Derrick Rose and the Limits of Player Protection

Big, sad news out of the first round of the NBA Playoffs: The Chicago Bulls' Derrick Rose has torn his ACL and will miss the rest of the playoffs. That happened in the last two minutes of the game, when the Bulls' victory was all but assured. Thus, the Bulls are already facing questions about whether or not Rose really should have been in the game at all at that point. That's good; questions are always good. Welcomed, even. But what's interesting to me is the fact that very few people are asking if Rose himself wanted to be in the game at that point.

In the very important discussion of injury prevention, it's easy to forget that athletes have agency, they're not just at the mercy of uncaring leagues and ignorant coaches. You can probably find examples of forgetting that on this very blog. In fact, you probably already have, because you're just so clever. But, it's nonetheless true; in a sense, athletes are the final veto point over their own health and playing time.

Of course, we probably already know how athletes in general- and Rose in particular- make these decisions. Absent evidence to the contrary, I will always assume that an athlete wants to play. Absent evidence to the contrary, I will always assume that superstar athletes who base their prowess on an aggressive offense will not just always want to play, but always be the deciding factor in the game. So, yeah, Rose wanted in. My guess is, unless Rose knew for a fact that playing in those final minutes would end his career early, he'd want to play. And even if he did know that, he'd need to think about it.

This, of course, makes preventing career-ending injuries a lot harder. But I'm not sure what we can do about it. I'm not sure what we even want to do about it. We all love it when athletes play through pain. We love it when they throw caution to the wind and leave it all on the floor and a couple other cliches, too. It's just in the DNA of sports culture; athletes play through pain, and we the fans feel inspired.

Which is not to say that we should give up on the issue; in fact, if we can't expect athletes to choose not to play through injuries- if, indeed, we want them to play through injuries- that's actually a pretty good reason for beefing up the rest of the system. Leagues need to have better rules for monitoring and disciplining. Coaches need to be more sensitive to injuries. Medical staff needs to be better trained. And yes, players need to be better informed about their injuries, if only so when they inevitably elect to play through them, it's at least an informed decision.

If athletes didn't always want to play, they'd be something else. That's an important limitation to recognize as we talk about preventing injuries. But not because it informs what we can't do about the issue; it's important because it helps define what we can- and should- do.

One Does Not Speak Ill of the King

Last week, Chicago Bulls Superstar and CWS crush object Derrick Rose criticized the referees in the Bulls' game against the Knicks, saying:

“I gotta be the only superstar in the league that’s going through what I’m going through right now,” Rose said late Monday. “But I can’t say too much about it.”

As you can read in the above link, Rose was fined $25,000 for the remark. My heart doesn't exactly ache for him, as I know he's got the money to cover such a fine without blinking.

But I still think this is bullshit.

I understand that the NBA has an interest in protecting the image of integrity and fairness in the game. Indeed, the league is still living in the wake of Tim Donoghy. But when the league is going so far as to fine individual players for criticizing referees- especially in terms as gentle as Rose did- it's just coming off as paranoid, defensive, and honestly, counterproductive.

Let's start with this: I think everyone has a right to criticize the people who have power over them. That includes professional athletes, and at a certain point, no one has more power over them than the referees (or umpires, depending on what sport you're talking about). I think it's fine to put limits on this: people shouldn't be able to falsely accuse their bosses of a crime, and I'd have no problem fining players for alleging bribes, conspiracies, etc. But the basic right to question authority shouldn't be denied.

The other major leagues get this. The NFL provides teams a formal process to complain about a call and even get it reversed. The NHL has set up a "Situation Room" to make sure that the calls from the referees are correct during each game. And baseball has ritualized complaints against its umpires to such an extent that it's considered a legitimate tactic to psych up your team.

But in the NBA, players, coaches, and even owners are disciplined just for saying that the officiating was bad in a particular game. And that does nothing to enhance the NBA's image. Seriously, the cat is out of the bag on the refs. We all know that they're human and that they fuck up, and our mind isn't changed just because the players themselves don't complain. In fact, trying to silence the critics of the refs makes it seem MORE likely that the fix is in. Far from putting the specter of Donoghy out of our heads, the NBA is reminding us of him every time they punish a player for criticizing a ref.

It's always important to question how well the referees are doing their jobs. It's not even specific to the NBA in the wake of Donoghy. It should be constant goal in all sports at all times to get their officials as close to perfect as possible, and you're never gonna get all the way there, so we have to keep working. That means questions and criticism. And when the questions and criticisms are limited to the pundits who don't have as much skin in the game, we're not going to make any progress on that goal.

Somebody Call the WAAAAH-mbulance!

I'm a little late on this one- it came to my attention about a week and a half ago, thanks to official Friend of the Blog Zoe (not to be confused with official Cat of the Blog Zoey). Something stuck in my craw about it, but I couldn't determine what.

Anyway, Jeff Schultz at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution took the NBA's temperature at just about the mid point of this abbreviated season, and found the results troubling. I can't disagree, although I'd prefer some hard numbers on whether or not this season has seen more injuries than previous ones (We here at CWS demand DATA, dammit!). Subjectively, I feel like I agree, and I think that's bad for the NBA, because I'm clearly losing interest every night Derrick Rose doesn't dress. But I don't really know if there's more injuries, or if it just SEEMS like there's more because the player I'm most interested in has been in and out.

On a more solid note, we have this, which Schultz is correct about:

"This isn’t all Stern’s fault. Yes, he saw dollar signs, as did the owners, in mandating a 66-game schedule when 50 would’ve been safer. But the players’ union signed off on this deal. They wanted the revenue, too."

Now, I can't abide by the players' risking their long-term health and careers for some short-term cash (or, more accurately, risking OTHER PLAYERS' long-term health and careers). But I feel like we're being a little hypocritical here. EVERYONE wanted this season to be played- the owners, the players, the fans, everyone. It wasn't just about revenue for all of those actors- the fans weren't gonna see a dime, obviously. Everyone was willing to give a little to make it happen, too, and the players ended up being willing to give a lot more, but we've been over this, that's their livelihood.

Moreover, we spend so much time in sports PRAISING players for putting their bodies on the line for the game. "Leaving it all on the field." "Being willing to bang bodies." The last scene of Major League, where Tom Berenger ruins his knees for the Pennant. It seems weird to now chastise players for risking their bodies just to play at all (especially because just playing at all IS a risk to the body).

But mostly, I'm just leery of any sort of "We must protect the players from themselves!" sentiment. I know, I know- these guys aren't medical professionals, they don't really know what their bodies can take. But they certainly have access to doctors, and I think if they want to take that risk, we kinda gotta let 'em. I mean, clearly we had to this time, or we just weren't going to get the NBA for a year.

Again, I'll call out their greed for what it is. But they were also willing to take a risk to make sure a game we all wanted to see was played. And as such, I think I'd just rather enjoy the game.