ESPN NBA

Posted by Kelly Dwyer

"And for someone else who asked about why I hate the Lakers, just stop it. I can't help that your team is in a bad way. When I was proclaiming that the Lakers were better than the Kings back when Sac mattered, then I was a Lakers' homer. I don't have personal interests in any team, in part because I grew up in Cincinnati without a team, in greater part because I'm just not wired like that as a journalist. But this is probably a topic for my next podcast with Simmons."

Ric Bucher typed that, in a chat from earlier this month, and it deserves a discussion. His chat response has been bugging me since I read it live, and the issue is worth going over: the image of sportswriters and the teams that readers perceive them to either loathe, or lust over.

I've been writing about the NBA on various Web sites for ten years now. In that term, by my estimation, I've been called a "homer" for over half the teams in the league, and a "hater" for probably 25 out of 30 outfits. Funny to me is the fact that I haven't been called a "homer" for the team from my hometown that I obsess over - your Chicago Bulls - in probably seven years. Hilarious to me is that people think I really give a second thought as to who wins and loses - it really isn't that hard to be impartial, and though you might not believe it, I truly don't care who wins and loses.

There are smaller hopes and victories, to be sure. I was relieved to see the Minnesota Timberwolves fall out of the playoff picture after they canned Dwane Casey last year; partially because his firing was so uncalled-for, but mostly because I assumed another lottery appearance would be the final tipping point in a potential Kevin Garnett trade. I root for certain trades or signings to happen for certain teams, mainly because I want to see each of this league's 30 franchises to be working at peak efficiency. For instance, along the KG line of thinking, I was kind of bummed at one (quickly quashed) rumor that had the Celtics sending Rajon Rondo to Minnesota amongst the other youngsters. Minnesota doesn't need another point guard, and the Celtics (even with Rondo) desperately need help at that position. So I root for the C's to keep Rondo, even though I know he isn't great shakes, because I want to see the holes filled and the good basketball that comes as a result.

On the free agent tip, I take disappointment in bum deals because I know what it means for me as a fan - I don't like seeing Orlando spend that much money on Rashard Lewis, because it could hurt its ability to build around Dwight Howard for years to come. Or, I don't want to see Minnesota sign Mike James, because they don't need another shooting guard in a point guard's body, while Cleveland or Houston is desperate for someone with James' shooting savvy. This is what I, and most fans, root for. Though we all have favorite teams, I'm assuming you - the hearty NBA fan -- thinks the same way.

Now, I ripped on Minnesota a bit there, but does that mean I'm a Timberwolves "hater"? The whole purpose of this paragraph is designed to disabuse you of that notion; as I've been abused for so long by readers that as a reflex I always seem to type out this sort of qualifier after re-reading the paragraphs above. I don't hate the Timberwolves, I just want what's best for them. Just as I was happy to see them net LaPhonso Ellis or Reggie Slater (two good fits for Flip Saunders' offense) years ago, or re-acquire Dean Garrett (Denver didn't need him), I want what's best for the team, as I do all teams. Not signing Mike James, and trading KG while starting over - that's what's best for that team.

That doesn't stop a rabid fan from skimming things, though. And those qualifiers (often coming across as too preachy or pandering) usually get cut by well-meaning editors. What happens after that? You get told, via email, to either "get off (whatever team's) jock," or "get rid of your (whatever team; sometimes the same team, within a month) bias." It's an odd phenomenon. Scroll through every team's message board at RealGM.com - anytime a member of the ESPN staff writes a complimentary column about ANY team (big city or smaller city; good team or bad team), the person linking to the article or responding to it on a message board will always throw in a "FINALLY we get some love from ESPN" caveat. Of course, should a scribe pen a dismissive column regarding a team's chances, the reaction is (almost always), "nobody on ESPN likes the (insert team name here)." Believe me, I've been reading this stuff for years. The pattern is so predictable.

Now, I'm not going to tell you that certain columnists favor writing about certain teams. Two factors play into this: the writer's interest in watching basketball not included in that week's national TV package, or the city the writer works out of. The former factor usually comes in the guise of national columnists who have to write about every sport and every big story four times a week. In the summer, they talk about the Yankees more than any other second-place team in baseball history; and in the winter, because Kobe always plays on Christmas, you'll get your fill of Laker talk. I can't fault those guys, because they have to actually watch baseball and college football sober.

For the latter, I'm assuming that ease and comfort play a part. There's been a huge backlash in journalist circles against writers that seemingly report from the comfort of their couch. Because that's where I'm taking notes from, I've no issues regarding that stylistic sense. And yet, for others, there is probably a sense of unease that sets in when a writer, based out of New York or Boston or whatever big city, dives into a column about the Hawks. That writer may see the Hawks in the flesh once or twice a year; and he or she can either make big assumptions based off that small sample size (writing what "sounds right") or go off what they see at home on the satellite dish. Faced with having to provide insight gleaned from a night spent with remote in hand, the columnist may prefer to go with what they saw on a single night - at the stadium - in the middle of February. Or, they may not write about the team at all.

But there's no hating, or jock-riding, going on. I endlessly talk up how good Dirk Nowitzki is because he's so freakin' good. And I ceaselessly rip on the Cleveland Cavaliers because their offensive sets are so stagnant, their roster was so poorly put together, and I'm quite nervous at the thought of LeBron James going years between NBA Finals appearances. I want the Cavs to do better, and take advantage of their special young talent. That's not "hating," that's pleading for a better night, on my end, spent on the couch. People have to stop thinking that Marty Burns, somehow, derives some perverse pleasure in watching the Knicks lose; or that Charley Rosen cackles with glee every time Tracy McGrady misses a turnaround jumper, or that Chris Sheridan has Ray Allen's picture stuck in the middle of dartboard in his den.

So, let's litter up the comment section with who you think pays special attention to the relative good and bad fortunes of certain teams, and let's get to debunkin'.