NBA Blogs

When Ray Allen skipped talking to the media and immediately bolted the Staples Center following Game 5, the Celtics explained it was because he had to deal with "a health issue with one of his children," declining to get into specifics out of respect for Allen's family.

Somehow, word eventually "leaked" via sports talk radio that Allen left because his daughter Tierra, a high school freshman, was hospitalized due to diabetes. The blog The Lakers Nation heard the report and posted the news, which in turn helped spread the word around the internet.

As it happens, the report was false -- as Allen clarified yesterday, it was his 17-month old son Walker who was hospitalized due to diabetes, though as you can see in the photo, he's since been released and was able to attend last night's game.

If blogs did not exist, I guarantee you 99% fewer folks would have read Jemele Hill's Saturday ESPN column, which argued that cheering "for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It's like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan."

Hill's statement -- which ESPN quickly edited out of the article -- can best be classified as incoherent and stupid. Incoherent, because both analogies display a poor understanding of history (anyone who cares know that it doesn't matter who pushes the nuclear button first). Stupid, because jokes about Nazis or nuclear holocausts are usually ill-advised. If you're going to attempt either, it's best to bring your A-game. If you don't have an A-game, just keep your mouth shut.

(B-game writers like Hill can console themselves with the knowledge that society is much more tolerant of folks who make bad jokes about their own heritage. The 'Hitler Rug' above comes from a Jewish Museum. I don't slap my knees when I see it, but I would imagine that members of the Jewish faith have a different take on it than I do.)

ESPN and Hill apologized for the mistake today. That's nice, but I think the time has come to move Hill out of the "thoughtful" category reserved for capable columnists and slot her in the "desperate" category reserved for writers trying to shock people into noticing them.

I say this because Hill seems to enjoy the attention that follows making outrageous statements. That's the only way conceivable that she could have argued that Pistons-Spurs would be a better matchup for the NBA.

Bad columnists fall prey to homerism all the time, and Hill is no exception. But it doesn't take a history degree to figure out that sloppy writing and sensitive issues are a horrible combination. If a columnist can't see that, they're probably not worth your time.

UPDATE: Hill has been suspended.

You know how occasionally, someone in the mainstream media gets all angry about something irresponsible that may have been written by a blogger? Well, if those types would read their own blogs -- especially the one about the Celtics which runs on the Boston Globe's website -- they might just find that the level of reporting is far below their self-proclaimed high and mighty standards.

The headline of a post that went up shortly after the game screams, "Pierce's status for Game 2 uncertain." So what's wrong with that? I mean, the guy was carted off the floor on a wheelchair, so it's safe to assume he might not be ready for Game 2, right? Wrong. Because there was almost nothing of substance to back up a headline that would surely send Celtics' fans into cardiac arrest first thing in the morning.

The only thing that's used as supporting evidence for this ridiculous assertion is the following quote from Pierce, which, by the way, is the very last line of the post. Pierce's response to the question of whether or not he'll be ready for Game 2:

"We'll see," he said. "I mean, it's in pain. I was able to get through tonight. I don't know if it was off adrenaline or what, but got through it."

That's it. "We'll see" all of a sudden means, "OMG! Pierce might not play in Game 2?!" Please.

You would think that Buzz Bissinger and Nik Richie (theDirty.com, not pictured) ending up on the same radio program, Bill Littlefield's outstanding Only a Game on NPR, would result in the world's first airwave strangulation. Surprisingly, the short interview went pretty well.

There were only a few seconds of real tension in the interview (about 4:24) when Richie attempted to point out the Dirty's "Gossip Disclaimer" as it related to his accusations of Kobe Bryant's infidelity, and the Bissinger starts to go off and mentions "Leitch" again.

But more to the point, since America is clearly tired of talking about Buzz, what really stood out for me was a disturbing statement that Richie made relating to blogger stereotypes.

I'm not really an investigative journalist. I'm just a blogger.

That is a problematic statement. First of all, again, blogging is a medium. "Being a blogger" does not necessarily force one to be a sarcastic gossip/rumor monger. Nor does it preclude one from actually being an investigative journalist.

Richie can say "my blog doesn't deal with journalism" and I would be fine with that, but to perpetuate the stereotype that bloggers do not care about actually being journalists simply because "they blog" is a silly, outdated copout. It is also the primary reason why -- dying medium aside -- newspaper writers dislike bloggers.

I'm not asking Nik Richie to stop doing what he is doing. Blogs and journalism do not have to go hand in hand. But just don't use the "Hey man, I'm just a blogger!" line. Blogs really aren't -- as Buzz pointed out -- "as counterculture as you think", and embracing the anti-journalism stereotype certainly will not help dissipate the notion that a certain medium lacks standards or reasonable perspectives on sports and society.

ESPN the Magazine is taking a decidedly different approach to this whole Laura Lane-Vanessa Bryant potty-mouthed semi-soap opera than some people probably thought they would. The Worldwide Leader is actually embracing Ms. Lane's decision to write about her encounter with Ms. Bryant on her personal blog.

This is a good thing. Corporations tend to freak out when people with any insider knowledge discuss the company. (As a freelancer, Lane's not really an insider. But again, corporations often shoot first and question later in these cases.)

So, credit to the ESPN powers that be who kept their cool here. But the company gets significantly less credit for the vague and somewhat hypocritical manner in which it lays the blame in this instance. The root of the problem: They still don't seem to really understand how blogs work.

No NBA player uses less discretion on his blog than Gilbert Arenas -- Agent Zero sounds off on anything and everything on his official NBA.com blog, ripping fellow players for rejecting big contracts, ripping fellow players for not making their teammates better, talking about suicidal thoughts stemming from his struggle with injury. He's a very honest fellow, and the NBA has been lauded by fans for its rather open policy with regard to Gil.

But not everything is fair game. In a brief interview with the Sacramento Bee, Arenas says the NBA has censored him a few times, and that the league "filters" the entries before they go live.

I did a steroids one, about, "How can you not think (Roger) Clemens is on steroids?" And, "He looks like an Escalade truck." They took that out. They took a Michael Vick thing out. But other than that, whatever goes on, they've already filtered through it.

If the league filters Gil and still lets him get away with some of the stuff he blogs, they deserve more respect than we already give them. They get it.

Sports By Brooks makes a fabulous point in a post about the Miami Herald's Barry Jackson this morning. Jackson, you might remember, penned the piece which got Bob Costas's face onto hundreds of basement blogger dartboards earlier this spring. A major part of Jackson's angle: Bloggers and the like aren't accountable, as they often write anonymously.

Brooks points out Jackson's recent usage of anonymous sources cited for the sole reason of bashing Shaquille O'Neal. Here's the relevant passage from Jackson's Sunday column.

Among words used by Heat people to describe Shaquille O'Neal, who lashed out at the team last week: ''a phony,'' a ''big baby'' and unprintable expletives.

Anonymous sources have their place in sportswriting -- trade rumors would be relegated solely to the realm of Sam Smith's imagination without them, and we'd never get contract details (important in this day of luxury tax consciousness) if reporters didn't publish the info without citing the agents who surely leak it.

But using "people" as a descriptor for folks who just want to bash a former player? In this instance, Jackson isn't a reporter -- he's a mouthpiece for some cowardly (but probably honest and completely correct) folks. Columnists stand by their name when they rip players and coaches. When players rip their own, they should be held accountable as well. And in this case, the only person who can hold them accountable is the writer. Don't blame the "sources"; blame Jackson for letting them get away with it.

As you are no doubt well aware of by now, Mark Cuban recently banned bloggers from the Dallas home locker room. ESPN blogger Henry Abbott and Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Kamenetzky tested the policy Tuesday night. From Abbott's TrueHoop:

I asked the PR staff as soon as I got here if I would be allowed in, so there were no surprises. But as it happened, I had to go through the same door later to talk to a Mavericks staffer. And a security guard took a look at my credential, and said, very nicely, "you know you're banned, right?" ...

I had heard that before the game tonight they had to distribute lists with the names of the bloggers. And this poor dude was the one stuck with the embarrassing task of enforcing this goofy ban.

And as I was small talking to the guy, another staffer -- blogger alert! -- rushed over to ask the security guard if everything was OK.

Let us take a trip to the other end of the spectrum, shall we? Indy Cornrows, a Pacers fan blog written by a dude with a full-time job and two kids, has been invited to repost its game recaps on Pacers.com this season. (Some examples.) Cornrows let the team's web guy know he'd be attending the recent Knicks game. The team gave him a media credential and invited him to (ready?) the locker room for post-game interviews, which Cornrows then uploaded for fans to hear.

This is not the first time Cuban is the NBA's vocal minority, but it may be one of his more egregious misjudgments (Erick Dampier notwithstanding).

Bob Costas, a week after demonizing the state of online sports punditry, called up Deadspin's Will Leitch to clarify. While his efforts to clear the air will be commended (as they should be), I find myself still a bit unsatisfied.

Here is Costas's most clear explanation of his point:

"My commentary was aimed solely at a portion of Internet sports discourse, an unfortunately large portion, that consists of nothing more than potshots, ad hominem arguments, ignorance and invective. ...

I was absolutely not saying that most or all bloggers were losers. It just seems so often that commenters use insults in the place of arguments. ... But forgive me for not placing the exact same value on an comment on a political blog that I would to something said by Ted Koppel."

Sure, we'll all agree a lot of "Internet sports discourse" sucks. But guess what? A lot of television sports discourse sucks. And a lot of radio sports discourse sucks. And, surprising as it may seem to someone raised on the medium, a lot of print sports discourse sucks.

Costas admits his stances can be (at least partly) attributed to "a generational thing." And that'd be OK. But before you go branding a new generation "losers" and "idiots," you should probably understand what you're talking about. Costas, by lumping the wholeness of sports blogs in with lowest-common-denominator commenters on some random newspaper website, clearly does not. We don't lump Costas in with Bret Michaels and Flavor Flav, after all.

A few days after the dust settled on his decision to ban bloggers from the Mavericks locker room, Mark Cuban again piped up (on his blog) to laugh at all the monkeys raising swords in response to the matter. In the post (on his blog), he insists the term blog has become loaded with visions of low standards and sloppy ineptitude. (Hey, Bob Costas agrees!) He tells newspapers they are making huge mistakes by calling their 'blogs' blogs, and offers a solution.

If I worked for the NY Times, or any other media company with any level of brand equity, I would have done everything possible to define the section of our website that offers ongoing as anything other than a blog. I would make up a name. Call it say.....RealTime Reporting.

RealTime Yankees: Catch in depth, up to the minute reports on the Yankees as only the NY Times world re known staff of Sports Writers can bring up

(All spelling and grammatical errors original. I don't get paid to clean up dude's mess.) Basically, Cuban thinks the world is full of idiots. If you call your blog something else, no one will ever associate it with blogs. And you should do so, because blogs are awful. (Also: If you tell your toddler the Brussels sprouts are in fact "magical giant jelly beans made of special green chocolate," they will eat them. It's true! You should do this, because Brussels sprouts are awful.)

Meanwhile, Mavericks.com has a blog called "Mavs Courtside View." Its tagline is "The official blog & inside scoop on the Dallas Mavericks." Its URL includes the word blog. Cuban also has a personal blog called BlogMaverick, he invested in publishing platform Blogsmith (which is owned by AOL and powers this AOL-owned blog), and he owns (middling) blog search engine IceRocket.

Cuban is either being incredibly obtuse in order to make a point about his blogger ban, or a substantial portion of his business portfolio of the past several years is a complete sham. Neither option seems commendable. (This seems like a good place to link to two of the best takes on the blogger ban from [shudder] actual blogs: Henry Abbott's TrueHoop post [pay no attention to discussion of that Ziller fellow], and Hardwood Paroxysm's masterful essay.)