I try to make a point of comparing white guys to black guys and vice versa.  I hate it when every Euro gets compared to Dirk or Manu, even when they have very different games.

Scott's comments are interesting.  It makes sense to want guys who can relate to players (and being an ex-player helps), but their color shouldn't matter.

There is racism in sports (from multiple directions), which isn't surprising given that there is racism everywhere in our culture, we just aren't always aware of it.

--Dave

At the risk of delving into psychobabble, I also think that stereotypes and confirmation bias play a role. In my opinion, the popular thinking says that black players are flashy, athletic dunkers; white players are fundamentally sound, athletically limited scrappers; and foreign players are all-offense, no-defense softies. Seeing a white/black/foreign player triggers that stereotype pathway and impedes logical cross-stereotype connections: for example, Tyler Hansbrough gets compared to Mark Madsen and not Paul Millsap, which I think is a much more apt comparison. Confirmation bias comes into play to mentally eliminate players that would disprove the universality of those stereotypes -- Tim Duncan is probably the least athletic of the NBA's superstars but perhaps the most fundamentally sound, for one example, and Eduardo Najera and Jorge Garbajosa are both hard-nosed defensive players.

I edit for my school's newspaper and wrote a column about fans' racism with regards to the NBA that generated some interesting feedback. For those who are interested, it's here.

http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/04/24/Sports/Matt-Mertens.Freelance r-2876403.shtml

All kind of racism must be fought, but individual racism is many times very complex and difficult to discover it and to judge it. Prejudice is a primitive intelligence, very economic in terms of effort. Poor intelligence but intelligence. And human always try to be inteligent even when doing so they only become more stupid.

We compare Jarrett Jack and Sergio Rodriguez constantly here. Maybe 'compare' is a little too friendly of a term for what happens, but it think it still fits well enough to use it.

Excellent post Mr. inHawaii, and very thought provoking responses from the rest of you.

  In general I don't like player comparisons at all, people seem to love to compare one player to another, define one player using the example of another. Usually I find the comparisons weak regardless of the ethnic background of the players used in the comparisons.

  You'd like humanity to keep moving towards the ideal, where we evaluate players, coaches, EVERYONE on the basis of who they are as human beings, and not on skin tone or ethnic background. In my lifetime I have witnessed improvement, in some cases vast improvement in moving towards that ideal. But there is still a gap.

   Generalizations are dangerous. Yes, I remember when every white Basketball player who could make a pass and hit a jumper was inevitably compared to Larry Bird. While also every black player who could dunk was inevitably compared to Dr.J or Jordan. Is there a racism at the heart of these comparisons? Probably a lazy kernel of it, but in most cases they are just bad comparisons made by people of limited basketball knowledge.

  I think society as a whole and we as individuals need to recognize that racism still exists, outwardly and inwardly. We have made gains but IMO the ideal where judgements aren't made at all on the basis skin color or ethnicity has not been reached. Keep striving and fill in the gap with understanding and discussions like this one.

  Again, I haven't heard the interview with Byron Scott but I find this statement disturbing: "I had always told myself when I got that type of power, that I would hire an all black staff, because they would be able to relate, and they would all be former basketball players."

  It smacks of racism, even if functionally it has some merit. If any white coach made the opposite statement, that he'd like to hire an all white staff because of any reasons stated, I think he would immeditately be attacked and held up as being racist.

  I think's it's sad and flawed if Byron Scott thinks only black people can relate, and only black people would be ex-players. Isn't it part of growth and understanding to know that white coaches can "relate" and coach black players and black coaches can "relate" and coach white players?

  Ideally wouldn't it show more understanding and growth by Byron Scott if he had said, " I used to think I wanted an all black staff, but now I realize I want the best staff I can assemble regardless of skin tone and racial background."

  It's dangerous water. In some forums McMillan has been accused of racism whenever Sergio doesn't play or Pryzbilla doesn't get the minutes. I don't think that is fair, I don't think it's a reality. But the accusation in of itself shows that we have not reached that ideal state where we don't factor in race or skin tone in our opinions.

  For example, Bill Bayno was by all reports an excellent assistant coach. He was a white man who worked with ALL our players. Byron Scott would be mistaken to think Bayno wouldn't be a great asset to any team, anyplace, anytime. Would Scott not hire him if given the opportunity because he isn't black?

   Scotts comments sound like someone who has been hurt by racism in the past, which is very likely- unfortunately. But his reaction seems to to me like someone who hasn't really learned. We haven't reached the ideal, until coaches are judged only as coaches, players as players, people as people. Sorry Byron, but any coach should simply want the best staff he can assemble...PERIOD.

  Again, I haven't heard the entire interview in context, so if I'm missing something then I apologize in advance. Given the chance to elaborate at the end of the show evidently Byron Scott hedged on his original comment but it still sounded like hedging to me.  
 

Personally, I don't like it much.  Until today, I didn't know this about Scott's staff but I wasn't a N.O. fan at all, partially because I think Chris Paul is cocky (although I am a big David West fan).  This information certainly will not help endear me to the Hornets and I agree with others who say this situation can only hurt the team in the long run.  

I think many media reps (probably too vague and generalized as a term but I couldn't think of anything else) and many people in common conversation often talk as though it is understood what "blackness" is and drop hints, but just hints, about defining it.  This form of stereotyping is perpetuated by fear of seeming racist.  This fear keeps people from really trying to understand or learn or consider what "black" or "white" or any socio-cultural label CAN mean.  

Constant scrutinizing of any reference to race in any venue makes it hard to forward discussion because it gets bogged down in accusation.  I think the ability to discuss complicated racial issues and how they play out in our lives in a big public forum is limited by this fear.  

I'm thinking Obama tried to get at the edges of this problem with his "racist grandma" anecdote.  I'm pretty sure we all have a racist of some type somewhere in our familial/social background.  I know I do.  Good thing I'm not running for president.  Would a white politician get the same leeway for associating with racists now that Obama has broken the seal?  Remember Trent Lott?  I know Obama's response was brought about by certain accusations and maybe, in this case, those accusations led to something more productive than normal.  

Remember when Rush tried to question McNabb's skills and accolades by asking (or maybe insisting) if race played an issue?  What if Stephen A Smith had done this?

I'm not trying to get real political here but I thought these recent examples related.  There are many points of contention in what I just wrote and it's woefully disjointed and incomplete but I thought I'd throw out what jumped into my head after reading what all of you had contributed so far.  I'm really not after the overtly political here but obviously this topic relates to all kinds of current political issues and questions.

As to the case at hand, I have no problem with Byron Scott's desire for an all-black staff.  Sure he made a mistake in admitting that desire publicly, especially considering that the law makes no distinction between discrimination and reverse discrimination.  But after so many decades of all-white coaching staffs, how can you get up in arms over a guy putting the shoe on the other foot?

But I do think Scott is probably making a mistake strictly from a basketball standpoint.  This is where the concept of "hybrid vigor" comes in.  Modern NBA head coaches surround themselves with multiple assistants so that they'll get a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints.  This gives them more options to choose from.  So logically, you want your coaches to come from as diverse a set of backgrounds as possible.

Someone above mentioned the example of Bill Bayno--a white assistant on a black headcoach's staff who made an undeniable contribution.  But it should be noted that Bayno is an unusual guy; he spent a lot of time playing in black schoolyards coming up, has a multi-racial family, and in general is something of a cultural hybrid.  By contrast, Scott may have dealt with some white coaches in the past who had trouble relating to black players or even who were uncomfortable having a black boss.

So for Scott, the path of least resistance might be to avoid all those possible issues and just go with an all-black staff.  I can understand that choice.  I just think it's probably the wrong one.  If you have the chance to hire a Bill Bayno, you hire him even if he's green and has little horns sprouting from his forehead.  (Now THERE'S "hybrid vigor"!)

lets see, how to create change... hmmm... how about if people stop bringing it up as an issue when it isnt?

give mankind some credit, when they are afforded better choices, they usually make them.