Only 10 more shopping days until Festivus

Is in reference to the Seinfeld episode. That must have thrown you off.

I admit that I have a tendency to project greater things onto young players that their performance may or may not warrant. However, Ivan’s article also contains this quote from Tapscott about Nick Young:

My other guards were playing well. And when you get your shot comes to get in there and you don’t have your swerve going, you open the door for someone else to get their swerve going.

The problem as I see it, though, is that the guards weren’t always playing well. Stevenson played the entire first quarter, missed his only shot and turned the ball over twice, and racked up a -5. During his almost 5 minutes of play in the second quarter, he again missed his only shot, turned the ball over once and picked up two fouls, and earned a -4. Dixon played almost 8 minutes in the third quarter and was terrible, missing both of his shots, fouling three times and getting a -7.

I will admit that Dixon played well in the first half, and Stevenson’s offense improved in the second half. My point is, though, that they got a second chance. Dixon played 5 more minutes in the 4th quarter, missing his only shot and fouling out of the game. Stevenson played heavy minutes in the second half (which again, to his credit, he took advantage of) despite being awful in the first.

The young guys aren’t getting those second chances. Tapscott isn’t sitting the veterans when they “don’t have their swerve going,” he’s leaving them out there. Nick Young should’ve been on the court when it was clear Dixon wasn’t performing in the second half. Sure McGee picked up two fouls in the first four minutes of the game, but he also had as many rebounds as Songaila did, in about as third as many minutes.

My beef isn’t that the young guys are superstars who are being held down. It’s that they’re not getting the chances to work through their struggles the way the veterans are. Which, when you’re down by 18 with 3 minutes to play, borders on the inexcusable.

One can criticize Ernie and his team-building philosophy while simultaneously bash the coaching staff for not playing the youngsters that are outperforming the veterans. Perhaps the young guys aren’t all that, but they are currently performing better than many of the veterans in front of them. I don’t think that’s really disputable.

I know the latter has received more press than the former, but the former can still apply.

Play the kids? Sure….who cares?

But, I think Tapscott is making coaching decisions/moves/whatever based on how he “thinks” the team can get wins, regardless of the record…..and I think that most coaches would do the same in relying on veterans, hoping they come out of their slump, and wishing the rookies to hang out for the ride.

I’m hesitant to blame Tapscott for such decision making……but yes, things are obviously not working on so many levels.

Is the answer to just play to youth? Well, I’m not so sure…..because I feel that some (mainly Blatche and Young, but especially Blatche) aren’t working hard, and just giving them more minutes without them earning them wouldn’t be just……even given the assumption that since they sometimes “appear” to play better than the vets (not naming names of others, but I will ALWAYS (ok, maybe not always) defended the presence of Darius Songaila on the court, crappy rebound rate and all, because he clearly works his ass off……if only what he has in that regard was contagious.

Steinberg reported that he shot a unicorn.

which gave D-Song his magical basketball powers….

First, I recognize the people who run this website have a right (perhaps even a duty?) to ban particular commentators; this isn’t a government site for which we might expect fully free speech to be allowed, even when ugly. Second, I also recognize that our community is enhanced by screening the few individuals whose comments have little substantive value and tend to incite us, or stir-the-pot. (“Flaming,” “trolling,” etc.)

However, I think it’s desirable to have a lax policy on banning people, even when the speech is off-center or tends to be undesirable. There are a couple reasons to be more lenient. First, this is a website that encourages people to voice unpopular opinions. Yet, commentators who throw out minority or unpopular opinions will likely be the first ones to be banned. While I strongly suggest that we don’t want the site to be a platform for people to consistently voice ugly or racist views, I’m not sure that borderline suggestions warrant a ban (at least not without giving the speaker a chance to clarify).

Second, minority opinions bring value. Sure, we don’t all agree with each other. But the beauty of this site is that it brings together differing minds, and lets us work out our differences with rational, thoughtful discourse. Sometimes we even learn things or change our biases or preconceived ideas. (Imagine!) And when we are confronted with ideas that we know are wrong, we are forced to examine WHY we think they are wrong, and to explain what the better view is.

Finally, most wrong or ridiculous opinions are better handled through a community effort, than through a ban. When someone is clearly out of line, the community is going to react by imposing their norms on the extreme individual—that is, “shout him down” (using rational arguments of course). A ban cuts off the discourse—censorship, plain and simple—and indicates there is absolutely no value to be gained from either the post or the posting individual.

So. I know this is a basketball blog and not a town hall meeting. I understand that overtly racist or particularly ugly remarks, especially those directed at individuals, have no place on this site. I understand that the anonymity of the internet sometimes leads to extreme behavior that should be censored for the better of the group. However, I think we should error towards inclusion of speech, and allow the community to self-correct or admonish when necessary.

Just wanted to express my two cents as to bans generally.