Room to Improve: Spurs-Cavs, Behind the Box Score
January 22, 2017The Cleveland Browns must win NFL Draft poker
January 23, 2017Before every Cleveland Cavaliers game, head coach Ty Lue addresses the media one hour and 45 minutes before opening tip. On the run-of-the-mill 7 p.m. start times, this means media should be in place by 5:15 p.m., adjusting accordingly for later games. Immediately following Ty’s address, however, is the visiting coach. Multiple times per year, we get to see guys like Detroit’s Stan Van Gundy and Milwaukee’s Jason Kidd. These instances are oftentimes very heavy on Xs and Os for things like game previews or the potential bigger story that would be filed later in the week. Once a season, however, Cleveland media is blessed with their lone chance of talking to Gregg Popovich at home.
Time for a side story here—stay with me as I promise it will all make sense. When I first started covering the team as a member of the credentialed horde, I was unaware of Pop’s outward disdain for all things media. The Cavaliers—having just dealt with the mid-summer Decision of LeBron James heading to Miami—were not good, so writing stories worthy of attention was very, very tough. By the time San Antonio was coming through town, James’ ostensible replacement at the small forward position was Alonzo Gee. Gee had played for the Spurs—though five games and 18 total minutes, mind you—so I thought to myself, “Hey, I’ll go talk to Pop and see what he has to say about the kid.” Ho. Lee. Shit.
I went to Spurs shootaround, and had arrived a bit later than planned—or maybe they wrapped up sooner than anticipated, I’m unsure. I spoke to the Spurs media gatekeeper and he told me to just walk alongside Pop as he made his way from the court to the bus and get as many questions in as I could through those 90-some-odd seconds. Here was the head coach of a team that was about to be in the hunt for yet another NBA title, responding to inquiries about a kid who he barely got to know.
Looking back at it, I can see the empathy on Pop’s face; he knew I had no idea what I was getting myself into. He could have obliterated me right on the spot, but chose otherwise, giving me a few quotes that I could use for this incredibly insignificant story. It wasn’t until I got back to my office and tweeted my findings that I became aware of Pop’s M.O. with those of us with voice recorders.
Fast forward to two-plus years ago and the Spurs were in town and a host of us walked over to discuss the lay of the land. It goes without saying that Pop keeps everyone on their toes as lazy questions get shot down with epic fervor. The Plain Dealer’s Bill Livingston attempted to lead off with a story about the Miami Heat (this was months before LeBron’s return), and Pop ate him alive.
Bill Livingston: [column-based question]
Pop: Have you read anything I've said all year?— Scott @ WFNY (@WFNYScott) March 4, 2014
Livingston would eventually admit that he had not read anything Pop had said all year and stated that—I’m paraphrasing—he was writing a column on such a topic and needed a quote to fill in the gaps. Pop obliged, but not after undressing the long-time columnist in front of everyone. The best part about Pop is his inherent mandate that every question have merit. You could try to ask some throw-away question about a player struggling or “what happened when…”, but you’ll be buried alive. A “talk about…” question?1 Well, you’re on your own there. Thankfully, for everyone in the room, FOX Sports Ohio’s Jeff Phelps followed up with a very introspective question about Pop’s decision to not call time outs during moments of strife, and the head coach gave a terrific response—the kind that sticks with you enough to become anecdotal layers to columns like this one.
This, of course, led me to tweet this as I was walking down the corridors this past Saturday night:
Going to watch Pop's pregame media address just to see who he skewers. Always a good time.
— Scott @ WFNY (@WFNYScott) January 21, 2017
Of course, I had insinuated that it would be a media member to get roasted. To be fair, it was almost as if there was a weird moment when no one wanted to be the first to ask a question, so Pop almost walked away having not responded to any of us. ESPN’s Dave McMenamin asked about the last time Pop played hoops—the late 80s, for what it’s worth—which got him talking. I asked about his team’s uncanny ability to stay under the radar and how he gets his players to buy in, and we were provided this:
“I want to be totally vanilla, whether someone says something great or something bad [about me],” Popovich said. “You can’t let that affect you. We have somebody in office right now who should take that lesson.”
This, that last sentence, opened the floodgates. McMenamin then followed up, as Pop was the one who mentioned the recently inaugurated president of the United States, to which Pop said, “I have a lot of opinions, but you don’t want to hear them…” before he slammed on the gas pedal and let loose.
“The march today was great,” Popovich said. “That message is important, and it could have been a whole lot of groups marching. And somebody said on TV, ‘What’s their message?’ Well, their message is obvious: Our president comes in with the lowest [approval] rating of anybody who ever came into the office, and there’s a majority of people out there, since Hillary [Clinton] won the popular vote, that don’t buy his act. And I just wish that he was more—had the ability to be more—mature enough to do something that really is inclusive rather than just talking and saying, ‘I’m going to include everybody.’ He could talk to the groups that he disrespected and maligned during the primary and really make somebody believe it. But so far, we’ve got [to] a point where you really can’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth. You really can’t. ‘We went to Hawaii and checked Barack Obama’s birth certificate and couldn’t believe what we found!’ There was nothing there. That kind of thing.
I’d just feel better if somebody was in that position that showed the maturity and psychological and emotional level of somebody that was his age. It’s dangerous, and it doesn’t do us any good.
— Gregg Popovich
“Kellyanne Conway, the other day, said he wasn’t really making fun of that handicapped person. It’s beyond incredible. It really makes you wonder how far someone will go to actually cover for someone that much. The comment was, ‘You have to look in his heart—you don’t know what’s in his heart, he wouldn’t do that.’ Well, he did. And all the things he said during that time, if our children would’ve said it, we’d have grounded them for six months. We ignore that because why? It says something about all of us and that’s what’s disingenuous. That’s what scares the hell out of me. It makes me uneasy.
“When the media reports what he says, I’m not sure why he can get angry about that. It does boggle the mind how somebody can be so thin-skinned. It’s all obvious — it’s about him. If anything affects him, if it’s ‘Saturday Night Live’ or ‘Hamilton’ or she got 3 more million votes than you. ‘They’re illegal.’ It doesn’t matter what it is, there’s a pattern there. And that’s dangerous. I’d like to have someone with gravitas, but he got there through the Electoral College, which is part of our system, and I hope he does some good things. There was a young lady on today who said, ‘I just wished he had gone up there and said something like, “And I know I said certain things …” or, you know, “I would really like to bring the people who don’t feel …” or, “I know some of you are scared.”‘ But he can’t do that because bullies don’t do that. That’s why.”
Yeah—that really happened. The pre-game presser, with nary a video camera to be seen, went from almost lasting a matter of seconds, to being 14 minutes—seven of which was spent discussing Donald Trump. Five years ago, I had a chance to listen to George Karl, who had recently been cleared to return after being diagnosed with a form of treatable cancer. This is all before George Karl The Author, an earnest conversation with a man who had yet to let his unfortunate experiences get the best of him. He was fantastic as he spoke about life—his life, his difficulties—as well as the impending trade of Carmelo Anthony from Denver. Pop is that raised to an exponent of your choosing—the guy is as cantankerous as ever when pressed to respond on the sidelines, but if you ask him the right questions at the right time, you get a gold mine of knowledge.
What’s weird is as naive as I was back in 2012, I’ve grown to respect Pop for being a man who keeps the media on their collective toes. Those sideline folks? They’re set up to fail every time they cover a Spurs game as he cares so little about minute-to-minute motions of a game that it makes for one of the most awkward obligations of every NBA season. Bill Livingston was simply trying to do his job, but Pop wasn’t going to let him get a free pass. Even one of the San Antonio reporters on Saturday took one on the chin when he asked about injury replacements. It wasn’t until bigger picture, cross-section, real life-type questions were asked that the NBA coaching legend opened up. We’re all that much better for it, regardless of your partisan stance.
If anyone should never STICK TO SPORTS!!!!, it’s Gregg Popovich. We may use sports as an escape from real life, but Pop used his platform as one of the best to make sure we don’t lose sight of what’s truly important. The true talent is him doing so while skewering lazy questions at the exact same time.
And finally, the return of #ActualSportswriting:
- “A man named Joe” by Flinder Boyd (B/R’s The Lab)
- “The uncomfortable reality of Tyreek Hill’s success” by Mina Kimes (ESPN The Magazine)
- “On the Golden State Warriors, bench life is good” by Scott Cacciola (NYTimes)
- “Holy Tuck: An oral history of the Patriots-Raiders tuck rule game” by Robert Weinreb (The Ringer)
- The. Worst. [↩]
342 Comments
take away the specific election. I will never fault anyone who does their homework, looks at their options and abstains.
Unless they do so by signing a blank ballot and sending it in anyway which hurts HOF percentages (so not abstaining which was the stated effect). Oh, sorry to bring Mr. Livingston in here.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png
Uh… you got those lyrics a bit wrong
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
Yes. I’m not sure why any sane, well-adjusted human would want that job. Which might be why Donald Trump is the perfect man for the job! (I kid!) (Or do I?)
he’s not the first …
Cool, thanks..
1. The “Wall”…. do you believe another country will pay for a construction on American soil? What is the necessity of this piece to you? Like, why is a big wall that people can just literally tunnel under (Sicario) vastly important to you? Symbolism of a nationalist movement?
2. What is the replacement plan for ACA you absolutely need to see to consider it worthy?
3. Foreign policy.. what do you WANT to see out of him in relations to Russia, N. Korea and the Middle East?
By legalizing abortion they decided that you can legally kill people without medical need. Or, if you prefer, that those are not yet people when they are “disposed”
So, they have created a line but currently allow a whole bunch of gray area where it is up to the states to define (which then goes through legal hoops about constitutionality).
They need to make an actual decision on the definition there.
not my intent – I mean, you know me well enough that I can be accused of many things, but quieting discussion is not one of them 🙂
… you mean after all these years i was singing it wrong ??
GO, in your experience, do you think the Iraq War was micro-managed by people far from the action to the detriment of the mission?
for one, we are talking on the fringes of the topic as 20% of pregnancies currently end in abortion (that number is down from the high point in the 90s).
my views on these items though is a bit controversial and sadly no one has done enough studies on them. there are a few white papers that had my thoughts summed up though. i can try to dig up at some point perhaps.
Yes, but to toot our own horns the WFNY comment section is hardly arguing on Social Media.
“Who? When the left is in, the right is expected to change. When the right is in, the left is supposed to change. Pipe dreams, all. We probably all should, but pride is a tough thing to crack.”
To play Devil’s Advocate, Obama won in 2009 with a hefty EC margin to go along with an almost-10-million edge in popular vote. To me, that indicates that politicians of the other party should probably be conciliatory enough to change a little bit. But they did not. Obama also got another solid EC win and +5 million in 2012. Still, nothing changed.
So (again, Devil’s Advocate), why should the left change when Trump got 28 fewer EC votes than Obama’s 2nd election (not to mention 61 fewer than Obama’s ’08 win) to go with 3 million FEWER actual votes than his opponent, and a mere 77,000 votes spread across three battleground states won him the presidency? Things being good for geese and ganders and such.
I don’t have any authority to ask this of you, but will anyway: Just promise to look at some of these things objectively, and in the context of other administrations, and if you are wrong, acknowledge it (not publically; no need for that). That’s what I’m asking of myself for the next 4 years.
FWIW, I don’t think you’re wrong about some of them; I do think you’re wrong about others. I don’t love President Trump. I also don’t hate him. I don’t think he’s some angel, but I also don’t believe he’s a demon.
the moment Scott told us of the Pop quote, I knew it was likely to be the MON WWW. I doubt he worried much about the comment thread. As you noted, we’ve discussed rationally here before.
if you used your words. so, I use this as validation of my previous stated point.
I mean, if you cannot use a Canadian rock band lyric as validation of an American political opinion, then the world is in chaos.
Latter yes, former, no.
I didn’t mean to accuse you of such. I wasn’t even particularly thinking of Trump’s team (though it could be applied to them), more like: politicians/partisans in general.
I’d also add this topic to my general critique of the media. Every four years we hear: this is the most important election ever!!! Vote or die!!! Candidate X is a fascist!!! We need to do something about Issue Y RIGHT NOW!!!
Then, Candidate X wins, doesn’t do anything about Issue Y, and people are protesting. Cue the reports about partisanship and divisiveness, along with pieces about how President X can’t unite the country. Huh, I wonder how this deep political divide has permeated our collective psyche?
I will note that is a discussion I have seen many conservatives have as well specifically when the certain “non-confirmed” report was published ( destroyed by MSM sites that had the story & refused to publish because they spent a ton of effort but couldn’t confirm nearly any of it or any of it – never did say)
Okay, I’ll bite.
Secretary Clinton won the so-called “popular vote” by fewer votes than the total of her winning margin in a single state (California): 2.87 million more in the “popular vote” versus 3.45 million in the California state vote. Stated another way, President Trump won the majority of the votes in the majority of the states, and but for a single state, would have won the “popular vote.” For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that the “popular vote” is actually a thing. It is not the way that our system is structured, for the very reason that is expressed above by the data. For that reason, I don’t give it any benefit of any doubt, and don’t believe that any president (R or D) should, either. To expect President Trump to accommodate the so-called “popular vote” is, in essence, a call for him to accommodate the voters of a single state – which is anathema to the design of our electoral process.
As those of us right of center were told loudly in 2008 and 2012, our electoral process is a “winner takes all” process; otherwise, we would find ourselves in a world of sectional rights and disputes (which didn’t end well in 1861). As you said, what’s good for the geese is good for the gander.
Sure, although having the “country’s intentions” at heart has often led to much damage, destruction, and death via American imperialism and globalization. Still, a part of me does believe in the American project and I know we can do better than Trump/Clinton as our leaders
Oh, I’m not disputing the results. I’m merely saying that some on the left may feel that there isn’t any kind of mandate–by recent comparison–for them to change their stances and be conciliatory.
That’s really all that argument (couched in Devil’s Advocate cop-out-ness) was meant to say.
My reaction to anyone holding an “I’m Still With Her” sign over the weekend:
http://i.imgur.com/YifevOC.gif?noredirect
I think that’s fair to live by. And while we’re on this ride, we should all certainly question all that we’re told and shown from all sides—as we’re bombarded by soothing voices from our echo chambers or from the shrill-sounding shouts of the opposition. Some of my favorite Uncle Walt…
“re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body.”
Wow. Complex question that deserves a more complex answer than a brief comment reply.
In short, yes. The commanders’ hands were absolutely tied. I could give you specific anecdotal stories as evidence (one including an unfortunate interaction that I personally had with Paul Bremer), but I would certainly say that this was true in Iraq (as was absolutely true in Vietnam). The converse of this was evident when General Petraeus was finally given “hands-off” authority to execute The Surge, which had been conceptually screamed for by the officers on the ground, and was a resounding success (until the bureaucrats again slapped on the fetters).
A more complex answer would be that there reached a certain point where I mission was poorly defined, at best, and wholly undefined, at worst – but, again, this was certainly due to micro-management from people far removed from the theater.
And don’t get me started on “rules of engagement” and the “legal processing of evidence and detainees.”
275 and climbing
Okay. I guess I’d just reiterate that to the extent any of that is based on a perception of the “popular vote” (or even a comparison of prior Electoral College results), I’d say, much too harshly, that it doesn’t matter what they feel.
But as I’m trying to be a more open-minded, conciliatory man, I admit that this feeling is legitimate. It still, unfortunately, is not the way our system is structured.
But to a broader point, I don’t necessarily believe the losing side in an American presidential election should be conciliatory. I am a firm believer in the concept of the loyal opposition. But I also don’t think that the winning side has any responsibility to be conciliatory. I am, however, all for the idea of stopping being jerks to each other (which was the subject of the original comments giving rise to our good discussion).
yes , i would say that the CORRECT lyric proves your point exactly … you win.
as a side note , i was never a huge Rush fan , but they had my respect as musicians … Neil Peart is one of the greatest lyricists of all-time … the man was a deep thinker.
Ah, those who still don’t learn that they should learn from the past . . .
Institutional memory is very short-term. Desert Storm in ’91 went the way that it did precisely because the military and political leaders in charge learned hard lessons from Vietnam when they were young leaders. Amazing how much of a difference one decade made.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/09/14/george-w-bush-release-new-book-showcasing-paintings-veterans
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-politics/2013/04/13/george-w.-bush-says-new-painting-hobby-helps-him-express-himself
1 – i think Mexico will pay for it one way or another. american taxpayers are already shelling out millions , if not billions, for the illegals already here … there are immigration laws in this country & nobody seems to be enforcing them.
2 – i personally think health care should be free for all Americans … just like the Congress voted for themselves … find a way to make it work. everyone should have it & not be forced (and fined if you don’t) to buy it.
3 – first of all , he needs to actually meet with these leaders … something we haven’t been doing. i want to see everyone getting along & working together , but they also need to know we’re dealing from a position of strength.
The nuclear option changed the rules. How can the US engage in the necessary breaking and killing without things becoming WW3?
Also, and this is very much an opinion that could never be proven, I don’t think the American people have ever truly felt comfortable with leading the world militarily. Our religious roots find the killing and breaking unseemly. Our revolutionary ones make us suspicious of centralized power. Yet we’re still stuck being the Western military power, so we do this sort of middle road thing where we have a military that can easily win big wars, but struggles in the encounters that it’s actually tasked to fight.
The cynic in me says that Pharma and Insurance wrote the legislation and dictated what they were and weren’t going to agree to. No politician was going to take on the lobby because it is their lifeblood.
The public option is about busting the drug and insurance companies. Then they have no choice but to comply. Double down? Pffft. You’re nationalized dude. Get over it. Have fun on your yacht, sorry ya gotta sell the place in the Hamptons.
The ONLY candidate in the last 20 years capable of taking them on was Sanders and the machine made sure he was ground up and spit out. He still almost broke through.
The Right, Left, Blue, Red stuff is a red herring. The current political class is beholden to the same interests. We are wasting time arguing how wet water is in 140 characters or less.
If we held closely to the responsibility of Congress to declare war, there would be far, far fewer things broken and people killed – and we would not be leading the world militarily (which no nation should be doing).
Agreed. We’d still need a military though, one filled with people trained to kill and destroy when the time comes. How does a civilized society balance liberal ideals with that need? I don’t expect an answer, of course. I’m just musing.
again get into moral responsibility – Bill Clinton has often said his greatest regret is not stepping in to aid Rwanda. They underestimated just how brutal and widespread the death tolls would be there.
I have no answers here. It is impossible to weigh in my mind of what level of responsibility any one country should have.
why does a civilized society need to necessarily have “liberal” ideals?
I disagree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs but wholly agree with your 1st and 4th
Cool. Thanks.
Almost three hundy!
C’mon!
Classic sense of “liberal:” Liberty, etc.
I think I was the person that recommended that. So glad you listened to it! I’m definitely on the other side of the political spectrum from you and can confirm that the book is enlightening and no matter where you find yourself, and most importantly helps build empathy with people that don’t share your beliefs. I feel like I have a better intuitive sense of what folks on the right are talking about now, and why they see the ideas of the left as misguided. Which helps me challenge and sometimes change my own beliefs.
I missed out on the discussion above but want to say thanks to all for such a civil, production conversation (on the internet of all places!) Maybe all civic discourse should take place in sports blog comment sections from now on.
Didn’t mean to suggest that it must, but was still thinking about the US. Meant liberal not as liberal/conservative but classical liberalism (economic/political freedom, civil liberties, free markets, etc.).
gotcha. double-meanings of terminology is always fun 🙂
It’s tough, and a largely utilitarian discussion. I personally question whether such intervention would have done anyone any good. Frankly, I don’t think President Clinton had the stomach for it, which he proved when he attempted to intervene in Somalia. That place is, today, certainly no better off, and is possibly worse off, because of Operation Restore Hope.
An oddity of history: Democrats are portrayed as being internationalists and beholden to the United Nations. Yet it was Bill Clinton whose PDD 25 drastically reduced our commitments to work with the UN on peace keeping/military operations. For all the flack he took with his New World Order talk, I’ve come to believe that GHW Bush’s vision for international order was the right path to go down.
As I muse about this, my conclusion is largely unsatisfying. I think it’s a balance of the U.S. military mindset pre-World War II and the U. S. military preparedness at the peak of the Cold War: Be hesitant, almost to obstinance, to be involved in any military action, but be prepared, almost to excess, for any military contingency. Honestly, this belief is the primary reason that I could vote for President Trump – and the one thing that I will most closely be critical of him for if he foregoes his campaign position and promises.
Somewhere, someone is still convinced Carlton Mitchell can be the next big WR…
You are, indeed. Thank you for the recommendation! I’m still working through it on my daily commute, but even at this point I could not better state your conclusions. They are mine, as well (reversed, of course).