacks a guy at the basket to prevent a layup or dunk, they're still stopping an automatic score just as easily as if they'd done it at the start of a one-on-none fastbreak.

Though I guess there's still more excitement about a guy getting hacked at the basket than at halfcourt, plus the opportunity for a 3 point play. So maybe I just answered my own question. Still seems like a weird rule to me, though.

On the Bulls' end, he seems like exactly the wrong type of guard to put next to Rose.

Agree with this. The idea of Richard Hamilton was good, it just turns out he's a bit too far past his prime. I admittedly didn't watch the Kings much this year, but isn't Evans just a (much?) worse Rose?

I'm blah on talk of rules changes. I'm apparently in the minority in thinking that flopping is not a big deal at all, nor do I think there is much wrong with the offensive foul/blocking foul rules. I think the refs get the call wrong too frequently, but that has nothing to do with the rules.

If I had to change something, I'd get rid of the stupid "was he inside/outside the circle" rule. An offensive foul should be an offensive foul, no matter where it happens.

If someone hacks a guy at the basket to prevent a layup or dunk, they're still stopping an automatic score just as easily as if they'd done it at the start of a one-on-none fastbreak.

But the guy in front of him at the basket _could have_ made a defensive play in some ideal world to stop the score. He just didn't, and instead committed a foul.

In the clear path case, there's no possibility of a defensive stop. That difference is what makes the rule less weird for me.

I think you're trying to factor in defensive player intent, and viewed from that angle, I can see how it looks weird.

I think you're trying to factor in defensive player intent, and viewed from that angle, I can see how it looks weird.

Kinda. My main gripe about it is that an opportunity for a 4 or even 5 point possession is just too big a penalty for taking away 2. It's like if goaltending counted the basket and gave the shooters team possession again. Goaltending/clear path fouls really seem like similar violations to me.

But I think you're right that it's mainly a matter of entertainment/aesthetics rather than logic/fairness. And I can understand that.

My solution to the clear path foul is to... not call a foul. More precisely I would love to see the NBA with hockey-style delayed penalties or maybe soccer-style no-calls when the team with the ball has the advantage. I think anything that cuts down on fouls = unnecessary stoppages produces a better game (these would also change the annoying late-game foulathons). Sure, both of these would increase offense a ton, but I don't know that this is a bad thing.

[1438] Isn't that the intent of the "continuation"? If you take away the free throw from the top-of-the-key contact, aren't you encouraging more contact like that?

I agree with your overall intent. I've just never seen it as a big problem in basketball. The Westbrook super-continuation from the Spurs series is the most recent example I can think of.

I feel like I've seen a lot of late whistles in the NBA, too, after a player fails to make the shot. Isn't that basically the same thing, just not codified?

NBA rules (see the continuation rule) make more sense to me when they're about an entertaining product, than about fairness and logic.

Well said.

I admittedly didn't watch the Kings much this year, but isn't Evans just a (much?) worse Rose?

Evans is in a very strange place now, and I think people are having a hard time discerning what Sacramento wants to do with him. He had a star-like rookie season, then regressed for two years in a row. Does that mean you trade him now with the thought of his star potential still in teams' minds and before he disintegrates altogether, or do you wait to try to let him rebuild some of his value? The situation is complicated by the self-defeating logic- if the Kings (who see him up close more than anyone) want to trade him, doesn't that imply that the most knowledgeable observers do not find him to be redeemable? And if so, why would the other team want to take him on? I guess that means that his value is inherently too low unless there is additional proof that the other team regards their ability to (re)develop him as better than Sacramento's ability to make him fit in.

Even the way he got into this position is strange. He spent 2010 as the star of a team that looked like it might have some promise. They drafted Cousins, and as he started to look like a nice complement in 2011, Evans suffered through foot injuries that cost him time and effectiveness. All was supposed to be well in 2012, but he remained less than 100% and regressed further as a true PG. The fact that the team just invested money in Marcus Thornton to be the starting 2 exacerbated the problem, as did the fact that Cousins emerged as the centerpiece of the offense- and if Evans is anything he is a centerpiece-type player.

By the end of the year, he was starting at the SF with Isaiah Thomas and Thornton in the back court. I think that was the move that made observers think Sacto was ready to give up on him. So much of his high ceiling comes from his ability to play PG, and if they don't want to work with him on that, they are artificially capping his potential. Conversely, I read today that Geoff Petrie has been working with him individually in the offseason and is trying to refocus him on development. That is not what one would expect from a team that is trying to unload a once-useful asset.

My belief is that the price for Evans is so low right now (Noah is not a bargain. I don't know if Sacto should trade the 5th pick alone for him) that the value you would think may attach to his stellar debut is lower than the probability that he rehabilitates his reputation and/or finds success in Sacto. Still, they need a plan for him.

Edit: I guess the short version is this: there is a lot of "stuff" going on with Evans- the position "stuff," the injury "stuff," the fit with Cousins "stuff," the development "stuff," the coaching "stuff," the value/perception "stuff." I'd rather wait to let some of the "stuff" sort out before doing anything rash.

Yes. So long as the player is playing the ball, he can go as hard as he wants, and any foul committed while playing the ball is just a regular defensive foul. At least, that's what the book says.

OK, but don't we see flagrants called for fouls that are "too hard?" When I've asked here why teams don't attack the ball hard enough that Lebron and Wade have no possibility of scoring when they get to the basket, I was told they would get flagrants for this. Maybe I'm mistaken here.

I would snap-trade the No. 5 pick for Noah, probably even the No. 2. That's assuming Noah is fine.

OK, but don't we see flagrants called for fouls that are "too hard?"

Well, sure, but at some point it's just a total judgement call. For example, right now guys are getting into the lane and defenders literally wrap them up with their arms in a hug — and that's considered a "play on the ball" or a "basketball play" and not a flagrant. When that happens, it's completely subjective on how that's called, and it's perhaps akin to the pornography / "I know it when I see it" rule.

The whole thing's just a mess. I, for one, have no useful suggestions on how to clean it up.

I would snap-trade the No. 5 pick for Noah, probably even the No. 2. That's assuming Noah is fine.

If you're the Kings? He would probably be great for more than half of the teams in the league. The Kings even need better interior defense, but they're so bad that I don't think it would be wise to pay star money for a guy with a very limited offensive game, especially considering his recent injury history. I guess the counter-argument would be that they don't spend money on anyone, so one big contract is not going to get in the way.

I guess the short version is this: there is a lot of "stuff" going on with Evans- the position "stuff," the injury "stuff," the fit with Cousins "stuff," the development "stuff," the coaching "stuff," the value/perception "stuff." I'd rather wait to let some of the "stuff" sort out before doing anything rash.

Sacto's "stuff" is what's lowering Evans' value for them. If I were, 20 other teams, I'd be asking them what they'd want for him because his future is probably better than every non-Davis prospect in this year's draft. Especially for teams that need a SG and/or have a PG, take the playmaking responsibilities away from Evans and just let him be a scorer.

LOL, Stern in all his glory.

Stern's such a douche.

Stern's such a douche.

To be fair, so is the guy he's talking to in that excerpt.

LOL, Stern in all his glory.

Solid gold.

I don't see Noah as a guy who's limited offensively. He does a lot of good things on offense that would really help teams that have high-usage stars.

I think Evans should probably play SF.

Rome has always been an idiot. What kind of answer did he expect? "Why yes, Jim, it is rigged, as a matter of fact. Has been for decades. Is that a problem?" Duh.

Still, Stern is obviously very sick of hearing questions like this. Couldn't he end all the conspiracy theories simply by making the drawings more public?

Edit: I don't think the lottery is rigged, in case my first paragraph made it sound otherwise.

If you have insider, you can read the thought process. Short term, he's the PG with Rose out. When Rose is back, he's a secondary ball handler/scoring option. He has the size/ability to be a good defender, if anyone can get that out of him maybe it's Thibs. The pick going to the Bulls implies Noah has more value, which considering contracts I'm not 100% convinced is true (and if it were, why would I want Evans?).

Cousins/Noah is a damn good 4/5 offensive/defensive pairing and it clears up some of the logjam the Kings have in the backcourt. There's also an argument that maybe they don't need yet another young guy, and for all his douchery on the court Noah is seen as a positive clubhouse/character guy/teammate that doesn't need touches that the Kings could use.

Couldn't he end all the conspiracy theories simply by making the drawings more public?

Why does it have to be public? As Stern points out, every team has a rep, there's 4 media people, and it's independently verified by E&Y. They make money off the show and reveal, so because a bunch of morons that don't understand how it works they should change the process?

Evans can't really shoot 3's at all. Put him next to Rose and Deng and you've got very little range on the floor.

Was the kid with the Matt Bonner head carving discussed here?

Why does it have to be public? As Stern points out, every team has a rep, there's 4 media people, and it's independently verified by E&Y. They make money off the show and reveal, so because a bunch of morons that don't understand how it works they should change the process?

If he's really that sick of the conspiracy talk (and it seems pretty clear from the interview that he is), sure. And they could still make just as much money off it if it was public and televised.

Rome has always been an idiot. What kind of answer did he expect? "Why yes, Jim, it is rigged, as a matter of fact. Has been for decades. Is that a problem?" Duh.

He's the commissioner of the NBA. These rumors have been around since YEAR ONE of the lottery. It doesn't matter how public or how certified the lottery process is, the perception that the fix is in exists, and he's gotta have a better answer than what he's been giving lately.

And the last of Stern's comments is classic Stern. He just thinks he's smarter and better than everyone else.

It doesn't matter how public or how certified the lottery process is, he's gotta have a better answer than what he's been giving lately.

If someone provides a legitimate question in good faith and based on substance, yes, he should have a better response. Jim Rome has no interest in that. He asked an empty, inflammatory question, to which he knew what the response would be, simply for entertainment.

If someone provides a legitimate question in good faith and based on substance, yes, he should have a better response. Jim Rome has no interest in that. He asked an empty, inflammatory question, to which he knew what the response would be, simply for entertainment.

In fact, considering that the answer is now a story, it's an even better answer than Rome could have hoped to get (short of an admission of guilt).

If someone provides a legitimate question in good faith and based on substance, yes, he should have a better response. Jim Rome has no interest in that. He asked an empty, inflammatory question, to which he knew what the response would be, simply for entertainment.

Jim Rome is not a mystery! Everyone knows what his act is! If David Stern deigns to go on the Rome show, then he's got to know what kind of questions might be headed his way. You can't say, "Oh, gosh, I was surprised that Rome would poke the bear!" Stern's been on jock-talk radio more times than you can count, and he knows this is what they do. Getting into a pissing contest with a talk show host on his own show is just spectacularly stupid, and Stern sounded like a grand jerk (which he is anyways).

Jim Rome is not a mystery! Everyone knows what his act is! If David Stern deigns to go on the Rome show, then he's got to know what kind of questions might be headed his way. You can't say, "Oh, gosh, I was surprised that Rome would poke the bear!" Stern's been on jock-talk radio more times than you can count, and he knows this is what they do. Getting into a pissing contest with a talk show host on his own show is just spectacularly stupid, and Stern sounded like a grand jerk (which he is anyways).

Who said he was surprised? He went on Rome's show knowing who Rome is, and gave a non-response to non-question. And why is it spectacularly stupid? They probably laughed about it over the commercial break. It's publicity for him and for Rome. Meanwhile, here we are, talking about it.

Who said he was surprised? He went on Rome's show knowing who Rome is, and gave a non-response to non-question.

He didn't give a "non-response" so much as went on the attack — "shame on you for asking," as if Rome was the first and only person to have that thought cross their minds. And if you listen to the audio, you can hear Rome actually step back from it, but Stern. "You do these things for cheap thrills." "Cheap tricks." "I gotta go call somebody important." This is pretty much what he sounds like whenever he gets challenged in an interview: he belittles the question, he belittles the questioner, and then he puffs himself up.

Meanwhile, here we are, talking about it.

I'm just venting because I hate Stern. Every time he opens his mouth, it's to lie about something. He screwed players and fans alike with the lockout, and then he crapped all over the Lakers for good measure. Man, I really hate that guy.

Hombre, did you dislike Stern this much before the CP3 veto? Just wondering...

I've always had a love/hate relationship with him. He seems to have a really inconsistent attitude when it comes to addressing problems and possible changes. I like the way that he's listened to people's complaints about flopping or competitive balance, for example, and he seems legitimately interested in tinkering with the status quo to address these concerns and create a better product.

But mention the lottery or the officiating and he basically has a "Things are perfect the way they are, go f**k yourself" attitude.

So while I stand by my belief that Rome was being a d!ck, I do agree with you that Stern could help his own image by not being so defensive about issues that irk him (as mentioned when we were talking about the ref issue a page or two back). He's had to have been asked these questions many, many times before. He should've come up with a better answer by now.

Hombre, did you dislike Stern this much before the CP3 veto? Just wondering...

It's not the veto, it's the lying about the reasoning that made it personally hate-worthy for me. Before that, I always thought he was a smug two-faced weasel. He implemented the cap system; I think it's handicapped the league. He uses the power of the fine as a weapon to shut players and coaches up even when (and especially when) they're voicing truth. He's constantly crying about the league losing money to anyone who will listen, and literally everyone knows he's lying; the constant lotto-fix controversies speak to how little trust Stern has earned with the players and the general public. He became commissioner when Bird and Magic were on the rise and Jordan, Hakeem, and Barkley came into the league, and while it was those players who brought NBA to prime time, Stern sucks up the credit like a Dyson.

Short answer: I found him a loathsome creature before, but in a more remote way.

The Twitter-verse, I see, is flipping out about Stern's "beating your wife" comment. Why?

Yes, DV is a very bad thing - but isn't that, plus the no-win answer, the point of Stern's response?

Agree E'GS'J. It's the most unremarkable comment ever. I mean, you are literally taught that category of questioning in journalism school. It is amazingly well known. And it only makes sense if you assume that beating your wife is a terrible thing to do! Stern may be a jackass but that remark is the definition of no big deal

Why?

Because of his position. Stern is the sports equivalent of a big-time national pol--Obama, Romney, Boehner, Biden et al. If one of them said that, they would take some crap as well, even though it is a common expression. Also, Stern taking some crap on Twitter for running his mouth a little is not that big of a deal, either--any more than the comment is. He should have been smarter and given Rome a polite, vanilla answer, or, knowing the kind of guy Rome is, not spoken to him at all.

Thanks to all for the informed discussion on the flopping issue I asked about. It's appreciated, especially since I'm only a casual observer of the NBA and don't really understand what I'm watching.

Don't worry Ray, I don't think I'll ever quite grasp the technical aspects of basketball, particularly the foul calls.

Baudib: It's kind of funny watching as someone who doesn't watch a lot. (I used to watch 20 years ago at the tail end of Bird's career, but since then I've stuck mainly to the playoffs. But I love watching the playoffs.) I don't fully grasp the travel rule, so I there are multiple times a game where I'm like "Travel!!" and no whistle is blown and nobody remarks on it, so everyone understands there was no travel except for me.

----

As to the on-air clips of the coaches in the huddles -- fine, yeah, that was kind of stupid of me to think they'd air actual strategy (though it still seems like someone could gain an illegal advantage from this if they wanted).

I will say that I rarely bother watching coaches/managers being interviewed anymore. Such as Girardi's regular radio spot. They're so guarded that they'll rarely say anything worth listening to for fear that it will upset a player or give an opponent an advantage. Interviewing coaches or managers in-game seems just pointless.

As to the on-air clips of the coaches in the huddles -- fine, yeah, that was kind of stupid of me to think they'd air actual strategy (though it still seems like someone could gain an illegal advantage from this if they wanted).

Ray,

From the SI Vault:

The fact that Game 7 occurred on the Boston Garden parquet, beneath those 13 championship banners, before a manic 15,320 fans—that fact can be traced to chicanery, to the CBS eye-spy caper Fitch pulled in the Celtic-Sixer regular-season game on March 1 in Boston. That day Fitch got himself ejected and spent the rest of the game in the locker room, gleefully watching each time CBS trained its camera on Cunningham's clipboard and then sending perfect defensive instructions via messenger to his bench. It was conceded that Fitch's covert intelligence won that game.

I don't fully grasp the travel rule, so I there are multiple times a game where I'm like "Travel!!" and no whistle is blown and nobody remarks on it, so everyone understands there was no travel except for me.

As has been noted in this thread, players regularly travel all the time. It occurs to me that this happens as well, because even I recognize that someone takes extra steps. But it never gets called. But this is the No. 1 complaint I hear from guys older than me (or my age) about why they hate the NBA. But I remember my dad saying the same thing about Dr. J.

So you're probably right, but this has pretty much become an accepted part of the game.

But this is the No. 1 complaint I hear from guys older than me (or my age) about why they hate the NBA. But I remember my dad saying the same thing about Dr. J.

Correct. When I watch 'ball with my old man, exact same deal: "He walked." He doesn't really say it as much, anymore, though--since they never call it.

He didn't give a "non-response" so much as went on the attack — "shame on you for asking," as if Rome was the first and only person to have that thought cross their minds. And if you listen to the audio, you can hear Rome actually step back from it, but Stern. "You do these things for cheap thrills." "Cheap tricks." "I gotta go call somebody important." This is pretty much what he sounds like whenever he gets challenged in an interview: he belittles the question, he belittles the questioner, and then he puffs himself up.

That's not being challenged. Being challenged would be if a respected media member like Wojnarowski probed the lottery issue by asking questions in good faith--questions he genuinely wanted to know the answer to, and to enlighten his audience. Rome's question was the equivalent of the "beating your wife" question. He had absolutely no interest in learning something, or in enlightening his audience. The sole purpose is to make the person look bad or generate a controversy for publicity. It's the same M.O. as Bill O'Reilly or any of these media blowhards.

As has been noted in this thread, players regularly travel all the time. It occurs to me that this happens as well, because even I recognize that someone takes extra steps. But it never gets called.

Really? This may be true, of course. But what I notice a lot is a friend or fellow viewer at a bar saying, "Oh, he obviously traveled," and then watching a reply that shows said player (LeBron, Pierce, Wade, Manu, Rose, etc.) simply being extremely smart about the timing of his dribbles and/or his jump steps and so on, and actually covering quite a bit of ground with two steps.

Really? This may be true, of course. But what I notice a lot is a friend or fellow viewer at a bar saying, "Oh, he obviously traveled," and then watching a reply that shows said player (LeBron, Pierce, Wade, Manu, Rose, etc.) simply being extremely smart about the timing of his dribbles and/or his jump steps and so on, and actually covering quite a bit of ground with two steps.

Samesies. I especially notice it with guys who utilize the Eurostep.

Anyone else watch the Dream Team documentary? It was pretty great. My wife hates basketball, and she sat and watched the whole thing with me and enjoyed it as well.

Am I wrong about the rule, or should all hop steps technically be called travels?

There's nothing wrong enough in the NBA right now to threaten my interest, but I would like to see them try and eliminate flopping, change the charge rule as already discussed here, and if possible, reduce referee bias (mostly favoring the home team, but to a lesser extent star calls as well -- not sure how possible either is due to human nature, plus star players probably do deserve benefit of doubt in 50-50 calls and the league has a greater incentive to protect them).

Am I wrong about the rule, or should all hop steps technically be called travels?

I feel like the travel rule was either recently updated or clarified to make it clear that the hop step is legal, but I'm not sure.

i just heard the back/forth between stern and rome

i think rome is a putz so i am clearly biased in favor of stern.

i think stern cleaned his clock including a kick in the stomach while rome was laying on the ground moaning

so that was a bit unseemly

but overall i have no issue

but then i am a jerk myself so.....

I don't think Stern comes off as an #######, but he does come off as completely unprepared. He has to expect questions like that from Rome.

No love for Stern or his utterly corrupt sham of a sport, but someone with access to gasoline & a match should've made "Rome is Burning" an actual fact years ago.

So has Stern ever given any indication about how long he plans to stick around, anyway? Does anyone have the authority to fire a commissioner?

Anyone else watch the Dream Team documentary? It was pretty great. My wife hates basketball, and she sat and watched the whole thing with me and enjoyed it as well.

Yeah, I loved it. Favorite parts:

-- Barkley talking about drinking with Bird, in particular his comment about Budweiser
-- Really, everything about Barkley
-- John Stockton's experience getting off the bus in a traffic jam and walking La Rambla with his family
-- The shots of Jordan hanging out around the city on the morning of the gold medal game
-- Everyone being in awe of Jordan's energy - play 36 hols of golf, play a game, stay up all night playing cards, and be fresh for the next day somehow
-- Seeing how well Chuck Daly handled Jordan
-- Learning a bit more about Daly's strategy for the College All-Star games

Finally - would the NBA please release (or even sell!) the video of the Monte Carlo scrimmages? I would pay like $50 for those.

Anyone else watch the Dream Team documentary? It was pretty great. My wife hates basketball, and she sat and watched the whole thing with me and enjoyed it as well.

I missed it. :(

Is it over, or is it a mini-series that's going to have a few more episodes?

Is it over, or is it a mini-series that's going to have a few more episodes?

It's over, but I'm sure some internet sleuthing would turn it up in no time - not to mention I am guessing NBA TV will re-run it in the coming days.

NBA TV will re-run it

If I know NBA TV, then they will re-run it about 9000 times.

LOL, Stern in all his glory.

'That's a clown question, bro'.

I was flipping between "Dream Team" and the Braves/Yankees last night. The part with Stockton meeting the woman with the USA Basketball T-shirt was pretty cool. David Robinson seems like a cool guy. Ewing talking about traveling with his wife around the nude beach is funny in post-Gold Club retrospect. I was underwhelmed by the footage of the famous scrimmage.

As has been noted in this thread, players regularly travel all the time. It occurs to me that this happens as well, because even I recognize that someone takes extra steps. But it never gets called.

I could be wrong, but I see it more before the guy makes his move. Durant (or whoever) will catch the ball outside, and kind of shuffle their feet so they're facing the basket before they put the ball on the floor.

I could be wrong, but I see it more before the guy makes his move. Durant (or whoever) will catch the ball outside, and kind of shuffle their feet so they're facing the basket before they put the ball on the floor.

The worst offender is Corey Maggette. I think there's a Youtube video of him shuffling his feet before a move, essentially taking 8 steps during the possession.

Maybe it started back when Jordan and Dominique were getting running starts before take-offs. The Shaq bunny hop into the paint was always a travel, but was never called. Between that and Lebron's crab dribble, the traditional travel call is basically dead, and probably has been for 25 years. I think what's changed more is palming/over-the-top dribbling. They didn't call it, and now guys basically pick up the ball and run.

Rome's question was the equivalent of the "beating your wife" question. He had absolutely no interest in learning something, or in enlightening his audience. The sole purpose is to make the person look bad or generate a controversy for publicity.

And the way you handle that, like RR said, is to give the most vanilla of answers. The fix rumors have been around for nearly 30 years. Like I said before, Stern's lied so much, so much, about so many things so baldly that there's no reason to take his protestations of honesty seriously.

Look at it this way: if so many people still think the draft fix is in after nearly 30 years, then the commissioner's done a terrible job with it. Going on radio and being a defensive bully about it doesn't change that.

Look at it this way: if so many people still think the draft fix is in after nearly 30 years, then the commissioner's done a terrible job with it. Going on radio and being a defensive bully about it doesn't change that.

That's exactly what I think about Stern and the ref issues. Simply telling everyone to shut up or he'll fine them is completely the wrong way to go about quieting the complaints, IMO.

Exactly. And since he can't fine Rome or the legion of writers who still bring up the draft fix conspiracy theories, he just tries to shout them down. He's really smart and very articulate, so people often don't notice just how douche his actions are, but if you pay attention, you'll notice that he's almost always a douche.

Exactly. And since he can't fine Rome or the legion of writers who still bring up the draft fix conspiracy theories, he just tries to shout them down. He's really smart and very articulate, so people often don't notice just how douche his actions are, but if you pay attention, you'll notice that he's almost always a douche.

Whether you think he's a douche is irrelevant to the proper way to handle questions about the draft lottery. You're conflating your feelings about him with practical analysis of his actions.

Anyone else watch the Dream Team documentary? It was pretty great. My wife hates basketball, and she sat and watched the whole thing with me and enjoyed it as well.

Yes, it was awesome!

SPOILER ALERT:

Joe C points out some of the great parts. Things that made me laugh out loud:

1. Barkley, on concerns at the time about whether Daly could handle all the egos: "He coached the Bad Boys. If you can coach those ########, you can coach anybody."
2. Jordan playing golf (36 holes?) in the morning on game days! And David Robinson, saying Jordan persuaded him to go with him and how exhausted he was in the game that day.

I have a bunch of questions/thoughts about stuff, like that first scrimmage with the college players, if anyone wants to discuss.

Whether you think he's a douche is irrelevant to the proper way to handle questions about the draft lottery. You're conflating your feelings about him with practical analysis of his actions.

That's not true. I wrote about how his handling of the questions was douchey all on its own. That it fit into a career pattern of douchiness is tangentially relevant. That I hate him for his douchiness is irrelevant, but given the first two points, my feelings are not unreasonable.

RE: Dream Team

A bunch of the Dream Teamers have been on the radio the last few days doing interviews related to the documentary. It's awesome that even after they've all been retired for so many years, none of them are willing to give ground still. Malone and Barkley still consider themselves the superior power forward. Chris Mullin will only concede that Jordan was better than him, and Clyde Drexler wouldn't even do that much.

I have a bunch of questions/thoughts about stuff, like that first scrimmage with the college players, if anyone wants to discuss.

This was not in the interview (it may have been on Open Court or maybe it was just Barkley talking) but I've heard some of the Dream Teamers acknowledge that they were pretty hung over before that first scrimmage with the college guys.

This was not in the interview (it may have been on Open Court or maybe it was just Barkley talking) but I've heard some of the Dream Teamers acknowledge that they were pretty hung over before that first scrimmage with the college guys.

That makes a lot of sense. I thought the theory put forth in the doc (that Daly essentially threw the game so that they'd lose and he'd have a "you guys can lose!" card to play as a motivating tool) was pretty interesting, too, even if not 100% of the story.

"DREAM TEAM" SPOILER:

That makes a lot of sense. I thought the theory put forth in the doc (that Daly essentially threw the game so that they'd lose and he'd have a "you guys can lose!" card to play as a motivating tool) was pretty interesting, too, even if not 100% of the story.

Yeah, I thought Krzyzewski was full of #### there. He was talking about how Daly didn't make any adjustments, and Jordan didn't play much? Gimme a break. I'm sorry, if Stockton and Pippen are getting carved up by Bobby Hurley, they aren't supposed to need Daly to tell them what to do.

I'm sorry, if Stockton and Pippen are getting carved up by Bobby Hurley, they aren't supposed to need Daly to tell them what to do.

I remember the anecdote at the time of Barkley telling Hurley that he had made himself a lot of money by playing so well against the Dreamers. He was a lottery pick, but Hurley didn't show much in his (brief) NBA career before that truck accident.