A little NBA
For most of us a little NBA goes a long way, right?
Well, here’s a little NBA in digestible bits. And for you Intern Scott, I’ll type slooooowwwwllllyyyyyyyy.
First, the TV numbers, and while there is a lot of politicizing about the impact of social justice and political commentary from the league and its players, the numbers are pretty clear to a couple of irrefutable points on each side.
First, the good, and the playoff TV numbers are up big compared to the bubble experiment of last summer. Through eight games, the first eight games of the playoffs are averaging 2.89 million viewers, which is up 49% percent from the first eight games of the bubble travesty on a Monday/Tuesday last August. The numbers are up the tiniest of smidgens from 2019, when the first eight games averaged 2.85 million viewers.
As for the bad, the playoff TV numbers are up ever-so-slightly compared to 2019 and that’s starting on a weekend with two prime ABC slots. It also must reflect that the 2019 playoffs were without LeBron and the Lakers in the draw, no Knicks team in the bracket and a 2019 Nets team led by D’Angelo Russell. This year’s three highest-rated series-opening games were LeBron-Suns, which averaged 4.43 million on ABC, and the two teams based in the nation’s biggest media market as the Nets Big 3-Celtics averaged 3.82 million on ABC and the Knicks-Hawks averaged 3 million on TNT.
OK, let’s keep moving.
NBA gambling note: OK, suppose someone had the under 211 for the Lakers-Suns on Tuesday night. And suppose they went to bed around halftime because a 10 p.m. Eastern start is pretty late, especially when you need to be done with your heavy lifting by 9:30 a.m. And suppose the score was 105-96 with less than 15 seconds left. What would you suppose the odds were that the teams would combine for 10 points in the final 14.3 seconds to push the 211 total? Now calculate those odds with the knowledge that neither team made a shot from the field. That’s right, 10 free throws – a perfect 10-for-10 for that matter – in 14.3 seconds, because not all bad beats actually wind up in beats.
(Side note: Speaking of NBA betting, let’s have a little fun tonight. After sweeping the over/unders earlier this week, we’re back down to minus-1.5 units. Let’s go Wizards-76ers over 230, Utah money line and Knicks minus-2 – sorry Mader – in a three-team parlay that pays +336 for a unit.)
As for the action Tuesday night, and I watched a fair amount of it actually, here are three quick thoughts:
> The NBA is not going to let LeBron and the Lakers lose to Phoenix. Period, end of story. In fact, this story is as old as Air Jordans, and the NBA, because it is marketed on the names on the back of the jersey rather than the front, need King James and AD way more than CPIII, Devin Booker (who is excellent by the way) or DeAndre Ayton , who has filled the Greg Oden void as the oldest-looking 22-year-old on the planet. Forget a fake ID, Ayton could get into AARP with a photo ID.
> The Nets are going to be a handful. For everyone. That’s just too much firepower, and even when Kyrie goes batty and the Beard gets tangled, the simple truth is Kevin Durant is a 7-foot, 2-guard who can effortlessly score against everyone. Dude popped 26 last night and didn’t break a sweat.
> Luka is the truth, and while it will not be this year, Dallas No. 77 will be the best player on an NBA championship team sooner rather than later. Book that.
Questionable interview
We had a point and a question about the Eugene Chung coaching interview on Tuesday.
(Side note: You guys and gals have been an engaging bunch. Well done. Side note on the side note: Most of my commenting time as school winds down and summer activities pick up is around meal time. I will certainly check in around the lunchtime whistle and before I get started on dinner. Side note on the side note on the side note: Do I need to bring back some recent recipes I am trying? Yesterday, I made Double-Vanilla French Toast for breakfast and one-pan chicken and cheese quesadillas with a jalapeño ranch drizzle. Interested?)
Where were we? Oh yes, the Chung interview where he told the Boston Globe that a team interviewing the former Philadelphia Eagles O-Line coach said the Korean-American was “not the right minority.”
First, I am in no way shape or form surprised by this. We have raced 12 ways from Tuesday to add diversity, and that’s a good thing in the arching sense of the pursuit, but far more often – whether we’re talking about exposing discriminatory hiring practices or pointing out racially motivated crimes – the focus point has started and too often ended on how it impacts Black Americans.
(Side note: Chas noted the increase in attacks on minorities, and his point is supported by facts. The most recent analysis I saw was from the BBC from last November. The FBI numbers showed that hate motivated murders in 2019 more than doubled to 51, a number that was inflated by the El Paso Walmart shooting in August 2018 that was aimed at Mexican-American. The FBI stats showed there were 7,314 hate crimes in 2019, the most since 2008, with a couple of eye-popping realizations. First, let’s offer the ever-needed caveat. All crimes out of hate are terrible. As for the numbers, well, does it surprise you that hate crimes because of religious beliefs rose 7% and crimes against Jews rose 14%? Anti-Latino hate crime went up 8.7% including the murders in El Paso. There were more hate crimes against Blacks than any minority – almost half of all cases – but that number dropped from 2018.) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968498
The NFL’s outrage, if I am being honest, is that this got out more than this happened. Because, while the noble goals of the Rooney Rule have been undercut by token interviews when Gruden or an Urban Meyer are coveted candidates, it had long been viewed – especially publicly – as an attempt to get more Black candidates interviewed and qualified than an attempt to contact minority candidates.
And in truth, the Chung thing hardly surprises me.
Side note: I’ve heard a story about a guy who tried to get a sports reporter’s job at a major daily newspaper many moons ago. Dude was white, and the interviewer was very complimentary of his presentation and writing samples before ending the interview with this: “If you were an African American, I would hire you right now, and if you were an African American female, I couldn’t afford you.”
So there’s that. It also covers the hidden truth about Chung’s scenario too.
When the primary goal of any job search is only for diversity – especially when the goal is to check a very specific box – the hiring process is going to be discriminatory by definition from the start.