"Lies, Damned Lies, and Obama (response to Battier article)

Where are you getting that from? I took his point to mean that Battier was providing something that those who only look at points and rebounding totals were missing, but some newer statistical measures captured. But I don't recall there being any racial subtext to his piece at all.

 

Lewis himself divided things along racial lines in asking the question "white people?" when Battier was asked who were the ones that didn't embrace him. Lewis himself invited that racial subtext into his piece.

 

OK, Chee, since you "know" the guy who blogged this, please at least let him know there's an apostrophe in "That's" before he starts critiquing others.

Secondly, his blog is nothing more than a rant. His point about how comparing Battier to Obama is racist because they're the only two intelligent mixed-race men on earth is stupid to the nth degree. Here's the exact part of the story, which he selectively quoted:

As in, he was the first prospective black president. The one who spoke of his love for politics, the one who has always been involved.

Thirdly, it's like he didn't even read the piece. He just skimmed it, picked and chose, and harped on things that he, again, took out of context.



As Fenian would say: Try harder.

 

Your rebuttal to this thoughtful piece was to harp on a typo? Well THAT'S worthwhile.

A declaration not backed out by a clearly explained rationale=empty

What you're doing right now=ranting

Your ability to deconstruct an argument=lacking

I didn't think the quote was selective at all. Are you that weird or obtuse that you actually think Shane Battier was a prospective candidate for president in high school? Or that he is now? Ever was?

You're missing the point, which was the hyperbolic characterization of Battier as presidential, and the juxtaposition of Battier and then "the street" was a weird piece of racial/cultural propaganda that is without merit, and didn't serve any purpose in the piece except to imply: Shane Battier smart, presidential, good; streets flashy, inarticulate, bad.

This would be an excellent and truthful point if you applied it to yourself in this very instance.

As I said to the lightbulb I just changed: you ain't too bright.

 

It wasn't my "rebuttal" so much as a request to someone who "knows" the guy who wrote it. Had nothing to do with his piece.

We'll agree to disagree on the point about Battier/Obama. It was logical to me, because I had heard Battier so many times referred to as the future president (mostly hyperbole, but whatever). I didn't take a racial undertone to that at all, at least not in the "there are only two intelligent, well-spoken black men capable of being president" way.

You really presented nothing else to comment on.

 

If you read "Blind Side," Lewis really works in the racial undertones into his story. I see the same trend here.

I thought the point about "the streets" and AAU teams missing out on what Battier brought to the table was spot on. A lot of AAU stars bounce around from school to school and AAU team to AAU team. They don't care who they play for, and no one else on the "team" cares about how the "team" does, either. They are there to impress scouts and the coaches are there to get their players into college so they can either (a) score the next big prep star for their AAU team or (b) get hooked up with a job at the next level. I don't have a problem with that, but the point is that the team hardly matters in that setting -- at least the AAU teams that I played for had that sense to them.

Battier's game is meant more for a team that is competing for something that matters, not the Boston Jam Fest. That's why he won at the college level with one of the biggest team-first-mentality programs.

And we can't forget that basketball is the most racially sensitive sport. No other sport has more racial tension than basketball, where the overwhelming majority of the paying fans, team owners and upper-management types are white and the overwhelming majority the players are not. So, when Lewis says that Battier's style of play doesn't fit the mold of "the streets," I think that's like saying playing small ball doesn't fit the mold of Billy Beane's teams. He's not trying to be racially insensitive, it's just that the split between traditional-game lovers and sabermetrics lovers might fall along racial and age lines in basketball.

 

Maybe your journey in life hasn't brought enough interaction with African Americans who are as educated, well spoken and as intelligent as Shane Battier, but for someone to say Battier is the "first" is an insult to people like me who regularly interact with African Americans that have just as much if not more of a pedigree than Shane.

He's patting Shane on the back for not being like one of "those guys," as if he's so outside the norm and astonishing that he's a "first" along the lines of someone who ascended to a Presidency few believed was possible due to this country's history when it comes to race.

It was pretty insulting reading that.

So when does a player like Battier start paying dividends, because none of his teams have gotten past the first round of the playoffs, for all of the patting on the back he's receiving for being a "winner."

Tracy McGrady has never been considered a winner for all of his first round failures, but Shane Battier somehow has winner written all over him while his teams meet the same fate.

 

your responses are uncannily perfect as rejoinders to your own posts.

 

Well, remember that moneyball hasn't done much for the Athletics in the postseason, either. So, you just have to decide what "dividends" actually are for your team. Is it just making the playoffs every year? If so, Shane Battier is a winner.

I don't think the point of the story is to push Shane Battier as the greatest player ever. He just happens to be the subject. Just like Michael Oher in "Blind Side" and Chad Bradford, David Justice, Nick Swisher, etc. in "Moneyball."

 

I say Shane is more "fortunate" for playing on a team that wins more than being the unassuming catalyst behind those wins as the article alludes to. 

Winning teams tend to seek out "luxury" players like Battier, who are designated role players that fit a niche for a team needing his services rather than being a player who relies on him to carry a team to wins. 

That's Joe Smith's entire career in a nutshell.

 

The critique cherry-picked quotes the same way it criticizes Lewis for cherry-picking stats. Here's some more of what Wetzel said, in the same portion of the story as the Obama quote:

“I’d covered high-school basketball for eight years and talked to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of kids — really every single prominent high-school basketball player in the country,” Wetzel says. “There’s this public perception that they’re all thugs. But they aren’t. A lot of them are really good guys, and some of them are very, very bright. Kobe’s very bright. LeBron’s very bright. But there’s absolutely never been anything like Shane Battier.”

He then goes on to say that Battier was Obama before Obama. Now, taken in context, does it sound like he's implying that Battier is the first intelligent black man he's ever met? How in the world could any of this be construed as offensive?

 

To imply that a role player is the catalyst for anything is ludicrous.
As a collegian, Battier was national player of the year. He certainly was a catalyst for Duke's title.
As a pro, Battier can be an useful component of a winning team. He's a role player. A very good one, like Bruce Bowen was once, like Michael Cooper was once. You don't have to throw him the ball to keep him happy, but if you need to he can make a shot. It's not that complex. It doesn't really require an MIT grad to understand. But dismissing his value suggests a lack of understanding of team dynamics.