A Brief Defense Of David Stern

Over at Battle of Alberta -- was it only a year ago that I was there seemingly every day of the week -- Matt Fenwick has a very thought-provoking post on why he believes that the NHL's system of supplementary discipline is superior to the NBA's.

In the main, Matt is entirely correct. He notes that while plenty of folks might take issue with Colin Campbell's decisions...

I think Colin Campbell could be better at his job, but I wouldn't want it myself, and don't envy him. If there's two things I hope readers take away, these are them:

1. It is just and proper that NHL supplementary discipline is evaluated case-by-case and takes everything into account: the act, the injury (if any), the situation. While the NHL VP's best judgement seems crappy sometimes, the alternatives are worse.

2. Next time you're reacting to a light suspension for a dangerous hit, and are tempted to say, "It shouldn't matter that the guy wasn't injured", ask yourself if you honestly believe that (say) paralyzing someone isn't grounds for more severe punishment.

Which leads us to NBA Commissioner David Stern, who handed out a pair of one game suspensions to Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns because they left the bench in the wake of a body check that Robert Horry laid on Steve Nash during Game Four of the NBA Playoff series between the Suns and the San Antonio Spurs. Horry, nothing more than a role player who can still hit an open three at this point in his career, will sit for two games.

This isn't the first time Stern has laid down the law like this, as I can remember feeling a lot of the same righteous indignation 10 years ago when he suspended seemingly half of the New York Knicks during a similar playoff incident involving the Miami Heat.

But if Stern seems inflexible, hewing so closely to the letter of the law that it seems the concept of justice in this case has been bent like a pretzel, it's only because justice for the players isn't an end in itself when it comes to the NBA.

What is paramount, however, is the best interest of the league as a whole. Don't forget, Stern has been around the game for a very long while, and can easily recall the bad old days of rampant drug public drug abuse and on-court violence -- factors that combined to exile the NBA Finals to late night tape delay on CBS until as late as 1981.

Stern knows what that world looks like, knows what the NBA has become, and he's not going to let it go one step backward. My guess is that in his mind, administering some rough and unforgiving justice to players who merely dare to leave the bench will make it that much more less likely that a bench clearing brawl of the type that nearly killed Rudy Tomjanovich in 1977 will ever happen again.

So yes, the decision is unfair to Stoudemire, Diaw and their teammates. It's unfair to the Suns, their fans, and every fan of the game of basketball who was hoping to be able to watch an exciting and competitive series. But whether or not the Spurs go on to win the series, the NBA will go on being the massive international cash machine that it is, and this incident will go down in history as nothing more than another footnote in Stern's tenure, justice be damned.

One thing Stern knows for sure: Any video zipping around the world of a group of predominantly African-American men brawling on a basketball court will be judged harshly and unjustly by the league's sponsors.

So, in a way, Stern is committing a minor injustice today in order to avoid seeing the league's sponsors and advertisers inflict a greater injustice upon the NBA and all of its players tomorrow.

When you look at it that way, it's a little easier to see why Stern is probably sleeping easy tonight.

Thanks to J.P. for the pointer to Matt's BOA post.

Eric 12:08 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/7521

Comments

Post a comment