I was browsing the nba webpage and saw a link to an article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jack_mccallum/01/29/stern.main/index.html?eref=T1

Now I understand that rule one of reading on the internet is to know your sources. Anything published on NBA.com is not free media, but rather stories that have played to the NBAs desire and been rewarded with a home page link.

However, sometimes the line between favorable coverage, and just making stories up gets crossed.

In this article Jack McCallum writes about David Stern. Now I have a great deal of respect for the success both of these men have enjoyed in their careers. That said, I felt this piece damaged Jack's credibility.

Having watched the NBA for the last decade, I have felt that stern not only did not make the best decision available to him, but actually created new choices that were worse than anything concievable at that point. In that sense, I feel he should direct horror movies.

This is nothing that I wouldn't say infront of him. While he has had a very successful career in terms of power and years, I feel the league has suffered. Here are my memories (sorry, no supporting links--this is an opinion poll)

David stern saying he couldn't recall a single game where poor officiating changed the outcome of the game.

The gag rule about teams/coaches/players/analysts criticizing the referees.

The lack of challenges and replay usage in officiating games. I believe the referees do an incredible job at calling the game in the heat of the moment. Far better than I could do. However I also believe they miss several calls because they are human. We have technology to help them get it right--let them use it.

The handling of Tim the betting referee. According to the article some people say the NBA reacted brilliantly. I thought it was weak. I like people and groups that own up to their mistakes and clearly state how the situation will be improved. If one of my employees failed to do that, they would be fired.

Late rules coming out from the NBA: IE. Preseason games count towards the ten.

The rumble at the palace. (Indy/detriot) I did not once see Stern criticize the single most glaring mistake there. In my opinion, it was lack of security. This was a grudge match and all the fans saw it coming. The players are just people who are gifted at basketball and willing to work are refining their craft. The GMs need to treat this like a business, and it was their responsibility to be prepared for it. Stern blamed the players -- and prevented the footage from being shown again. It was a classic example of limiting the freedom of the press. I watched that game live, and what happened is not at all what was reported the next day. When it was live the analysts were talking about how the players were defending themselves and the horrors that players go through. They saw the lack of security and worried for everyone's safety. The next day the analysts had been told what to say, and to only show very short pre-selected clips. If you didn't see it live, you didn't know what happened.

Now, I buy into conspiracies a little. However, Ockham's Razor must be considered. Frequently a simple reason makes the most sense. Scott Adam's (Dilbert) refers to a litmus test in the form of "What is more likely?"

If the bosses chair breaks, what is more likely?

A) The boss uses a lower status chair for a few weeks until there is money in the budget for a new chair.

B) The hiring of a new employee is delayed for a few days to pay for the new chair.

By using that test we could conclude that employees are less valued than office furniture. In the same way we see that Brandon Roy got very hot on offense, culminating in a 52 point performance. Shortly after this Roy makes a comment about Superstar calls, and how the hardest thing about playing a superstar is dealing with the officiating.

After this comment roy  IMMEDIATELY has a massive slump in scoring. His shooting percents drop as he appears to be hit every time he goes into the lane, only now the whistle doesn't blow. Is it more likely that
A) Several coaches and opposing teams all figured out in unison exactly how to control him for a few weeks

B) The referees saw the story and were offended and choose not to give Roy the benefit of the whistle the way he was used to receiving it (when in doubt, no foul is called now, as opposed to before)

I think B makes far more sense--especially when you throw in the reaction you've seen from Roy barking at referees who could clearly see the foul.

In thise sense, I feel the fact that stern has not acted on superstar officiating is sad. (I'm aware that was a TON of writing to make that point)

So, how do you feel about David Stern?

Disagreeing comments are welcome, as long as we can all avoid attacking members of BE. David Stern has chosen to be a celebrity by taking on the role as commissioner, I would expect him to be capable of handling criticism. If someone will bend over backward to claim that untold numbers of people are calling him one of the greatest of all time, then someone should at least post a poll. When I think "all time greats", I think of MJ, russell, wilt. When I think of great commissioners, I think of the NFL. When I think of poor decisions, I think of Stern.