2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[jalengreen]

I thought it was pretty clear that the whole Kawhi thing had to do with injury? Clippers likely didn’t want him to play (because he’s chronically hurt), and with KD already hurt (minor injury but still), I don’t think it took Team USA much convincing that they don’t want to have an already hurt guy who they’ll have to worry about. So I agree that they wanted somebody less like Kawhi, as in someone whos health isn’t as much of a concern - not someone who plays basketball less like him. Doubt that was the problem here.

Sure--so why did they pick White instead of Brown?

1) He is a better fit
2) He is a better player
3) Nike!

Good theories! Step up from the last one, at least

[Doctor MJ]

Nike has an inordinately high degree of input, and — despite the plus/minus indicators — it is indeed an absolute slap in the face for Jaylen to be disregarded for a second lesser star on his own team, with no superior history with the organisation (or the head coach) and no real team need.

That said, Jaylen also should not be implicitly attacking a teammate as a means of soothing his own wounded ego. Imagine if any of the 2004-08 Pistons had publicly railed against Tayshaun making the Redeem team.

I mean, Grant Hill is the boss, and he's an actual basketball superstar who sold a ton of shoes...for Fila. The idea that he punted on his own assessment (along with coach Kerr's assessment) to please a company that he isn't working for, and isn't known for working for, is paranoid.

Maybe paranoid if this happens to be the first time you have ever heard anything about Nike influence in USA basketball.

I think we should think about what we mean when we say "heard about" here. What are the sources? What is the evidence?

Heck, why the hell didn't Nike use this leverage to get Caitlyn Clark on the women's team, where we'd presume the decision makers are far more vulnerable to such bullying?

I think we should also consider this:

Can you imagine Nike getting Team USA Track & Field to choose a slower sprinter over a faster one because they felt vindictive toward that faster sprinter? I cannot.

Now the fact that basketball is a true team sport does allow the possibility of Nike people making basketball arguments that happen to side against a player they don't have under contract, but even if this is happening, it's a far cry from Grant Hill & company kowtowing to a corporation against their better judgment. Hill is an ultrawealthy man with basketball bonafides out the wazoo who sold shoes for a rival of Nike's, why the heck would he agree to be a knowing minion for Nike's pettiness?

Re: no real team need. Well I mean, White is a better shooter, features off-ball 3's as a bigger part of his game, and is a better overall defender than Brown in my assessment. If Team USA needed someone to be one the main volume scorers and were choosing between Brown & White I'm sure they'd have picked Brown, but of course, that was never going to be Team USA's situation because the foundation of the team was always going to be guys who already did that, and did that better than Brown.

Which could be said about White in comparison with multiple players on the team. Could be said about guys like Mikal Bridges or Paul George. Herb Jones if we emphasise defence more than shooting volume. Hell, why not KCP. There is not any real reason why Derrick White is the perfect piece to replace Kawhi Leonard.

Where this looks bad for Jaylen is that his instinct was to complain about his teammate being selected over him rather than congratulate that teammate for being selected at all.

You seem to be making an allegation without specifying what it is and implying that the allegation wouldn't be relevant had Team USA chosen other non-all-stars like Mikal, Herb, or KCP.

Are you saying that Team USA chose Brown's teammate teammate over Mikal or someone else just to rub Brown's nose in it that much more? If not, what is exactly you're alleging?

Re: where this looks bad for Jaylen; complain about teammate. Yup, and it's a complaint I don't think he voices if it had instead been one of the other current all-stars who were in the 2024 pool that had previously been cut. There was no reason for Brown to think he was the obvious choice for the next spot...but the idea that this teammate of his was chosen over him galls him.

Of course as I say all of this, I should of course note that this is the 3rd of Brown's Celtic teammates that is now on the foster along with Tatum & Holiday, and for a guy who sees himself as a superstar to not be one of the first 3 guys on the roster chosen surely strings.

But to me Holiday's place on the team was already a critical example of some of the non-superstar players Team USA has sworn by in the wake of their 2004 defeat, and White fits with that.

Finally I'll say this: This whole thing where the #3 and #4 guys on a team in a lower quality roster actually scale better to a better roster than the #2 isn't some out-of-nowhere thing. This is a basketball thing that lower level coaches warn their players about. Almost everyone in the NBA was "the Man" on lower level teams, including, for example, Derrick White.

What Brown represents is someone who is among the weakest offensive players in the league today but who is still allowed to volume shoot on a great team. (If that seems controversial, keep in mind most teams don't have more than 2 volume shooters at any given time and so most of the one's who aren't #1's, are on the weaker side.) And so it makes sense that moving to a roster with a talent level beyond NBA teams, he's not good enough to be a #1 or a #2, and he's not your best option as a role player.

Re: slap in the face to choose a lesser stature teammate over Brown. That's clearly how Brown feels, but that doesn't mean Brown's feelings were the intention. If Hill thought choosing White was making Team USA worse than choosing Brown and he did it anyway he should be fired...but typing those words I think makes clear how far-fetched all this sounds. Hill's not trying to sabotage Team USA, and he's not some vulnerable middle manager who needs the pay check. Sure it's possible that the suits at Nike were able to convince him of something untrue about basketball, but quite literally if anyone at Nike tried to make Grant Hill feel like he doesn't know basketball, I think they'd be shown the door pretty quickly.

The idea that every move is designed to maximise their medal chances falls apart the second we remember there are three non-NBA players on the team. Marketing and politics have been an intrinsic element of this going back at least to the Dream Team. That does not mean every snub or selection is dictated by a certain financial interest, but how about we not pretend it is “crackpot” thinking to accuse those long-existing financial interests of being able to put their thumb on the scale.

Jaylen can be understandably mad, and we can be understandably unsympathetic about a feud started when his buddy faced financial backlash for publicising ignorant beliefs.

So you're suggesting that if there's any apparent inconsistency in selection process, it's probably due to corporate interests inserting themselves - and apparently inserting themselves inconsistently.

Just granting the premise for a second, I believe the way we entertain such possibilities without becoming crackpots is not to stop when our cynical answer seems like a feasible answer, but to follow through try to find greater consistency using that explanation that could be achieved through other, less cryptic, means.

If Nike can say who is on the roster, and chooses based on who they have under contract, why is a Fila guy (Grant Hill) in the position of power?

If Nike can say who is on the roster, and chooses based on who they have under contract, why is anyone on the roster who isn't a Nike guy?

If Nike "picks their battles", why would they choose to go all-in against Brown rather than all-in for Clark?

Now, I know that Brown specifically had criticized Nike in the past, so if you want to argue that Nike is just plain petty, okay. But let's just note that if you're saying that was more important to Nike than any of those other things, I'd say Nike is being incredibly small-minded in how it's choosing to use its power.

By contrast, we could just explain the situation like this:

1. Team USA begins its process by courting all the American stars in the league to be a part of it - as well as some role players.
2. Tippy top tier superstars are pursued basically with a guaranteed spot on the roster, with memories of prior rosters with a dearth in star talent always on the mind of Team USA. Who was that on this roster? Well aside from guys like LeBron, KD, Curry, consider Embiid. You really think Team USA was going to cut him from the roster after there was an active competition for which national team he'd play for?
3. Team USA then looks to round out the rosters as best it can around its too-many-stars lineup. That's how a guy like Jrue Holiday got on the team before , and that's how a guy like White gets on the team now.

So, when there is a later replacement, the smart basketball thing to do is to use that opportunity to add useful role players rather than someone more useful as a star.

I find this to be a better explanation for what happened.

Now, could I be wrong? Sure. But what I'm talking about here isn't so much that there couldn't possibly be a conspiracy, but that we get into trouble when we assume vague conspiracies without looking for consistency in those explanations. You end up with a "one stop shop" of an epistemic process where you think you quickly have an explanation for anything that happened, but without the ability to predict what will happen next.

(And I think we should consider that. If I had told you ahead of time that Brown was no longer in consideration due to things he said, would you have guess White would have been the next pick? I don't think so. On the other hand, if I told you ahead of time that Team USA wanted to take the opportunity of Kawhi's leaving to get a great role player and asked you to look at that the player pool to name guys who are known for being great role players in the NBA, would White be one of the guys who you thought of? It would have for me certainly. I wouldn't have thought it strange if someone else (say Mikal) was chosen either, but White is absolutely on the short list for me if that's what they are looking for.)

Okay final note as I get unbearable general and abstract.

The essence of the epistemology that I'm advocating for here is one in which parsimony is judged through consilience. Defining the terms for anyone who doesn't know these - and not looking to assume you don't AEnigma:

epistemology - the process for how you determine what you know (aka your ontology)
parsimony - aka Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is probably right
consilience - come at the situation from as many different angles as possible looking for agreement between them.

The Flat Earther phenomenon is my go-to example here. Their premise is that a flat-Earth is simpler than a spheroid-Earth, and so - parsimoniously - what should be the default explanation unless something can knock it off its perch.

There are many counters to this, but the key one for me: In a 3 Dimensional space, spheroid objects are simpler to explain than flat objects. In a 3 Dimensional space, all you need is an attractive force that dominates other forces at long range, and you'll get a universe filled with spheroid object. How do you get a flat Earth? I have no idea.

Hence, I would say the Flat Earthers work with a false sense of parsimony because they're not looking to consilience as the infrastructure on which parsimony is judged.

I would say that generally allegations of corruption run analogous risk. It exists, but it's not the reason for every event that happens, and so when it becomes our default explanation, it stops us from actually gaining understanding, and traps us see bad faith everywhere even when it doesn't exist. And while people might think that such "healthy cynicism" protects them, the reality is it makes them easier to manipulate.

[Doctor MJ]

Should be noted that Grant Hill doesn’t have full discretion over the roster, as far as we know.

The team was selected by USA Basketball Men’s National Team managing director Grant Hill and approved by the USA Basketball Board of Directors.

People have been claiming that Nike has a lot of influence on Team USA for years. And now you have a star who has been directly and publicly critical of the company being left off the team… naturally gonna lead to these questions.

Agree that it’s a bad look for him to complain like this anyway, and ultimately White is a good player and Brown’s not a top tier superstar or anything so I don’t care *that* much about the snub. What I would say is that Brown is clearly a more sensible replacement for Kawhi. And I think people are people are undermining his value by limiting it to volume scoring. Who was trusted to guard Luka in the NBA Finals? Jaylen Brown. And we saw him doing dirty work in that series, diving for loose balls, etc. There are NBA volume scorers who are capable of providing value in other ways, especially in environments where they need to; look at Devin Booker last time in FIBA.

So first, want to acknowledge you acknowledging why this is such a bad look for Brown. I'm really disappointed that he didn't censor himself on his teammate's behalf.

Re: Hill doesn't have full discretion; Board of Directors. I feel like when you say this you see these other people as puppet masters controlling Hill, but these are known people.

The Chairman of the Board is a former Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not saying someone like that can't be corrupt, but what's the evidence that this non-basketball man made a super-rich basketball superstar with a far longer tenure with Team USA "Managing Director" only after the basketball superstar agreed to defer about basketball decisions?

Something else to note: Previously Jerry Colangelo was both Chairman of the Board and Managing Director. The choice to split those roles in interesting, but does make sense. Colangelo was a virtual unicorn as someone who had been a scout, coach, GM & owner of NBA teams (as well as I believe the most influence non-player on the direction that the modern NBA has gone in terms of pace & space). While Hill may eventually take on both positions, makes sense that you'd have someone like him to run the basketball details, while having a boarder organization run by an executive with a strong reputation.

Re: "people have been claiming". I'll just emphasize that past allegations of conspiracy shouldn't be taken as evidence that conspiracies were happening, let along be used as evidence that the current alleged conspiracy is "more of the same". The world is awash with people buying into conspiracy theories and getting manipulated by the distorted reality that then gets presented to them. I'd advise everyone fight hard against falling in these traps.

[Colbinii]

I thought it was pretty clear that the whole Kawhi thing had to do with injury? Clippers likely didn’t want him to play (because he’s chronically hurt), and with KD already hurt (minor injury but still), I don’t think it took Team USA much convincing that they don’t want to have an already hurt guy who they’ll have to worry about. So I agree that they wanted somebody less like Kawhi, as in someone whos health isn’t as much of a concern - not someone who plays basketball less like him. Doubt that was the problem here.

Sure--so why did they pick White instead of Brown?

1) He is a better fit
2) He is a better player
3) Nike!

Good theories! Step up from the last one, at least

I don't want to overload you with too much thought.

It's because he is a better player and better fit--but we all know that already.

[ronnymac2]

I'm not on Twitter, so I didn't even know about Kermit Brown's temper tantrum yesterday.

I think it's very sensible that the decision-makers opted to invite D-White and not invite K-Brown.

Inviting White is inviting the third most valuable player from the NBA champion, a guy whose skillset theoretically meshes well with megastars. White is unselfish and doesn't cry to the media about every little (perceived) slight.

Brown is at best the fourth most valuable player from the NBA champion, and a guy whose skillset theoretically does NOT mesh as well with megastars. The guy is the worst Finals MVP in the history of the award. He complains like a seventh grader both on and off the court when he has nothing to complain about. And though it's not as egregious as Kawhi, Brown is incredibly selfish and a poor teammate.

He's not a draw. I think I saw comments about him having star power. What star power? Guy is on a team with an uber successful REG SEA record, gets paid $300 million, and still can't connect with fans (See above for why) enough to be voted an All-Star starter. This is a publicly audited popularity contest, and he sucks at getting votes. Where is he in jersey sales? TV shows? Does anybody on this website for basketball fanatics own a pair of his shoes? at star power

I would love to dump on Nike, but when you consider the source of this proposed theory is a selfish, delusional, immature dork like Brown...

[jalengreen]

Should be noted that Grant Hill doesn’t have full discretion over the roster, as far as we know.

The team was selected by USA Basketball Men’s National Team managing director Grant Hill and approved by the USA Basketball Board of Directors.

People have been claiming that Nike has a lot of influence on Team USA for years. And now you have a star who has been directly and publicly critical of the company being left off the team… naturally gonna lead to these questions.

Agree that it’s a bad look for him to complain like this anyway, and ultimately White is a good player and Brown’s not a top tier superstar or anything so I don’t care *that* much about the snub. What I would say is that Brown is clearly a more sensible replacement for Kawhi. And I think people are people are undermining his value by limiting it to volume scoring. Who was trusted to guard Luka in the NBA Finals? Jaylen Brown. And we saw him doing dirty work in that series, diving for loose balls, etc. There are NBA volume scorers who are capable of providing value in other ways, especially in environments where they need to; look at Devin Booker last time in FIBA.

So first, want to acknowledge you acknowledging why this is such a bad look for Brown. I'm really disappointed that he didn't censor himself on his teammate's behalf.

Re: Hill doesn't have full discretion; Board of Directors. I feel like when you say this you see these other people as puppet masters controlling Hill, but these are known people.

The Chairman of the Board is a former Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not saying someone like that can't be corrupt, but what's the evidence that this non-basketball man made a super-rich basketball superstar with a far longer tenure with Team USA "Managing Director" only after the basketball superstar agreed to defer about basketball decisions?

Something else to note: Previously Jerry Colangelo was both Chairman of the Board and Managing Director. The choice to split those roles in interesting, but does make sense. Colangelo was a virtual unicorn as someone who had been a scout, coach, GM & owner of NBA teams (as well as I believe the most influence non-player on the direction that the modern NBA has gone in terms of pace & space). While Hill may eventually take on both positions, makes sense that you'd have someone like him to run the basketball details, while having a boarder organization run by an executive with a strong reputation.

Re: "people have been claiming". I'll just emphasize that past allegations of conspiracy shouldn't be taken as evidence that conspiracies were happening, let along be used as evidence that the current alleged conspiracy is "more of the same". The world is awash with people buying into conspiracy theories and getting manipulated by the distorted reality that then gets presented to them. I'd advise everyone fight hard against falling in these traps.

Not sure why you feel that I see them as puppet masters, I do not. You've used language like "minion" and "bullying", but in my head it isn't that cynical. Needing approval from a Board of Directors is a standard thing in the corporate world. I do not think that Grant Hill is being provided a roster and being told to stick with it, and being erroneously presented as someone with a say in things when in reality he's a puppet. No, I'd theorize it's essentially what we're told it is, which is that Grant Hill selects the team and it is approved by the Board. I am sure Grant Hill agreed to this when he accepted his role. And the fact that the Nike and USA Basketball boards both share a member

I agree that past claims don't mean that current claims are accurate. I just genuinely couldn't tell from your original comment whether you were aware of their existence. Maybe everyone who's brought it up in the past was wrong about it and maybe Brown is wrong now, hard to know! I'm sure it'll continue to come up in future Olympics as well.

Anyway, unrelated fun fact: the respective Board of Directors for Nike and USA Basketball share one member in common, the man who famously bested Michael Jordan in a 1-on-1:

Watch on YouTube

[jalengreen]

Sure--so why did they pick White instead of Brown?

1) He is a better fit
2) He is a better player
3) Nike!

Good theories! Step up from the last one, at least

I don't want to overload you with too much thought.

It's because he is a better player and better fit--but we all know that already.

You're free to view Derrick White as better than Jaylen Brown, of course, but it's certainly not a unanimous opinion.

[Colbinii]

Good theories! Step up from the last one, at least

I don't want to overload you with too much thought.

It's because he is a better player and better fit--but we all know that already.

You're free to view Derrick White as better than Jaylen Brown, of course, but it's certainly not a unanimous opinion.

I know. It's also more of being lower on JB than higher on White. I think they are similar tier players while White is more additive in value.

[AEnigma]

I mean, Grant Hill is the boss, and he's an actual basketball superstar who sold a ton of shoes...for Fila. The idea that he punted on his own assessment (along with coach Kerr's assessment) to please a company that he isn't working for, and isn't known for working for, is paranoid.

Maybe paranoid if this happens to be the first time you have ever heard anything about Nike influence in USA basketball.

I think we should think about what we mean when we say "heard about" here. What are the sources? What is the evidence?

No one has said Jaylen is confirmed correct, but you called it demonstrably crackpot. Truth can exist in persistent rumours. And persistent rumours are not always true, but that does not mean they merit reflexive rejections either.

Heck, why the hell didn't Nike use this leverage to get Caitlyn Clark on the women's team, where we'd presume the decision makers are far more vulnerable to such bullying?

Similarly, no one — including Jaylen — suggested all decisions are filtered through Nike as the final arbiter. I do not doubt there was a push to have Clark on the team.

I think we should also consider this:

Can you imagine Nike getting Team USA Track & Field to choose a slower sprinter over a faster one because they felt vindictive toward that faster sprinter? I cannot.

I could if the twenty fastest sprinters in the world were all options for Team USA and the decision was between two guys only nominally competing. Barring terrible rotational skews, their basketball team is not going to lose because of a twelfth man choice.

Now the fact that basketball is a true team sport does allow the possibility of Nike people making basketball arguments that happen to side against a player they don't have under contract, but even if this is happening, it's a far cry from Grant Hill & company kowtowing to a corporation against their better judgment. Hill is an ultrawealthy man with basketball bonafides out the wazoo who sold shoes for a rival of Nike's, why the heck would he agree to be a knowing minion for Nike's pettiness?

Nike has far more financial influence in Team USA basketball than Grant Hill does. I do not know why you are acting like Grant Hill is some life-time appointee who singlehandedly dictates every aspect of the team — and even if he were, why that would mean he is somehow beyond corporate influence.

Re: no real team need. Well I mean, White is a better shooter, features off-ball 3's as a bigger part of his game, and is a better overall defender than Brown in my assessment. If Team USA needed someone to be one the main volume scorers and were choosing between Brown & White I'm sure they'd have picked Brown, but of course, that was never going to be Team USA's situation because the foundation of the team was always going to be guys who already did that, and did that better than Brown.

Which could be said about White in comparison with multiple players on the team. Could be said about guys like Mikal Bridges or Paul George. Herb Jones if we emphasise defence more than shooting volume. Hell, why not KCP. There is not any real reason why Derrick White is the perfect piece to replace Kawhi Leonard.

Where this looks bad for Jaylen is that his instinct was to complain about his teammate being selected over him rather than congratulate that teammate for being selected at all.

You seem to be making an allegation without specifying what it is and implying that the allegation wouldn't be relevant had Team USA chosen other non-all-stars like Mikal, Herb, or KCP.

Are you saying that Team USA chose Brown's teammate teammate over Mikal or someone else just to rub Brown's nose in it that much more? If not, what is exactly you're alleging?

I am not making allegations about what happened, because I do not know what discussions occurred behind the scene — and neither do you. You can have your opinions about whom plus/minus indicates is the better player, but Brown is the Finals MVP all-NBAer on a full maximum contract. By almost the entire community, he is much more valued, and if in response to that evaluation we are going to lean hard on “role”, then yes, I will point out “role” is not an argument in itself for White to be on the team either, because White is neither the thirteenth best American player, nor is he the missing piece that as a twelfth man will create an unstoppable whole.

I do not think White was explicitly chosen to spite Brown, no, but I understand why White’s selection makes Brown feel especially spited. The team had three point guards, two shooting guards, two centres, one power forward who usually plays centre, and three power forwards who can play small forward but in the NBA typically do not. And rather than directly replace their dedicated small forward superstar at what now the team’s thinnest position (wing), they instead to go with a fourth option guard off Jaylen’s own team, ensuring Jaylen is now the only Boston starter to not qualify for the Olympics. It does not take a crackpot to think that his public denunciation of the team’s sponsor may have played some role in that “snub”.

Re: where this looks bad for Jaylen; complain about teammate. Yup, and it's a complaint I don't think he voices if it had instead been one of the other current all-stars who were in the 2024 pool that had previously been cut. There was no reason for Brown to think he was the obvious choice for the next spot...but the idea that this teammate of his was chosen over him galls him.

Generally agree here; while I could envision him making the same tweet if someone like Brunson were selected (and in fact his accusation would ring truer if that had been what happened), going back to the perception issue, there is a difference in being snubbed for a glorified role-player and being snubbed for a guy who was fifth in MVP voting.

Of course as I say all of this, I should of course note that this is the 3rd of Brown's Celtic teammates that is now on the foster along with Tatum & Holiday, and for a guy who sees himself as a superstar to not be one of the first 3 guys on the roster chosen surely strings.

But to me Holiday's place on the team was already a critical example of some of the non-superstar players Team USA has sworn by in the wake of their 2004 defeat, and White fits with that.

That was why I emphasised history. White has no additional experience with the team (whereas Jrue has been something of a mainstay since 2020), and neither have ever really played under Kerr (whereas if Popovich were still there, maybe you could attribute it to prior familiarity). All that leaves is Nike blackballing and sincere preference for White as a basketball player. Rejecting the latter is something I would expect from him, but voicing it is juvenile and does nothing to help his chances of participating in 2028.

Finally I'll say this: This whole thing where the #3 and #4 guys on a team in a lower quality roster actually scale better to a better roster than the #2 isn't some out-of-nowhere thing. This is a basketball thing that lower level coaches warn their players about. Almost everyone in the NBA was "the Man" on lower level teams, including, for example, Derrick White.

What Brown represents is someone who is among the weakest offensive players in the league today but who is still allowed to volume shoot on a great team. (If that seems controversial, keep in mind most teams don't have more than 2 volume shooters at any given time and so most of the one's who aren't #1's, are on the weaker side.) And so it makes sense that moving to a roster with a talent level beyond NBA teams, he's not good enough to be a #1 or a #2, and he's not your best option as a role player.

As a team-building exercise, I agree. And we have seen role-players contribute: in 2008, Tayshaun was more useful than all-stars like Boozer and Redd, and in 2019, Joe Harris played more than both Jaylen and Khris Middleton. However, you can ask stars to fulfill that role. When this roster is so heavily framed as the 2024 equivalent to the Redeem Team (“The Esteem Team”?), White does feel out of place as the sole player to not be a 20-point-per-game scorer (or particularly close), in contrast with the Mikal/PG13 options I mentioned.

Re: slap in the face to choose a lesser stature teammate over Brown. That's clearly how Brown feels, but that doesn't mean Brown's feelings were the intention. If Hill thought choosing White was making Team USA worse than choosing Brown and he did it anyway he should be fired...but typing those words I think makes clear how far-fetched all this sounds. Hill's not trying to sabotage Team USA, and he's not some vulnerable middle manager who needs the pay check. Sure it's possible that the suits at Nike were able to convince him of something untrue about basketball, but quite literally if anyone at Nike tried to make Grant Hill feel like he doesn't know basketball, I think they'd be shown the door pretty quickly.

The idea that every move is designed to maximise their medal chances falls apart the second we remember there are three non-NBA players on the team. Marketing and politics have been an intrinsic element of this going back at least to the Dream Team. That does not mean every snub or selection is dictated by a certain financial interest, but how about we not pretend it is “crackpot” thinking to accuse those long-existing financial interests of being able to put their thumb on the scale.

Jaylen can be understandably mad, and we can be understandably unsympathetic about a feud started when his buddy faced financial backlash for publicising ignorant beliefs.

So you're suggesting that if there's any apparent inconsistency in selection process, it's probably due to corporate interests inserting themselves - and apparently inserting themselves inconsistently.

See underlined and bolded.

Just granting the premise for a second, I believe the way we entertain such possibilities without becoming crackpots is not to stop when our cynical answer seems like a feasible answer, but to follow through try to find greater consistency using that explanation that could be achieved through other, less cryptic, means.

If Nike can say who is on the roster, and chooses based on who they have under contract, why is a Fila guy (Grant Hill) in the position of power?

Because no one said Nike was all-powerful, or even that they would be materially opposed to someone like Grant Hill, or that Grant Hill would by rule be taking principled stands against Nike’s influence because of his connection with Fila.

If Nike can say who is on the roster, and chooses based on who they have under contract, why is anyone on the roster who isn't a Nike guy?

Because they can generally minimise the extent to which anything outside of Nike is meaningfully advertised.

If Nike "picks their battles", why would they choose to go all-in against Brown rather than all-in for Clark?

I suspect they did care more about Clark, and I will be clear that I do not think that Brown would be off the team if the only point weighing against him were Nike’s interests.

Now, I know that Brown specifically had criticized Nike in the past, so if you want to argue that Nike is just plain petty, okay. But let's just note that if you're saying that was more important to Nike than any of those other things, I'd say Nike is being incredibly small-minded in how it's choosing to use its power.

I think that depends on the framing. Do brands find it petty to reject those who treat their brands antagonistically or otherwise act in such a way that it could reflect negatively on the brand?

By contrast, we could just explain the situation like this:

1. Team USA begins its process by courting all the American stars in the league to be a part of it - as well as some role players.
2. Tippy top tier superstars are pursued basically with a guaranteed spot on the roster, with memories of prior rosters with a dearth in star talent always on the mind of Team USA. Who was that on this roster? Well aside from guys like LeBron, KD, Curry, consider Embiid. You really think Team USA was going to cut him from the roster after there was an active competition for which national team he'd play for?

Agree.

3. Team USA then looks to round out the rosters as best it can around its too-many-stars lineup. That's how a guy like Jrue Holiday got on the team before , and that's how a guy like White gets on the team now. So, when there is a later replacement, the smart basketball thing to do is to use that opportunity to add useful role players rather than someone more useful as a star.

I find this to be a better explanation for what happened.

This is where it becomes much fuzzier. It is a fine interpretation, but hardly a consistent one (which makes the next paragraph funny to read).

Now, could I be wrong? Sure. But what I'm talking about here isn't so much that there couldn't possibly be a conspiracy, but that we get into trouble when we assume vague conspiracies without looking for consistency in those explanations. You end up with a "one stop shop" of an epistemic process where you think you quickly have an explanation for anything that happened, but without the ability to predict what will happen next.

Conspiracy is not much better here than crackpot. Is it a “conspiracy” if a Nike representative suggests they would prefer someone other than Jaylen be selected? Does the possibility of that dynamic qualify as a “one-stop shop” explanation?

Jaylen jumped to that accusation because he is mad and unwilling to accept that he is not as good as he thinks he is (regardless of whether that means he is better or more deserving than White). Does not mean there is zero truth to the idea that visibly cutting ties with Nike hurt his chances of being on the team.

(And I think we should consider that. If I had told you ahead of time that Brown was no longer in consideration due to things he said, would you have guess White would have been the next pick? I don't think so.

Well, elephant in the room is that White has been tied to the team for a while, if not necessarily as their de facto first alternate. If I were in change, I would have been looking at George or Mikal, or maybe even JJJ if I were particularly concerned about the French team — but I never really saw any of them seriously mentioned.

On the other hand, if I told you ahead of time that Team USA wanted to take the opportunity of Kawhi's leaving to get a great role player and asked you to look at that the player pool to name guys who are known for being great role players in the NBA, would White be one of the guys who you thought of? It would have for me certainly. I wouldn't have thought it strange if someone else (say Mikal) was chosen either, but White is absolutely on the short list for me if that's what they are looking for.)

Sure. I think he has a place on the team, but the decision to put him on the team could change based on a number of different contexts. For example, is Derrick White on the team if he were the one who attacked Nike for ending their relationship with Kyrie?

I would say that generally allegations of corruption run analogous risk. It exists, but it's not the reason for every event that happens, and so when it becomes our default explanation, it stops us from actually gaining understanding, and traps us see bad faith everywhere even when it doesn't exist. And while people might think that such "healthy cynicism" protects them, the reality is it makes them easier to manipulate.

While again acknowledging that at no point has anyone in this conversation advanced the theory that team selection is entirely a matter of Nike approval, I think it is similarly simplistic to assume that all decisions are just a product of calculated roster-building, or that Grant Hill’s ties to Fila free him from any possible influence from Nike, or that a corporation that has spent decades pouring tens of millions of dollars into the programme has zero input.

[Doctor MJ]

Should be noted that Grant Hill doesn’t have full discretion over the roster, as far as we know.



People have been claiming that Nike has a lot of influence on Team USA for years. And now you have a star who has been directly and publicly critical of the company being left off the team… naturally gonna lead to these questions.

Agree that it’s a bad look for him to complain like this anyway, and ultimately White is a good player and Brown’s not a top tier superstar or anything so I don’t care *that* much about the snub. What I would say is that Brown is clearly a more sensible replacement for Kawhi. And I think people are people are undermining his value by limiting it to volume scoring. Who was trusted to guard Luka in the NBA Finals? Jaylen Brown. And we saw him doing dirty work in that series, diving for loose balls, etc. There are NBA volume scorers who are capable of providing value in other ways, especially in environments where they need to; look at Devin Booker last time in FIBA.

So first, want to acknowledge you acknowledging why this is such a bad look for Brown. I'm really disappointed that he didn't censor himself on his teammate's behalf.

Re: Hill doesn't have full discretion; Board of Directors. I feel like when you say this you see these other people as puppet masters controlling Hill, but these are known people.

The Chairman of the Board is a former Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not saying someone like that can't be corrupt, but what's the evidence that this non-basketball man made a super-rich basketball superstar with a far longer tenure with Team USA "Managing Director" only after the basketball superstar agreed to defer about basketball decisions?

Something else to note: Previously Jerry Colangelo was both Chairman of the Board and Managing Director. The choice to split those roles in interesting, but does make sense. Colangelo was a virtual unicorn as someone who had been a scout, coach, GM & owner of NBA teams (as well as I believe the most influence non-player on the direction that the modern NBA has gone in terms of pace & space). While Hill may eventually take on both positions, makes sense that you'd have someone like him to run the basketball details, while having a boarder organization run by an executive with a strong reputation.

Re: "people have been claiming". I'll just emphasize that past allegations of conspiracy shouldn't be taken as evidence that conspiracies were happening, let along be used as evidence that the current alleged conspiracy is "more of the same". The world is awash with people buying into conspiracy theories and getting manipulated by the distorted reality that then gets presented to them. I'd advise everyone fight hard against falling in these traps.

Not sure why you feel that I see them as puppet masters, I do not. You've used language like "minion" and "bullying", but in my head it isn't that cynical. Needing approval from a Board of Directors is a standard thing in the corporate world. I do not think that Grant Hill is being provided a roster and being told to stick with it, and being erroneously presented as someone with a say in things when in reality he's a puppet. No, I'd theorize it's essentially what we're told it is, which is that Grant Hill selects the team and it is approved by the Board. I am sure Grant Hill agreed to this when he accepted his role. And the fact that the Nike and USA Basketball boards both share a member

I agree that past claims don't mean that current claims are accurate. I just genuinely couldn't tell from your original comment whether you were aware of their existence. Maybe everyone who's brought it up in the past was wrong about it and maybe Brown is wrong now, hard to know! I'm sure it'll continue to come up in future Olympics as well.

Anyway, unrelated fun fact: the respective Board of Directors for Nike and USA Basketball share one member in common, the man who famously bested Michael Jordan in a 1-on-1:

Watch on YouTube

If we agree that Hill and basketball people (Kerr for example) are the ones choosing the team, then I don't know why we're talking about the Board.

[ShaqAttac]

idk why brown shouldn't say what he thinks. brown not making the team after winning finals mvp is disrespectful tbh

[ShaqAttac]

https://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2016/7/18/12215962/nike-usa-basketball-hiding-shoes-team-photo-adidas-nope-reebok-nope

bout time nike called out for their bs

[Colbinii]

idk why brown shouldn't say what he thinks. brown not making the team after winning finals mvp is disrespectful tbh

Shame Iggy didn't make it in 2016

[AEnigma]

idk why brown shouldn't say what he thinks. brown not making the team after winning finals mvp is disrespectful tbh

Shame Iggy didn't make it in 2016

He was on the prior one though.

[Doctor MJ]

https://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2016/7/18/12215962/nike-usa-basketball-hiding-shoes-team-photo-adidas-nope-reebok-nope

bout time nike called out for their bs

This is different. Stuff like this was going on between Adidas and Puma in the 70s.

Companies fighting about logo placement is different from a company refusing to let someone be an Olympian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Special_Puppy]

idk why brown shouldn't say what he thinks. brown not making the team after winning finals mvp is disrespectful tbh

Derrick White is a straight up better player than Jaylen Brown

[Peregrine01]

Quick thought on the exhibition match: it’s really jarring how much the difference in officiating can affect the game and certain players in particular. Embiid’s game seems to depend on the crazy whistles that he gets in the NBA. No where near as effective under FIBA rules.

People had the same criticisms of Harden, and yet he killed it in FIBA. Let's not make such judgments after one game, especially when it was that guy's first ever FIBA game. Also, matchups matter. We know AD can't guard Jokic and the bigger centers; Embiid will be most valuable in those situations.

Oh I'm sure players like Harden and Embiid will still be effective in FIBA play, just no where near as effective as they are in the NBA. Guys are legit afraid of guarding Embiid in the NBA for fear of a parade to the line. Do you see Dwight Powell getting away with the defense he played this last game on Embiid in an NBA game? Powell was pretty much guarding him straight up with no help and Embiid kept flopping and not getting a whistle. In an NBA game that's an automatic double team by the Mavs.

[itsxtray]

Quick thought on the exhibition match: it’s really jarring how much the difference in officiating can affect the game and certain players in particular. Embiid’s game seems to depend on the crazy whistles that he gets in the NBA. No where near as effective under FIBA rules.

People had the same criticisms of Harden, and yet he killed it in FIBA. Let's not make such judgments after one game, especially when it was that guy's first ever FIBA game. Also, matchups matter. We know AD can't guard Jokic and the bigger centers; Embiid will be most valuable in those situations.

Oh I'm sure players like Harden and Embiid will still be effective in FIBA play, just no where near as effective as they are in the NBA. Guys are legit afraid of guarding Embiid in the NBA for fear of a parade to the line. Do you see Dwight Powell getting away with the defense he played this last game on Embiid in an NBA game? Powell was pretty much guarding him straight up with no help and Embiid kept flopping and not getting a whistle. In an NBA game that's an automatic double team by the Mavs.

Nah, Harden was phenomenal in 2014, better than he was in the NBA that season. He led Team USA in scoring with a 66.33 ts% while being second in assists. It wasn't crazy volume either; he was fifth on the team in attempts. Additionally, on the free throw note, he did lead the team in attempts at 4.7 per game.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/international/teams/united-states/2014.html

He was also insane in the gold medal game, shooting 8/11 from the field, 3/5 from three, and 4/4 from the line for 23 points in 21 minutes.

Watch on YouTube

Now, will Embiid play this well? It remains to be seen, but just because someone foul baits doesn't mean they can't dominate FIBA, and that's all I was contesting.

[sp6r=underrated]

This thread reminded me of this post on the limits of conspiracy theories by looking at a documented conspiracy.

I don't think it is impossible but nobody has brought forth any convincing evidence.


http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/watergate-and-conspiracy-theories.html

One of the key things this retrospective has taught me is not just the limitations of Presidents, but the limitations of conspiracies. These posts should be required reading for anyone tempted to believe in a conspiracy theory.

Which isn’t to say conspiracies don’t happen. This is, after all, an actual criminal conspiracy at the highest levels of state power. But that’s the thing... it’s not the moon landing, let alone 9/11 - all they’re scheming over is a few low-rent burglaries/buggings, and then a cover-up of those operations.

But they seem to be terrible at it. Not only do they fail to pull it off and keep their connections to it secret, but as soon as the pressure rises, they all get lawyers and start squealing on each other. They can’t remember what each other know, they probably can’t remember what they themselves knew at which point...they just seem to be really ineffective.

And these are not a bunch of chumps. It’s a President and chief of staff known for being clever, extremely driven, and politically ruthless; and a very competent inner circle.

There’s also very little of the style of imagined conspiracies here. You have moments where Nixon says things like, ‘You're to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in.’ But for the most part they do an elaborate dance around the issue at hand, rarely saying exactly what they mean - even those who don’t know they’re being taped. They pretend to know less than they do, they nudge each other towards taking more of the rap, mostly they just fret aimlessly, for months on end. And when they need to lay down the law to someone, like Mitchell for instance, they don’t seem to have the nerve to do it.

Or take something like the situation with Judge Sirica, as JB described it here. When Nixon first airs his frustrations about Sirica to Colson, and asks if he’s waiting for a Democrat to nominate him to the Supreme Court, Colson says:

No, no. He is a Republican. I know him pretty well. I have been with him at various events -- social events. Very decent guy, dedicated to you and to Eisenhower.

Now, in conspiracy land, what happens next is that they arrange for Colson to play a round of golf with him and just tell him, as a loyal soldier, what to do; or if he does balk, they promise him a SCOTUS seat, bribe him with millions, threaten or blackmail him or whatever - and problem solved. But no, in reality, they just speculate about whether he’s doing it because he’s a “hot-headed Italian” and carry on the dance of words. It seems it’s not even remotely on the radar to influence a judge. I mean, what kind of conspiracy is this!?

They also have a hard time raising the money to keep the boys quiet - again, this is a plot run by the White House and senior figures in the GOP, and they can’t get their hands on enough money to keep their conspiracy secret. In the movies and on the net, hush-money is really not a problem for these kind of people.

Now, no doubt a good deal of this is the result of what JB has been explaining about Nixon’s alienation of the rest of government, and presidential weakness in general. I dare say it’s easier to pull off a conspiracy if you’re Stalin than if you’re occupying the White House. And I guess a circle of, say, ‘shadowy’ international financiers, has less institutional barriers facing them. On the other hand, they lack many advantages of being officially in charge of the country. Like being able to offer immunity, or ask the FBI to destroy evidence.

Still, I’d tentatively suggest that on this evidence, to pull off a major conspiracy like an inside-job 9/11 is, if not actually impossible, so incredibly unlikely to succeed that no experienced or competent pol would ever try it.

--

Back to me: I think that's all exactly right.

One other point, however, worth making is that the Nixon tapes themselves are excellent evidence against ongoing major conspiracy theories, stuff such as faked moon landings or UFO cover-ups, or larger political things such as domination of the government by shadowy outside actors. Basically, we have on tape much of what Richard Nixon said from February 1971 through July 1973, and there's no indication of any of those conspiracies in what we have to date. And yet Nixon was candid enough on these tapes that he was willing to incriminate himself multiple times. His Chief of Staff, too, was candid enough to incriminate himself. And others, who (supposedly?) didn't know about the tapes, were also quite candid about their Watergate-related crimes. And yet none of them happened to mention any of those other conspiracies. Nor, for that matter, do any of the White House tapes of other presidents, for whatever that's worth.

[AEnigma]

Uh huh.

You know, for decades it was a “conspiracy” that oil corporations knew about the long-term environmental effects of their industry… and then it became known truth. Can do the same for tobacco corporations. Or your typical U.S. military/CIA “conspiracy”.

You are scaremongering with the “conspiracy” term, so I can even scale it back. Cosby and Weinstein were known predators within the entertainment industry years before the eventual public breakthrough. And among that public were thousands just like you who would scoff at the idea. After all, where was the proof? If it were such an “open secret”, how could most of the world be unaware of it?

For you of course there is nothing new in equating the idea that monied interests might have behind-the-scenes influence with the idea of a faked moon landing, but I am not surprised that increasingly more people are willing to consider that there may be more to business dynamics than what is broadcast directly to you.