Tagged: Steve Adamek

When The Story Becomes The Story

I wish this post was about the Knicks gearing up for a playoff run. It’s not. It’s the twilight of yet another miserable Knicks season and instead of the team, the story has become the story. It has been a bitter year on many fronts: A lot of consternation has flowed in a dizzying array of directions: Players to coach; coach to players; players to media; coaches to media; media to management; media to coaches; blogs to all of it. Losing will bring out the worst in everyone pulled into the franchise’s orbit.

From a fan’s perspective, the most despicable aspect of the last decade or so has indisputably been the play on the court. The next is the mismanagement. Then comes the press corps. At its best, the Knicks’ beat is intelligent, analytical, honest. At its worst it is defensive, dishonest, demeaning to its readers, hypocritical. Some of the writers fall consistently into the first category. Others into the second. Sometimes, rarely, they change hats.

This is a theme that has recurred in this space. It has been touched upon elsewhere but judging by some comments and tweets, I’ve probably developed a reputation as the guy who takes the writers to task when I think they deserve it. I call them out when they publish propaganda, when they fail to fact check, when they fail to recognize obvious truths to suit the predetermined direction of their coverage, and when they lie to get start a controversy in an effort to get a sound byte that will help them sell papers. For example, when:

It should come as no surprise that certain publications are featured prominently in this list while others are conspicuously absent. That makes it all the more puzzling that of all the writers who cover the Knicks, it was Alan Hahn of Newsday who was the prickliest about Tracy McGrady’s assertion that “you guys”, e.g., the press, will keep players away from New York. Hahn took exception, writing:

Apparently NBA players prefer hero worship over raw honesty and unfettered opinion. They prefer the big fish/small pond ratio in smaller markets, where the coverage has the intensity of a street light.

NBA players who relish a challenge should most definitely be willing to subject themselves to the spotlight. But what about the interrogation lamp? That’s why I’m not sure it’s really Hahn that McGrady had in mind. Hahn continued:

How should this team be covered at this point? Should we just shrug when Eddy Curry continually gets injured and yet still makes every single road trip, pocketing per diem and enjoying the free travel?

I can’t disagree with Hahn that if players are upset about the coverage that exposes:

  1. Eddy Curry for failing to properly condition himself for the rigors of the NBA despite collecting an $11 million salary; or
  2. Larry Hughes for pouting the night of a monster 43 point win over the Pacers; or
  3. Darko Milicic for wanting the Knicks to cut him, and let him return to Europe while still guaranteeing him his full paycheck; or
  4. Nate Robinson likely instructing his agent to complain in the midst of the Knicks’ best month in a decade; or
  5. their general and individual poor play in a losing season;

then that is a problem with the players and not the writers. But I think McGrady may have been referring more to the unfair treatment some writers bestow on some players (and the coaches, and management), the most glaring examples of which I’ve referenced above.

You better believe it’s a circus.

And McGrady isn’t the only one holding that opinion. Hahn points out that Ron Artest said that players are “scared of the fans and the media”. And Chris Bosh stated his distaste for the Knicks’ beat too.

It’s hard to tell if Hahn was sticking up for his colleagues or just himself. Without naming names, probably as a professional courtesy, he wrote:

I can’t speak for everybody in this business, but I can say there is not supposed to be agenda in any of this. It’s merely unbiased observations from those closest to the team without being part of the team. Most of us ask questions not because we don’t know the answers, we ask them because we DO know the answers.

Look, some of that is true. For Hahn, it certainly is. But even if Hahn asks honest questions seeking honest answers, let’s not pretend that there aren’t others who carefully engineer loaded, indefensible questions to solicit a frustrated response – to make news. You can’t honestly suggest that no writers have an agenda. Not when we’re still getting updates about what Stephon Marbury thinks about the Knicks. Not when they are openly calling for the Coach’s head (are journalists supposed to report the story or be a part of it?). There are plenty of fans who recognize that Mike D’Antoni has not been perfect, not even close, but are tired of reading diatribes, insulting to their intelligence, positing that all of the blame falls at the Coach’s feet. Will Berman, who had D’Antoni up in slings when he benched Nate Robinson refer to Nate’s latest benching with the Celtics as “Nate-Gate”? Will he recognize, as every single one of Nate’s pro coaches has that Nate’s best spot may be the end of the bench?

The Knicks are out of the playoffs because D’Antoni didn’t play Darko? Really? Is it truly a meaningful issue that Mike D’Antoni didn’t coddle Larry Hughes and Eddy Curry enough?

Marc, we know you’re worried that people aren’t going to pay attention to you if the Knicks aren’t good, but don’t you have some sort of professional responsibility as a journalist?

And as for Isola: look, we get it, the Knicks have PR people who follow you around with blackberries and take notes. Get the hell over it already. You’re a journalist, don’t let it taint your coverage. Fans want intelligent, honest coverage, not someone with a vendetta pledging to make things right for the time the Knicks “screwed me over.”

For all of the professionalism supposedly absent from the Knicks organization, from the coaching staff to the players (and yes, some of the players don’t know what that word means), the last ones to judge should be those who call their assignment “a gulag”, or “depressing”, and who pine for the old Checketts days when the Knicks treated the beat writers to a catered trips on yachts. Guess what Frank? I don’t get catered trips on yachts at my job either but I don’t elevate that grievance over my duties.

Granted, the good one’s like Hahn, Steve Adamek and Howard Beck are honest. They’re professional. They can have their negative opinions of the organization, as immortalized in the New York Observer article, without letting it cloud their work product. Marc Berman and Frank Isola are driven by personal issues and it’s a waste of time to argue otherwise.

These are circling vultures waiting to twist words and parse statements and misrepresent them, and take them out of context. They do this in order to generate enough controversy to satisfy a decade old grudge, or satiate some narcissistic thirst for attention/sell papers for News Corp. Despite their presence, you can understand why a player like LeBron James would put up with it anyway. He has an empire he wants to build and New York may be the best place to do it.

For an average or even above average player though, all other things are more or less equal. So what is there to gain by subjecting yourself to the daily dishonesty and mind bending disingenuousness? I have some news for the writers on the beat that hate their jobs and take it out on the organization. LeBron might not come, and if McGrady, Artest and Bosh represent the feelings of the rest of the players in the league, you’ve got a number of “depressing” years left in this “gulag”.

Is Toney Douglas Mardy Collins 2?

Steve Adamek warned today that excited Knicks fans should heed the lessons of history and remember that somebody has to get stats on a losing team. I must confess that the first thing I thought of when Bill Walker started impressing us was Qyntel Woods (Jon and I called him good Q. Richardson was bad Q. Then we lost track of which was good Q and which was bad Q). In light of Douglas’ emergence, I, like Adamek, also thought of Mardy Collins, the nightly triple double threat on Isiah’s last team.

Two differences though. The first one is that with Toney playing well, the Knicks are, so far, winning. The Knicks barely won in Collins’ big month. The second, as Jon pointed out to me is that it’s a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Here are Collins’ “impressive” numbers (courtesy of ESPN.com):

14 points, 6 assists, 7 boards. Wow. 44 minutes. 39% FG. In those games Collins surpassed the “Per 40″ or “Per 36″ number that is useful in equalizing stats for evaluation purposes. His per 40s were 12, 4 and 5. He also never had a PER higher than 9.54.

Toney’s last 5 games:

14 points, 4 assists, 2.5 boards. Pretty nice for a rookie playing in just 28.2 minutes. If you adjust for minutes played (caveat: I’m not good at math), Douglas has per/40 averages in his last 5 of 17.4 ppg, 5 assts, and 3 boards. He’s also a far better shooter than Collins. And his PER is already a 15.

It is tempting to get excited about guys like Douglas, who appear to be playing so well when the season is in the tank. I was excited about Collins too and to a lesser extent, good/bad Q (Woods). It is also equally easy to dismiss end of season contributions as “somebody need[ing] to score”. The difference though is deeper in the numbers. Compared to Collins, Douglas looks more legitimate.

NY Post on Marbury “Breakthrough” Game: Worst. Blog Entry. Ever.

The Post’s web editor gets the above noted distinction for the latest entry, entitled “Marbury has Breakthrough Game”, reproduced in its entirety, below:

Here’s the latest on our blog lightning rod, out of the first round for the first time in his career..

The Boston Globe did a story on Stephon Marbury after he scored eight points in the Celtics Game 1 loss to the Magic.

That’s the whole entry. 8 whole points? Yaaaaaaaaay…

Let’s recap Marbury’s contributions to the Celtics escaping the 7th seeded Bulls in 7 games…

Game 7: 12 minutes, 2 points. Somehow manages to net a +11.

Triple OT game 6? Surely he’d at least get minutes? No. 8 minutes. 0-3. 1 foul. 0 points. -3.

Doc Rivers didn’t even play him in the second half in game 5.

He was a -17 in 5(!) minutes in game 4.

He was a -15 in 10 minutes in game 2.

He scored 0 points and had 2 turnovers in 10 minutes in game 1.

Arguably he had an ok game in game 3 when he got all the garbage minutes in the Celtics blowout.

As for his 8 whole “breakthrough” points in the LOSS to the Magic, I’ll just point you to Steve Adamek:

Boy, The One Who Won’t Be Mentioned Here sure looked like his old self running the Celtics on Monday, swishin’ and dishin’, as Clyde might say and getting the announcing crew all excited.

Oh, and the Celtics were a minus-7 while he was on the floor. Brian Scalabrine? Plus-22.

Just the facts.

Way to go Post, proving yourself as useless as ever.

Steve Adamek Says Marc Berman Has No Integrity

Though not in so many words:

We love the revisionist history practiced in a story Tuesday about Zach Randolph’s arrest for drunk driving in Los Angeles and how it was good the Knicks got rid of him because they feared similar problems.

But in previous reports in the same publication, it was bad that the Knicks didn’t keep Zach because with him (and Jamal Crawford), the premise was frequently broached that the Knicks might’ve made the playoffs this season.

Whichever way the wind blows.

I suppose Ademek is holding back a little bit as a professional courtesy but, after all, Berman is nothing if not unprofessional, so we say “why bother?”

He’s referring, of course, to Berman’s article that appeared in this morning’s Post where he wrote that the Knicks were justified in trading Randolph before his propensity for criminality reared its head despite having previously taken the position that the Knicks were foolish to trade Zach and Jamal because they might have snared the 8th seed had they held onto those guys (you can see that here).

Now, we’ve known over here that Berman lacks professionalism and integrity for a while now. But it’s always fun when someone besides Dan says it aloud. So when someone does, we’re more than happy to point it out to our readers.