Hunting The Muse

Re: the NBA and Ron Artest...are you saying what he did is a direct consequence of the NBA's policies? Or of the game he plays? The NBA has fined and cited Artest repeatedly for unsportsman-like conduct. And now he's been suspended without pay.

From CNN:
All the suspensions are without pay. Artest will lose approximately $5 million in salary, while O'Neal's suspension will cost him nearly 25 percent of his $14.8 million salary for the current season.

How does this mesh with your assertion that the NBA condones such behavior. And where the NBA has ever praised his actions? Can you point to the quotes?

As for the fans -- I'm not a sports fan myself -- they should also be held to account. There's been too many incidents like this in several different sports events in the US over the last few years. It's getting ridiculous, not to mention disturbing. Have a look at Bruce Jenkin's commentary for the SF Chronicle about this last incident. It speaks to the point I think you're trying to get at, the so-called "culture of sports" and the need for change, but does that without demonizing it.

Re Matthew Shephard and "20/20"...Christ, ABC News has finally sold its soul. It's a blatant hatchet piece of revisionism. And I'm with you. Obviously no one at ABC News has ever seen Errol Morris' "The Thin Blue Line."

Re...the vote counting, etc. I take it you've been following Bev Harris' work on this at http://www.blackboxvoting.org/? I couldn't remember whether you'd commented on that.

Re Thanksgiving...I think I know what you mean about "structured gratitude." I feel the same way about Christmas. And I like Christmas. And you know what the problem is with spontaneous festivities? Everyone else's dietary restrictions. ;)

When you're talking about a culture - and I would call the team, player, and owner dynamics of the NBA a culture - you can never call a particular outcome a direct consequence of any one thing, save it being from that culture.

And of course I can't point to direct quotes from the NBA condoning behavior that they deem as unsportsmanlike. The point is you don't need those quotes, when their standards of sportsmanship are, in my opinion, arbitrary. Right after the brawl they had one of Artest's former coaches on, from high school or college, and he was talking about how he really like Artest because he was one of the most "intense" and "intensely competitive" players he had ever coached, and he meant that as a compliment. Then he talked right after that about being sad about his behavior on a night like the night of the brawl. With Artest's history before the brawl, it's clear that he never really started out as a gentleman competitor.

They're talking out of both sides of their mouths. They defend posturing and bravado and trash-talking as honorable qualities, they call it "competitiveness". When maybe they need to take a closer look at what sort of "competitiveness" they are celebrating here.

So yes, I do think that the NBA needs to take responsibility for how they contribute to the culture, not just Artest and the fans. NOT by putting a courtside wall up or removing courtside seats, but by reminding themselves of the need to be able to have families with kids at courtside. I like that they suspended Artest, but they also need to look in the mirror.

The article says that Artest has a history of "lame expressions of innocence" - not taking responsibility, it always being someone else's fault. I don't want the NBA to be guilty of the same thing.

regarding blackboxvoting... yeah, I've been following it, but it confuses me. Their announcements deserve less credibility than I would have given them before the election... the ratio of histrionics to hard evidence is higher than I'm comfortable with. But I also do think some really messed up things happened.

How does one man's misguided praise (the first descriptor that came to my mind was a bit more rude) represent an entire organization? What was the context? Was he praising Artest as an athlete? Or was he praising for jumping into the stands and attacking people? You've made assertions about this story without citing evidence. It just doesn't look like a solid argument when you put it that way. The least you could do is point to the quote you're talking about.

Re blackboxvoting...I think that, time and energy permitting, a lot more of us should be following it. Whether there was a deliberate attempt at voter fraud in this election, there's more than enough evidence to call for tighter standards and a more transparent system.

I'm expressing an opinion about NBA culture, they're not provable statements that require evidence. It can be a worthwhile point without citations. I don't know why you're hung up on that.

Look at the NFL. It's the most physical sport out of the four major American sports. It has less brawls than the NBA, NHL, and maybe even MLB. Yes, maybe some of it has to do with the fact that they play less often, but their penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct are very stiff - a change in field position can change the outcome of a game. They even have a taunting penalty which is used fairly liberally. If you get ejected, it's for a significant portion of the season. You almost never see a player actually come on to the field from the sidelines to join a shoving match.

It just seems like the NBA used to be more on that level. I am not sure when it shifted, maybe when the Pistons played the Celtics in the finals. But there's a lot of things the NBA could do. Take away five points for flagrant fouls. Give team fouls (and free throws) if the other side trash-talks. Taking away points might be better than awarding free throws, because then the team would focus on themselves, not the guy who made the free throws. Or take someone off the court so the team is one-man down for a period of time, like the penalty box in hockey. NBA is not supposed to be a violent game, and they can do more to penalize the things that lead to violence.

Another way of looking at it - in the NFL, personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are not scene as defensible parts of the game. They are screwups by the team and everyone accepts it, and everyone knows it. Now, compare that to a pitcher hitting a batter in baseball - that, especially in the old days, was also a penalty, but it was very much seen as part of the game. Sending a message. Pitcher getting his frustrations out. It would be condemned, wink wink, nudge nudge, but it also was part of the lore of the pitcher in question. It was almost condoned by implication.

Leaving aside the completely flagrant fouls in the NBA, where do "hard fouls" fit on that spectrum? I think they're pretty clearly on the hit-batter side. Sure, you get a foul, but you take it like a man. You're given six of them per game, and they were probably going to score on that possession anyway. And those hard fouls are almost never an accident. So there's less reason - based out of self-interest - to avoid those things that can lead to the violence that corrupts the game.

The NFL has had its problems along those lines, too. Lyle Alzado. Mark Gastineau for taunting. This season, Terrell Owens probably qualifies - too much showboating that is designed to humiliate others. It affects the culture of the game in a negative sense. But it's not embedded into the game the way it is in the NBA right now.

All this is separate from the issue about the leagues relating to the fans It seems like fans have just gotten more aggressive somehow, and I'm not sure why. It might just be the way the narrative is being structured, though. Maybe there's always two or three weird things going on every year...

I'm expressing an opinion about NBA culture, they're not provable statements that require evidence. It can be a worthwhile point without citations. I don't know why you're hung up on that.

I just don't like it when several different contexts get squished together, treated as one, or treated as fact. If there is merit to one opinion or another, I'd rather test a hypothesis than assume all my favorites have already been proven.

I don't follow sports much, so I never heard anyone in the NBA equating competitiveness with beating people up. Maybe it should be. Then it wouldn't be taken so damn lightly. We shouldn't wait until a player thumps a fan or nearly kills an opponent before we start wondering if there's a problem.

And yeah, weird stuff like this happens a couple of times a year, for several years now. It's on the rise and it's scaring people. Homing in on fouls and such leads one to miss the overall. It's not just a sports culture problem. It's an American culture problem. If people obsess about fouls or unnecessary celebration, they're missing the point.That's why I'm hung up about it. It comes off as PC, not genuinely informed concern. You don't cure a cold with cough drops.

I figured, being as I'm the sports fan in our household, I should take a minute to weigh in here. I will stipulate right off, however, that the NBA is not one of the sports I follow closely. Never could quite get into it; I don't know why.

Re: an opinion about the NBA culture not being provable and not requiring evidence. If one is going to express an opinion in the course of making an argument, there should at least be something to support it. I believe it was one of my bosses who often said, "Argue from facts."

One of the mailing lists I belong to is about professional sumo, a subject about which there are many, diverse and very passionately held opinions. Arguments are commonplace -- there's one going on right now, in fact, regarding whether ozeki Kaio deserves promotion to yokozuna rank or not. (Which, given the nature of Ozumo, is very much a question of culture.) The participants on both sides are well-armed with evidence to back up their opinions.

I have to believe that if we're going to argue about the NBA, it should be the same.

All that being said ...

I would agree that the NBA should take a serious look at the escalating level of violence within the game. I can't speak to the idea that they have condoned violent behavior (or things like trash talking that can lead to violent behavior) in the past, because I don't follow the sport enough to know.

I do believe, however, that the way the NBA treated the Artest brawl suggests at least the attempt to be even handed about it, and not hypocritical. Artest was severely penalized. Others who got into the fight were penalized. A couple of players who left the bench during the initial on court brawl were penalized. Notably, one person who was *not* penalized was Rasheed Wallace, who actually attempted to break up some of the fights. (And Wallace in the past has certainly gotten his share of penalties for bad behavior. Didn't he average something like one technical a game when he was playing for Portland?)

At this point, I think there's a disconnect. I am not really seeing your points. You're both saying that I'm "making an argument" and not backing it up with evidence. I was actually expressing an opinion and exploring why I felt that way. It's not necessary to back up an opinion with facts and citations, and if I don't, it can still be a valid viewpoint. Sure, argue from facts when you're making a legal case or trying to change someone's point of view, but it's not the only way to make an argument, and it's not always necessary, especially when half the time I'm just sharing what I'm thinking. I wasn't even trying to make an argument at the beginning; I was just weighing in with my own point of view, and then attempting to clarify it before stuff started coming up about the "right" way to make an argument.

It's probably faster to just ask me to clarify my point rather than criticize me for not supplying supporting quotations or whatever. I don't think my intended point even required such things. Part of the problem is that I think there was an assumption I was making a point that I wasn't:

Are you saying what he did is a direct consequence of the NBA's policies? Well no, I'm not.

Or of the game he plays? No, I'm not.

The NBA has fined and cited Artest repeatedly for unsportsman-like conduct. I'm aware of that, but it's irrelevant to my point. From what I understand, the penalties were for things like flagrant fouls.

How does this mesh with your assertion that the NBA condones such behavior. If you mean the NBA condoning the actual infractions, I didn't make that assertion.

And where the NBA has ever praised his actions? I didn't say they praised the things he's been suspended/fined for.

Can you point to the quotes? (Irrelevant since I didn't say they existed.)

Kind of turned into a debate dynamic. Rhetorical questions, straw men... (maybe unintentional, so that's okay)

Anyway, here's my point, hopefully more clearly. Hard fouls and trash-talking and taunting and other things of that sort are related to potential violence, because their intent is to get under the skin of opposing players. That's my opinion. I phrase that as a given because it's a moral belief of mine, and I'm not interested in backing it up with evidence. If you disagree with that opinion, then I'm comfortable letting this go. But after that given is the more relevant part of my point. I believe that this culture of "potential violence" is common on the courts, and is getting more prevalent. Maybe it has to do with higher salaries, the growing sense of entitlement among the players, I don't know. Could be a lot of things. But, the teams and coaches do not condemn this behavior and they accept it as part of the game. They'll condemn the *results* of it, which is good, but not the stuff that leads to it. (Heck, if there are flagrant fouls in a game, properly penalized, it's even common for players to allude to retribution the next time they play. I've seen that more often than I've seen moral outcry in reaction.) And, at least by omission, the NBA accepts this as well. But these dynamics make violence more likely. As far as I'm concerned, that's a truism. If the intent is to get under someone's skin, then it shouldn't be a shock if it works sometimes. Yes, these players are responsible for their choices, but it's also not that simple. My point was that the NBA accepts these violent dynamics right up until where they ignite and explode, after which they only blame the players.

There's this belief that it's okay as long as it doesn't go "over the line", which I believe is just asking for trouble, since the interest is in getting as close to the line as possible without going over.

So yes, I find that hypocritical. That's my opinion. Treats symptoms rather than underlying causes. That's a pet peeve of mine. It's good to treat the symptoms. It was good to suspend Artest. But you can't stop there. You have to work to address the underlying causes. You have to work to change the on-court dynamics. I don't think suspending the players in this particular altercation is enough. Players will react to the suspension and watch their behavior for a while, but it won't last. And frankly, I think going further would also contribute positively to the atmosphere with the fans, because it would send the "enough is enough" message. If a sport has too permissive of an attitude about potential violence, it sends the wrong message to the fans. You think that fan would have thrown the drink if those hard fouls and on-court shoving matches hadn't started? I don't.

If I understand what you're saying, you never intended your comments in the initial posting as anything other than an expression of opinion for the reader to take or leave as he or she pleased. Got it. Perhaps I've been engaging in discussions of politics too much for too long.

Given that, I apologize for any criticism I leveled at you, and any offense thus caused.

You think that fan would have thrown the drink if those hard fouls and on-court shoving matches hadn't started? I don't.
I don't know. I think he might have. He might have gotten mad with the way the game was going, or if Artest had chosen to go sprawl out on the scorer's table for no particular reason. And that's what's really scary.

I agree with Joe's remark above that "It's not just a sports culture problem. It's an American culture problem." I believe this culture is increasingly turning toward using force as a means to solve problems or resolve disputes. I find that extremely depressing.

The above being my opinion, please take what you like and leave the rest.

Funny, because that actually does take me back to politics. If you've got an administration that chooses force earlier than as a last result, then it means there's a more permissive attitude about using force in general. ah well. Just a thought.