Talking NBA with Jemele Hill
Posted by Andrew on October 16, 2007
Jemele Hill, a Page 2 columnist and writer for ESPN the Magazine, recently joined TMB for a few minutes to discuss the aftermath of the Tim Donaghy gambling scandal, the reason for USA Basketball’s great summer, and the upcoming NBA season. She also sat down with us in May during the NBA Playoffs.
Hill, formerly a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, Detroit Free Press, and North Carolina News & Observer, is a Detroit area native who has covered the NBA for most of the past decade. Besides writing for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine regularly, you can occasionally catch her on ESPN First Take, Jim Rome is Burning, and 1st and 10 weekdays on ESPN.
TMB: As a woman sports columnist in a predominantly male profession, what are some of the biggest challenges you’ve had to overcome?
JH: You have to overcome certain perceptions, namely that you don’t know as much or that you’re in a certain job because of not only your gender, but your race. Overall, I’ve had very positive experiences with both male colleagues and supervisors. I’ve never felt like I didn’t get an opportunity because I was a black woman. There have been some occasions where I was scrutinized differently because I was a black woman, but that wasn’t from any of the people I worked with directly. You just have to have thick skin. Outsiders can judge what you do and don’t deserve, but if you are confident in your ability, you can’t worry about what other people think.
TMB: Which writers influenced you the most at the beginning of your career and who are some of the ones that you enjoy reading regularly?
JH: I grew up in Detroit when it was a thriving two-newspaper town. I read both sports sections every day. The writers I loved were Terry Foster, Bryan Burwell, Mitch Albom, Charlie Vincent and Joe Falls. They made me fall in love with sports sections and columnists. Every day, I just had to see what they thought about things, and that’s always a mark of a great columnist. As I developed my skills as a journalist, I started to read other columnists nationwide, many of which I still follow. Michael Wilbon. Bill Rhoden. Gwen Knapp. Selena Roberts. Jason Whitlock. I always was an avid reader, so I try to read a variety of people — not just newspaper writers. These days, I don’t read as much as I’d like. But I love anything by Nick Hornby. My all-time favorite book is “Their Eyes are Watching God,” by Zora Neale Hurston. Within the last six months, I read Rhoden’s “40 Million Slave,” which is a classic and Dave Kindred’s “Sound and Fury.” Both were excellent.
TMB: Let’s take a minute to talk about this summer’s events around the league. Where does the Tim Donaghy gambling scandal rank in terms of low points in NBA history?
JH: I hesitate to speak in extremes, but I’ve got to think it was the lowest. Donaghy’s actions compromised the integrity of the sport. We don’t know what to believe. We think it was just the disreputable actions of a lone ref. But do we really know that for sure? This one guy has made us question outcomes, player behavior and the credibility of the league itself. The brawl at the Palace was nothing to compared to what Donaghy did.
TMB: This summer USA Basketball had perhaps their strongest showing since Dream Team I and II. What has been the biggest difference between this team and previous ones that have failed to meet expectations?
JH: Kobe Bryant. With some of the previous U.S. teams, sometimes it wasn’t always a question of talent, but one of desire. Kobe is the most competitive player in the NBA, with a drive that is a replica of Jordan. You need a guy on your team who takes losing personally. The moment Kobe showed up, LeBron James felt like he had something to prove, and it’s taken this team to a new level. This team will win the gold.
TMB: As we wrote about when the NBA released it’s 07-08 schedule, the league’s television ratings have dropped each of the last six years here in the United States. Do you see this as a major issue, and if so, what needs to be done about it?
JH: If I were David Stern, I would stop worrying so much about what everyone thinks and just concentrate on doing things to improve the product people see on the floor. The age limit was a step in the right direction. But the league is what it is. The NBA’s popularity remains steadfast, particularly if you factor in the growth overseas. It’s a league built on individual stars, and people — positively and negatively — are fascinated by the players. In the offseason, nothing generates buzz like NBA trade rumors and acquisitions. People love everything about the NBA, except for the games, which is unfair because it’s not like every NFL or college football game is a classic. It seems as if the commissioner believes foreign expansion is the answer, but that’s a mistake. Yes, the NBA does need a certain amount of penetration in foreign markets, but I’d like to see him, again, deal with the product.
TMB: With the Western Conference having perhaps the top three or four teams in the NBA, do you ever see the league switching to a 1-16 seeding format?
JH: See, that’s just one of the things the commissioner should consider to improve interest in the league. Even as the East strengthens — see: KG trade — it’s still a good format that will give people a chance to see the top two teams fighting for a NBA title. I’m not sure if NBA fans can take the Spurs annihilating another team in the Finals.
TMB: With so many great players in the league today, if you were starting an NBA expansion team, and could choose any player to build around, who would it be and why?
JH: It’s got to be Tim Duncan. Spurs have never missed the playoffs with Duncan. His defense, offense, just the way his presence makes his teammates better — it’s a no-brainer. They’ve built a dynasty around him. It’s just incredible how underrated he is. And now, the argument is settled: Duncan is a better player than Shaq. He’s a 4-time NBA champion, two-time MVP, and three-time Finals MVP. It’s Duncan, by a mile.
TMB: Looking towards the upcoming NBA season, give us one player from each Conference who is most likely to have a breakout season?
JH: Of course “breakout” is a loose definition, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Juan Carlos Navarro gave Kevin Durant a little competition for rookie of the year. And as much as it pains me to say it, we might see something from J.J. Redick this year. I don’t believe he could be a NBA starter for every team. He needs a special situation and with Orlando making some serious upgrades with Rashard Lewis, it’s possible Redick will have it. He’s shot well in training camp and appears to have his confidence back. I’m not saying expect 20 a night from him, but this year it’ll make a lot more sense why he’s in the NBA.
TMB: Give us one team that was in the Lottery last season, besides the Celtics, that will make the most noise this season?
JH: Pre-Greg-Oden’s injury, I would have said Portland. But I like the Grizzlies, even though I don’t expect them to make the playoffs. They’ll be very fun to watch with Mike Conley Jr., the Navarro kid, Rudy Gay, and Gasol. Getting Iavaroni from Phoenix also was huge. Again, they won’t make the playoffs, but I think they could make a 13 to 15-game improvement.
TMB: Who’s your early favorite to win it all?
JH: San Antonio. Pretty hard to pick against them. They are truly one of the great teams. It’s just too bad that people can’t appreciate them.
TMB: Thanks for spending a few minutes with us, and we’ll check back in with you during the middle of the season.
October 17, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Well done Drew!
October 18, 2007 at 10:05 am
Thanks to everybody who submitted questions, I hope you got what you were looking for.
Tim Duncan is probably the best franchise conerstone in the league, but because of his age, I think I’d go with somebody like LeBron, D-Wade, or maybe even Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire if I were starting an NBA franchise. That’s just me.
October 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Asking her whether or not Kobe will still be in Lakerland this season would have been a good one, but overall, you have to like the questions that were asked and answers that were given. Great job.
October 19, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Honestly, little has changed since May 31st, when we wrote that Kobe will be a Laker in 07-08. He played last night against the Sonics, so that was a good sign for Lakers fans. http://themelobackpedal.com/2007/05/31/five-reasons-kobe-will-be-a-laker-next-year/
October 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Great interview!
I think people are too eager to tweak the NBA. Yes the Spurs killed the Cavs and the West has been dominant. But two Eastern teams have won in the past few years, and before that the East was best (in the 90s). People talk as if the Suns, who have never made it to a Finals with this group of players, would beat any team in the East. Why don’t they say that about baseball or football teams who have never made it to a finals? In every sport the two best teams can meet before the finals. And there have been sweeps or near sweeps in other sports, and blowouts in the Super Bowl. Heck, there was something like 20 years of almost all blowouts in the Super Bowl. And it still rated higher than any other show on TV.
I guess it’s true that NBA TV watchers are much more temperamental. People will only watch the NBA finals, apparently, if it’s really competitive, and the two teams can’t be “boring” teams like the Spurs and Detroit. And then they only watch if they can’t think of another excuse–the league is “thuggish” or something.
Contrast that with the NFL. People who don’t even know how many downs there are in American football will watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. I’m not complaining, just trying to explain why the NBA is subject to constant calls for reform: because the revenue-producing NBA TV watchers are so fickle.
October 19, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Being a Jazz fan since the 80s, I never thought I would really hear the words, “getting Iavaroni…was huge.” Amazing!
October 19, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Iavaroni is obviously much more appreciated as a coach than he was as a player. I’ll bet most diehard NBA fans don’t even know that he had a playing career. Most of us just remember him for Hot Rod saying “Don’t shoot it Iavaroni!”, but he’s been a great assistant coach for awhile, so hopefully it’ll work out for him.
I think the NBA needs to tweak the playoffs, not just because most of the best teams are in the West, but because the Conference Finals should be the four best teams in the league. You could argue that the Cavs, Pistons, and Jazz, as well as they all played last season, probably weren’t top four caliber. “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”, but something is clearly broken when the Spurs go 8-1 against their final two opponents. Isn’t it supposed to get more competitive the deep you get in the Playoffs? I’m almost sure that’s how it’s supposed to be…
October 20, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Thanks for slippin in my personal questions. I like Jemele’s writing style: straight forward - no bells and wistles. Remind us of anyone?
October 22, 2007 at 8:58 am
The Spurs dominated the Jazz, but that was because of an upset early on the allowed the Jazz to advance to the final round. The Jazz didn’t get there because of an advantageous seeding. Upsets are still possible–that can’t be a bad feature of the system. Sure the Cavs were not a good finals opponent, but sweeps are not common on the Finals under the current system. Reforms shouldn’t be based on a single year.
A larger problem with seeding everyone equally is that conferences and divisions would then become meaningless or pernicious. Say winning 50 games makes you a 12 seed in a 16-team seed all NBA tournament. But winning 50 games in the Atlantic is not like winning 50 games in the Northwest. In the latter you play better teams more times. To make it fair you’d have to make everyone play everyone equally. That would probably lengthen the calendar length of the season or force a shortening of the season.
Isn’t the basic concept of being a fan expressed in the phrase from the Onion? That is: “The sports team from my area is superior to the sports team from your area?” Well, it’s kind of fun to root for the West or East, or for a team like the Cavs to have pride and try to represent the East in the Finals.
October 22, 2007 at 9:49 am
You make a great point about how the division/conference games might become meaningless, and I certainly agree with that aspect, but I think you’re forgetting how lopsided the Finals have been over the last decade. Since the ‘94 Finals, only one Finals series has actually gone the full seven games (’05), and only seven out of thirteen times has it even gone to six games. I’m thinking something can be done about that, even if it isn’t by the means of switching to a 1-16 seeding format.
October 22, 2007 at 12:36 pm
For me the Western dominance of recent years is purely coincidence. There’s really no hard evidence as to why there seems to be smarter owners/coaches/gm’s out west than there are in the east. A common theme with eastern franchise is simply incompetent owners/gm’s. Why they all seem to be in the east is a mystery to me. Its certainly not a lack of money. I believe the horrible gm’s of the east will eventually be purged - just as our body purges a virus or illness. Nature will take its course and the scales will be balanced again.
Also, Imagine if Kobe was traded to the east. That would change everything very quickly.
October 22, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I think that the east dominated so much in the early to mid 90’s and then all the cornerstones of their teams either retired or left for other teams. Then the owners had no one to go to and either had to start rebuilding and/or pay older players more than what they were worth to try and stay on top. While the east was dominating, the west was aquiring the likes of Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki. And now its coming back to the east with the likes of D-Wade, Lebron, and Chris Bosh. I think its just a big cycle that’s going to go around and around. In 4 to 5 years watch the east really start dominating again.
October 22, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“For me the Western dominance of recent years is purely coincidence.”
You’re probably right—so in ten years it’s possible that the East is good and the West bad (especially because of the lottery which rewards poor teams). But that still doesn’t change the fact that the randomness of bad divisions and bad conferences can result in lopsided Finals matchups (which may not be as likely to happen in a system with no divisional seeds and conference playoffs) . I’m just taking the side that it’s not so bad. Hey, at least the Suns were in the playoffs! And they still got their shot at the Spurs. It just wasn’t at the end. Big woop. Is it all about TV ratings? That’s kind of important, but not that important.
Maybe basketball is just an inferior sport. It’s more civilized than the other sports, but you have these weak parts like the fact that almost every shot/ rebound/ attempted steal etc. involves players acting for the refs and the refs trying to see through their con game (as it is with a lot of civilization, as violence decreases, deception increases!). At most points in the game, getting a good call is almost as good as scoring (unlike other sports), so you have people using almost as much energy to get a call as to score. And you have the bizarre second splitting at the end of many games, that doesn’t happen in football, basketball, hockey or soccer. That’s part of my theory. But I still like basketball best.