WTF, Avery?

Can't believe I'm not DB-ing this, but can't find it anywhere else. So what's the deal with AJ on this obviously legit question from Sefko after Game 5? If I'm Eddie, I get Avery alone after later and ask him what the hell point was he trying to prove.

 

Yeah, I had some SEC coaches try to pull that shit with me a long time ago. I agree, too - Sefko should have pulled him aside. I don't care if you're Coach K or JimBob Badass at the local high school, you won't treat me like one of your pompous, arrogant athletes you deal with.

 

Sorry, but if you get PO'd about that response you need tougher skin. Hell, that's about a 2.0 on the "insult" scale.

Johnson clearly was pissed at the call and wanted an objective observer to offer an opinion. He asks me that question in a presser and I give my answer regardless of whether it jibes with his view.

All the guy had to do was say: Avery, I thought he got fouled but I get the impression you think it was a bad call.

Or...

Avery, I thought it was a bad call and I think you do, too.

Nobody cares what he thinks? I'll bet his readers do.

 

Looks like Avery was making the point that he didn't want to be put on the spot to answer that question. But he's the coach and he's paid to be put on the spot and the reporter is paid to put him on the spot.

 

When I'm the beat guy, not a columnist but the beat guy, and I've got a microphone in my hand at a press conference that I know is being televised, the last thing I'm going to do is say "Yeah, coach, you guys really got screwed" or didn't get screwed or whatever. It's not a matter of how thick the skin is. I'll tell him later, one on one, if I felt he got screwed.

And I don't care if my readers want to know my opinion. If I'm the beat guy, they should never know my opinion.

And I seriously doubt Avery wanted an "objective observer to offer an opinion." He didn't want to answer the damn question.

And, for what it's worth, I've known Avery for quite a long time, since his early NBA playing days, and this is out of character for him. But he still should have answered the damn question

 

Well, the foul was called on Nowitzki. TV replays indicated Nowitzki didn't touch Wade in the back as Wade drove past. And the ref motioned that there was a push in the back and called the foul on the big German. So if I'm the beat guy I write what I saw in my gamer so the readers know the ref called a foul when there was no foul.

And the beat guy isn't allowed to have an opinion?

If that were true then no beat guy/woman will ever be allowed to question any play-call, substitution or decision by a coach/manager ever again either in a presser or in his or her story. Right?

 

Furthermore, if thou shalt criticize Lord Stern's NBA, fines will be forthcoming. Can't blame him for not saying what he really felt. If anything, it was a creative way to express his anger.

 

people overanalyzed this one. avery was really fucking mad so he said what he said. i don't think he had a plan to save himself from a fine or to legitimately seek out someone else's opinion. he was in a bad mood and the question didn't help his mood. sure he's a professional and should answer questions like a grownup but it's understandable that he snapped. if this is his version of snapping, compared with other famous meltdowns, it's nothing to get worked up about.

 

I agree...That's why I gave it a 2.0 on my "insult" scale. (That was the headline).

I would assume most of us have received much harsher treatment from a coach/player.

I know I have.

 

Jesus, this is J101 stuff.

Of course you write what you saw. You going to write what you didn't see? If it was a questionable or controversial call, you write that. And you get a quote from the participants and/or their coach about it, which is what Sefko was trying to do. And Avery wouldn't answer the question. If that was his intention, fine, he could simply have said "Next question" or whatever, and that would have made his point. He's been around long enough to have that as an option.

And I'm as opinionated as anyone, but not in my gamers. I'll write if a call is controversial, but very seldom am I going to write it's flat-out wrong unless the official who made the call admits it, and the next time I hear that will be the first. Many times, especially in late deadline games, you don't have the luxury of watching the replay 15 times, so you're not sure if it's wrong or not. You might think it is, but that won't pass muster. But you do know if it's controversial.

If I'm columnizing, obviously the rules are different.

 

Geez, never thought the boys might have been on deadline. :

But if memory serves, Dallas had to take its final timeout between Wade's two fts, correct? So can we assume it is possible that would have given some writers an opportunity to see the TV replay?

If the replay was available to see even once you better be watching it rather than relying on your short-term memory to describe that play. And if you saw the replay you can write what the replays showed. And in this case the replays showed no push in the back by Nowitzki.

You don't need a comment from the ref, though it would be nice. He made his most telling statement in front of 18,000 fans and thousands more watching at home on TV.

 

the "dont stutter" line at the end of the clip is what gets me.

look, this is going to happen sometimes. johnson -- a competitive guy -- just got fucked in a critical game. there has to be some understanding that he may react this way. but what he does at the end to a guy who has been around his team all year is just bullshit. you dont need to embarrass him like that. i do feel he owes sefko an apology for that alone.

a tv reporter friend of mine ended up in a similar situation years ago and was just as flummoxed as sefko. it can be difficult to handle for the first time, particularly when youre not expecting it. he said a print guy walked up to him and said, "next time, tell him that you are expected to be unbiased in your reporting, which is why you need to hear [johnsons] opinion."

i thought that was good advice.