There was just a little segment on ESPN showing video of Jerry West defending LeBron James and the criticism he's been receiving for what looks soon to be five losses in seven NBA finals appearances.
West said that it is ridiculous and extolled the virtues of James as a do everything, competitive as hell, Swiss Army knife.

Stephen A. Smith then said that this made complete sense for West to be defending LeBron not only because he currently works for the Warriors, but also because West was a loser in eight of nine Finals appearances. He then continued to point out that West wasn't even the best player on many of his finals teams and seem to indicate that his defense of the LeBron as a finals loser was merely a defense of himself and his own record. I was like, wow, talk about disrespecting the logo!

To which, Smith then added that Michael Jordan, who won six out of six finals appearances, should replace West is the NBA logo.

This follows Smith talking a week or two about the Michael Wilborn article in the Washington Post which discussed the fact that there are so few black head coaches in the NBA. I was amazed at the discourse. I did not read that article, but Smith was trying to sell the fact that in the game analytics is being used to keep black people out of control, because they don't do that as well as white people. I'm not kidding.

Now, I'm not denying the fact that there are few blocks at the top of NBA organizations. And I would not speak to silence criticism of that point. But to suggest that teams are developing new ways to try and put winning player and tactic combinations on the court merely as a way of keeping black people out of the coaching and general manager ranks seems utterly ludicrous to me. Talk about viewing things through a racial lens. Wow.

Back to the logo.
9 appearances is better than 6.
And Russell's 11 of 12 in 13 pro seasons tops them both, by far.
Maybe Smith is doubly mixed up.

concordtom;842698582 said:

---

.......This follows Smith talking a week or two about the Michael Wilborn article in the Washington Post which discussed the fact that there are so few black head coaches in the NBA. I was amazed at the discourse. I did not read that article, but Smith was trying to sell the fact that in the game analytics is being used to keep black people out of control, because they don't do that as well as white people. I'm not kidding........

---

Do you have quotes on that? I'd love to hear exactly how Smith phrased it. I can't believe he'd say anything to the effect, "Black folks don't do analytics as well as white folks" - which would be a blatantly racist statement.

Russell and West played in a small league. Only 9 total teams in the mid 60s before it expanded to 17 by early 70s. Just isn't that meaningful to make it to the finals when you only had to beat a couple of teams and there was no parity.

Not saying they weren't great players but really hard to compare that era to today's players and league.

If you want to base it on success Bill Russell should be the logo
He won more championships than West, Kareem, Bird, et al
Just have to change logo to bill grabbing rebound or blocking shot

BearlyLegal;842698791 said:

---

If you want to base it on success Bill Russell should be the logo
He won more championships than West, Kareem, Bird, et al
Just have to change logo to bill grabbing rebound or blocking shot

---

+1

Nice add, bealzebear.
What is the last one?
Dude drop his soap in the shower?

Also.... I wouldn't mind a Kareem skyhook logo. That is a classic. Mainly though, just leave it alone. My point was, seems the only reason Smith wanted to change it was to make it a black man, any black man -his only agenda.
Well, the league IS 75% black.

Wow.
It's racism week with Stephen A. on First Take.
Today he is saying that many in the black community don't think Klay and Steph can't be taken as all-time greats because (perception) because they are light-skinned (and to continue that theme, he goes on, are good looking and don't have tattoos).
My god, what if they were actually completely caucasian? Then Stephen wouldn't even be able to touch the subject. This is nuts.
Definitely interesting commentary, but who else is able to speak like this on a national forum? Any politician or actor or businessman does this and s/he just gets creamed! Politically incorrect. If a white man dares, career over!!

He mentioned Spike Lee movie that addresses black community interpretations of light skinned black vs dark skinned blacks. I'll have to watch to understand why it even matters. Cause my take is mainly if we could just stop talking about it, it might just fade away.

There's one thing you need to understand in all of this. Stephen A. Smith is an idiot. The racial composition of the NBA's top levels of management and ownership is a topic that deserves discussion, but Stephen A. won't be bringing much to the table except something he thinks will get himself attention.

concordtom;842698582 said:

---

There was just a little segment on ESPN showing video of Jerry West defending LeBron James and the criticism he's been receiving for what looks soon to be five losses in seven NBA finals appearances.
West said that it is ridiculous and extolled the virtues of James as a do everything, competitive as hell, Swiss Army knife.

Stephen A. Smith then said that this made complete sense for West to be defending LeBron not only because he currently works for the Warriors, but also because West was a loser in eight of nine Finals appearances. He then continued to point out that West wasn't even the best player on many of his finals teams and seem to indicate that his defense of the LeBron as a finals loser was merely a defense of himself and his own record. I was like, wow, talk about disrespecting the logo!

To which, Smith then added that Michael Jordan, who won six out of six finals appearances, should replace West is the NBA logo.

This follows Smith talking a week or two about the Michael Wilborn article in the Washington Post which discussed the fact that there are so few black head coaches in the NBA. I was amazed at the discourse. I did not read that article, but Smith was trying to sell the fact that in the game analytics is being used to keep black people out of control, because they don't do that as well as white people. I'm not kidding.

Now, I'm not denying the fact that there are few blocks at the top of NBA organizations. And I would not speak to silence criticism of that point. But to suggest that teams are developing new ways to try and put winning player and tactic combinations on the court merely as a way of keeping black people out of the coaching and general manager ranks seems utterly ludicrous to me. Talk about viewing things through a racial lens. Wow.

Back to the logo.
9 appearances is better than 6.
And Russell's 11 of 12 in 13 pro seasons tops them both, by far.
Maybe Smith is doubly mixed up.

---

Or you could argue that the talent is way more diluted in the league today and even though you have beat a couple more teams to get there, those teams aren't as good. Both arguments are too simplistic.

Unit2Sucks;842698788 said:

---

Russell and West played in a small league. Only 9 total teams in the mid 60s before it expanded to 17 by early 70s. Just isn't that meaningful to make it to the finals when you only had to beat a couple of teams and there was no parity.

Not saying they weren't great players but really hard to compare that era to today's players and league.

---

Oh wow. Skip bayless is leaving espn for (fox?). His last show will be the day after the NBA finals wrap up.

bluesaxe;842698915 said:

---

Or you could argue that the talent is way more diluted in the league today and even though you have beat a couple more teams to get there, those teams aren't as good. Both arguments are too simplistic.

---

I'd argue that while there are 3x as many teams, there's probably 10x the levels of talent. So, pretty much any team today would beat any team from the pre-showtime lakers. that was the first great team, no? Or do you think the Russell celtics could compete these days?

Wilbon may be my favorite reporter and Stephen A. my least favorite . His middle initial is A. for a reason .

BGGB2;842698777 said:

---

Do you have quotes on that? I'd love to hear exactly how Smith phrased it. I can't believe he'd say anything to the effect, "Black folks don't do analytics as well as white folks" - which would be a blatantly racist statement.

---

https://theundefeated.com/features/mission-impossible-african-americans-analytics/

I believe he meant Wilbon's article in The Undefeated, but perhaps Wilbon doubled down.

bluesaxe;842698913 said:

---

There's one thing you need to understand in all of this. Stephen A. Smith is an idiot. The racial composition of the NBA's top levels of management and ownership is a topic that deserves discussion, but Stephen A. won't be bringing much to the table except something he thinks will get himself attention.

---

Bingo!! Generally, I recommend avoiding talking heads (sports, news, weather) who yell at the camera. This used to reflect Fox news, now it seems to apply to all national news and sports broadcasting.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. The Celtics literally only had to play 2 playoff series per year (because they played in a 4 team conference where 3 teams made the playoffs with the top team receiving a bye). There was almost no basketball infrastructure in this country so how were players being developed into NBA level players? I think any D1 team in basketball now would have been competitive in the NBA back then. The game has advanced so far in 50 years. And that's without even getting into demographics (access by minorities and foreigners for example) which has greatly expanded the talent pool.

bluesaxe;842698915 said:

---

Or you could argue that the talent is way more diluted in the league today and even though you have beat a couple more teams to get there, those teams aren't as good. Both arguments are too simplistic.

---

Unit2Sucks;842698963 said:

---

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face..... I think any D1 team in basketball now would have been competitive in the NBA back then [1950s].

---

Wow!

If you can write what you have here with a straight face, you certainly are not familiar with 1950s NBA.

south bender;842699066 said:

---

Wow!

If you can write what you have here with a straight face, you certainly are not familiar with 1950s NBA.

---

The game was played below the rim and Bill Russell at 6'9" was one of the 4 tallest players in the league. I think in today's NBA he would be listed more like 6'11" because they list heights with shoes now but the point remains there wasn't as much height in the league. He also only weighed like 225lbs. And we are talking about far and away the best player in the league, well together with Wilt they towered athletically over the league. The league wasn't stacked with players of that caliber. I do think today's D1 programs could hang in the 60's NBA. I also think it those old teams played in this era they would have better training and technique and would be much better. People back then could not shoot with today's players. For what it's worth I didn't mean by competitive that any D1 team nowadays would win the title every year just that they wouldn't embarrass themselves. Think 25% not 75%.

Looking at the numbers, the average field goal percentage was low 40's and each team averaged high 30's in free throw attempts per game with probably 20+ turnovers per game. They didn't keep TO stats back them but by the time they did the average was over 20 and has been in a gradual decline over 40 years. Not indicative of high level play across the league. People couldnt shoot or maintain possession and a lot of the scoring came from free throws. Scoring was super high because they had so many possessions.

I'll just look at economics to support that argument, Unit2.
In the 50's, many (if not all) pro athletes had off-season jobs to help support themselves.
Today, there is so much money chasing players that kids at age 12 that show promise are preparing for pro-sports millions (whether reasonable assumption/odds or not). By a economists' perspective, this is going to bring better athletes into the league.

Absolutely true, SB, I have NEVER watched a 1950's era basketball game.
I have no doubt that the competitions were JUST as exciting, as it's not so much the overall level of talent that we love, but the human element story lines and relative talent (between competitors) that creates the drama we love so much.

concordtom;842698582 said:

---

There was just a little segment on ESPN showing video of Jerry West defending LeBron James and the criticism he's been receiving for what looks soon to be five losses in seven NBA finals appearances.
West said that it is ridiculous and extolled the virtues of James as a do everything, competitive as hell, Swiss Army knife.

Stephen A. Smith then said that this made complete sense for West to be defending LeBron not only because he currently works for the Warriors, but also because West was a loser in eight of nine Finals appearances. He then continued to point out that West wasn't even the best player on many of his finals teams and seem to indicate that his defense of the LeBron as a finals loser was merely a defense of himself and his own record. I was like, wow, talk about disrespecting the logo!

To which, Smith then added that Michael Jordan, who won six out of six finals appearances, should replace West is the NBA logo.

This follows Smith talking a week or two about the Michael Wilborn article in the Washington Post which discussed the fact that there are so few black head coaches in the NBA. I was amazed at the discourse. I did not read that article, but Smith was trying to sell the fact that in the game analytics is being used to keep black people out of control, because they don't do that as well as white people. I'm not kidding.

Now, I'm not denying the fact that there are few blocks at the top of NBA organizations. And I would not speak to silence criticism of that point. But to suggest that teams are developing new ways to try and put winning player and tactic combinations on the court merely as a way of keeping black people out of the coaching and general manager ranks seems utterly ludicrous to me. Talk about viewing things through a racial lens. Wow.

Back to the logo.
9 appearances is better than 6.
And Russell's 11 of 12 in 13 pro seasons tops them both, by far.
Maybe Smith is doubly mixed up.

---

The fact that he can be on TV spewing his racist garbage without being fired tells you all you need to know about how far the political correctness has gotten out of control in America. The double standard is ridiculous.

Probably because I think the comparison of different teams from different eras is a waste of time. Are you going to give the old players today's training? Make today's players play in canvas shoes on shitty floors that don't bounce true?

As for the Celts' road to titles, at least at the end of their long run in the 60's they were playing three series, not two. As for the idea of any D1 team being competitive, I am guessing you never actually saw any of these guys play. The Celtics beat a Lakers team with Wilt, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor in '69. Wilt would be a No. 1 pick in the NBA draft now. Talk all you want about the rest of it, but that statement is a joke.

Unit2Sucks;842698963 said:

---

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. The Celtics literally only had to play 2 playoff series per year (because they played in a 4 team conference where 3 teams made the playoffs with the top team receiving a bye). There was almost no basketball infrastructure in this country so how were players being developed into NBA level players? I think any D1 team in basketball now would have been competitive in the NBA back then. The game has advanced so far in 50 years. And that's without even getting into demographics (access by minorities and foreigners for example) which has greatly expanded the talent pool.

---

bluesaxe;842699273 said:

---

Probably because I think the comparison of different teams from different eras is a waste of time. Are you going to give the old players today's training? Make today's players play in canvas shoes on shitty floors that don't bounce true?

As for the Celts' road to titles, at least at the end of their long run in the 60's they were playing three series, not two. As for the idea of any D1 team being competitive, I am guessing you never actually saw any of these guys play. The Celtics beat a Lakers team with Wilt, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor in '69. Wilt would be a No. 1 pick in the NBA draft now. Talk all you want about the rest of it, but that statement is a joke.

---

Excellent.

BGGB2;842698777 said:

---

Do you have quotes on that? I'd love to hear exactly how Smith phrased it. I can't believe he'd say anything to the effect, "Black folks don't do analytics as well as white folks" - which would be a blatantly racist statement.

---

Here is Stephen A.'s rant that I was alluding to:
[video=youtube;5PS3f1JJxEw][/video]


[INDENT]"people don't understand what analytics is doing - it's literally ostracizing african americans from getting job opportunities - there's no other way to slice that. you don't hear brothers from discussing analytics."
[/INDENT]
He says black people talk about the sport via the eye test, heart, etc. - it's "old school", and white guys like Bird view the game that way. But now there is a new language common today

[INDENT]"they introduce this analytics stuff today, and they convey this stuff in a way, usually with numbers, and this is a language that the billionaire speaks to.... that's the language that the owners love to hear. So all of a sudden you get that guy and you make him president of basketball operations or GM, and if you are that GM, who do you hire? You hire guys that speak that language, who you like to hang out with and drink together and talk about these things, and it's never us. And then suddenly, you're outside and you're never in."

[/INDENT]He then talks about black coaches who are not getting hired, including Mark Jackson who gift wrapped the Warriors success for Steve Kerr....

[INDENT]"At the rate we're going, don't be surprised if 10% of coaches are black. They are becoming an endangered species. You ALWAYS need black assistants, but 'we will do the leading'."
[/INDENT]

Later, Smith goes on:
[INDENT][SIZE=4]"In the eyes of the black community, we view it as far more incendiary. We view it as just another mechanism to justify keeping us out of these opportunities."[/SIZE]

"Black dudes are being weeded out of potential coaching opportunities, and in their eyes, they believe that folks are hiding behind analytics to justify it, and I don't know if that's factual, but I do know that the transactions that have taken place do not lie."
[/INDENT]

Okay, so he's not exactly saying that HE believes (though he does say "we") analytics is weeding black people out, but he's repeating what others have said to him, and echoes it so strongly he appears to believe it, too. He appears to want black players (70% of the league) to rise up and complain about not having enough blacks in management positions. He harkened back to the Cleveland Jim Brown-Ali-Alcindor-etc meetings in the 60's. Of course, that would not be surprising nor would I think odd. It was the fact that he seemed to think that white owners are now trying to use a new language merely as an excuse to not include black people that I took odds with.

[INDENT]"It FEELS like it's the latest mechanism to ostracize blacks from getting these jobs in a league that is 70% black. That's the bottom line."[/INDENT]

Here is Wilbon's original piece, which I still have not yet read. (I was wrong, it's not in the Washington Post. TheUndefeated is a new espn site that focuses on the black perspective):
https://theundefeated.com/features/mission-impossible-african-americans-analytics/

In searching for the article, I found this critique of it, by a black journalist, who apparently thought the initial argument (that blacks are no good at math and that this fact is being used against them in a hidden way so as to exclude them) was bunk.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/may/25/sports-analytics-african-americans-michael-wilbon-article

At the end of the day, however, I think we can all agree that America continues to allow for a greater degree of freedom and success opportunities for African Americans and that this trend will only continue. And that's a very good thing!

How about this wrap-it-in-a-bow conclusion: Jaylen Brown can certainly do math. According to Shocky, he's going to get an initial 3 or 4 year deal worth $10M, and save himself up to $400,000 in "agent commission" by serving as his own agent. Must be a Cal thing to know how to do basic math, eh? Wilbon and Smith apparently did not attend Cal.
See you in the C-suite, Jaylen! :p
(no joke in that!)

He is a loud mouth ignorant fool.

His words mean nothing to anyone with a lick of common sense

He is not respected at all

A TV personality no more

Yup

If I were trying to get into the basketball management business I'd make damn sure I knew about whatever it was that NBA owner's valued...whatever color I was. You may believe basketball analysis is bunk and the 'eye test' is what really matters but swimming against the current won't get you far no matter what color you are. Play the game if you want to move up in any business. Full disclosure: I never wanted to manage anyone and never did, preferring to sit in the back and program computers. I thought many of my upper-managers were sell-outs but they did make an awful lot more money than I did and they never did seem unhappy. So there's that.

you guys actually listen to Smith? go ahead and listen to his rants on Phil Jackson drafting Porzingis.

the only thing he does is talk loudly

These are all good questions. I think the 60's teams would be better today because they would have modern training techniques and equipment. I think more important than better shoes is that they would have had better coaches and actually practiced and played against well coached players. The game was very different back then.

Another question for those 50's/60's teams in the modern era is whether they would be allowed to have an unlimited number of black players since back then there were quotas. Until some point in the 60's there was an unofficial quota of 4 black players per team.

I don't know why it would be surprising to people that we have made significant advances since the 60's in basketball. It was a relatively new sport and wasn't as widely played as it is today. Here's a video from 1962 game 7 between Celtics and Lakers - do you think either of these teams would have won the pac-12 playing this way today:

bluesaxe;842699273 said:

---

Probably because I think the comparison of different teams from different eras is a waste of time. Are you going to give the old players today's training? Make today's players play in canvas shoes on shitty floors that don't bounce true?

As for the Celts' road to titles, at least at the end of their long run in the 60's they were playing three series, not two. As for the idea of any D1 team being competitive, I am guessing you never actually saw any of these guys play. The Celtics beat a Lakers team with Wilt, Jerry West, and Elgin Baylor in '69. Wilt would be a No. 1 pick in the NBA draft now. Talk all you want about the rest of it, but that statement is a joke.

---

going4roses;842699296 said:

---

He is a loud mouth ignorant fool.

His words mean nothing to anyone with a lick of common sense

He is not respected at all

A TV personality no more

---

So basically the Shocky of sports media, yes.

SFBearz;842699350 said:

---

So basically the Shocky of sports media, yes.

---

Everyone has an opinion indeed but

Let's stay on message

This board certainly isn't showing Steven A. Smith any love. Is this common beyond our little corner of sportsland? Is he generally beloved in wider circles? Does he have a huge fan base that forces Disney to keep him on the air?

BeachedBear;842699435 said:

---

This board certainly isn't showing Steven A. Smith any love. Is this common beyond our little corner of sportsland? Is he generally beloved in wider circles? Does he have a huge fan base that forces Disney to keep him on the air?

---

He's replaced the void left by Colin Cowherd.

Honestly I have no idea how he's on air, and why increasingly you'll see articles based around SAS's views on certain topics and other news stories. Which drives me bananas. To me it looks like ESPN has made a concerted effort to raise the profile of this shock-jock sports writer over the past 3-6 months and it completely confuses me... I turn off or change the radio/TV station every time he is on or his name is mentioned. Used to do that a fair amount with Colin, but never as a matter of fact.

Rxrg09b;842699447 said:

---

To me it looks like ESPN has made a concerted effort to raise the profile of this shock-jock sports writer over the past 3-6 months and it completely confuses me...

---

I think it's because Skip Bayless is leaving ESPN. Skip, btw, is the only person next to whom SAS is actually a reasonable sports commentator. Skip is so bad he makes SAS look good.

going4roses;842699394 said:

---

Everyone has an opinion indeed but

Let's stay on message

---

Um, this -entire- thread has nothing to do with Cal bball.