Following Up: More Reasons for the NBA to Get Woke on China

Tags

basketball, China, Following Up, Hong Kong, human rights, India, Japan, LawfareBlog.com, National Basketball Association, NBA, Nikkei Asian Review, sports, Uighurs, Victor Cha

Earlier this month, I published a piece on The American Conservative website scolding the National Basketball Association (NBA) and some of its star players and coaches for too often knuckling under to Chinese human rights-related pressure for fear of getting shut out of the People’s Republic’s vast and rapidly growing market. I justified my call for a more outspoken China stance by this normally politically outspoken league by noting that China wasn’t the only big foreign market capable of adding to the league’s already healthy profits and thus to the players’ and coaches’ already titanic salaries. And I observed that in fact, U.S. pro basketball has enough leverage with China to lead a global sports world push for better behavior from Beijing, especially when it comes to Hong Kong and the country’s Uighur Muslim minority.

That’s largely why it’s been great to see these arguments being reinforced lately both by some new NBA-related business developments and by a leading authority on Asian affairs.

On the business front, a recent report from Japan’s Nikkei Asian Review (NAR) observes that the league is indeed continuing full steam ahead with its efforts to win fans and rake in bucks in Japan and India. The former, not so incidentally, is the world’s third largest single national economy (after the United States and China). The latter has a population so huge and still growing so fast that it’s soon expected to surpass China as the world’s biggest.

According to NAR, this fall the NBA played its first games in Japan (exhibitions) in 16 years and the stands were packed. Moreover, the publication cites one estimate claiming explosive recent growth in subscriptions for the streaming service authorized to carry league games.

Further, the NBA’s popularity in Japan looks set to keep surging for the foreseeable future. For next year’s summer Olympics will be held in Tokyo, and the U.S. and other foreign teams slated to compete will contains dozens of NBA stars. And in 2023, Japan will be one of the co-hosts (along with other big Asian countries the Philippines and Indonesia) of the basketball World Cup.

But perhaps the biggest boost to the NBA’s popularity has been Washington Wizards rookie Rui Hachimura. Hachimura isn’t the first Japan-born player to appear in an NBA game. But so far he looks to be the best by far, and could boost the league’s Japanese fan base in ways reminiscent of Yao Ming’s impact in China.

As for India, the league opened its first office in that population giant in 2017, and although its athletes don’t seem NBA- (or major college-) ready yet, but its fans could identify with Vivek Ranadive, Indian-born owner of the Sacramento Kings. And the Kings played the Indiana Pacers in Mumbai this fall shortly before the Japan exhibition games.

Meanwhile, my claim that the NBA possesses ample clout to confront China successfully on human rights issues was seconded recently by Victor Cha, a Georgetown University political scientist and former National Security Council Asia specialist under George W. Bush’s administration. In a December 8 post for the Lawfare blog, Cha wrote:

“China may continue to ban broadcasts of [certain NBA] games, but how long before Chinese people express frustration? It’s not like there is an alternative to NBA stars like Lebron James or Steph Curry for youth on a Chinese basketball team to worship. China’s punishment may be costly in the short term, but in the long run, the demand signal from Chinese consumers will remain strong. And if the Beijing authorities are seen to be standing in the way, the Chinese Communist Party may be doing more harm than good to its own domestic standing. Moreover, the attention brought to the Chinese over the NBA ban could make the Chinese people aware of alternative narratives of the events in Hong Kong beyond the official media’s framing of the protests as criminal, thuggish and unjustified behavior.”

And I would strongly second Cha’s broader conclusion that “China’s predatory liberalism is an affront to the liberal international order, and the NBA, whether intended or not, is now a part of this struggle. Its actions going forward will set precedents, hopefully positive, for governments, companies, and individuals both inside and outside of China.”

Im-Politic: On Sports, Politics, and Boundaries

Tags

boycotts, China, culture, entertainment, First Amendment, free speech, Hong Kong protests, Im-Politic, national anthem, National Basketball Association, National Invitational Tournament, NBA, politics, Princeton University, protests, social media, sports, Vietnam War

One my my funnest (indulge me) memories of college was driving round trip between central New Jersey and New York City’s Madison Square Garden four times one week in the spring of 1975 to see the Princeton men’s basketball team play in – and win! – the National Invitational Tournament (which was a reasonably big deal back then).

During one of the games, a friend and I unfurled a dorm-made sign protesting something or other about the rapidly ending Vietnam War. We considered it an important message to send, and given the conflict’s damage to America’s economy, politics, society, and culture, and given the destruction wreaked throughout Southeast Asia, I have no problem all these decades later with the content.

In retrospect, though, I wish we’d left the banner back on campus, because I’m now convinced that injecting political and policy debates into a college basketball game wasn’t the right decision. I’m bringing it up today because I wish those well-meaning basketball fans supporting the Hong Kong protesters and China’s other repressive policies inside the arena would recognize that these actions are mistaken, too.

Don’t get me wrong: As I’ve written, I have no problem with athletes and other figures from the sports world expressing political and policy views. I don’t find them to be of any special interest, and way too often they’re the epitomes of ignorance, virtue signaling, or both. But all of them – along with celebrities and others from entertainment circles – unmistakably enjoy the same First Amendment rights of all other Americans. (Complications do arise, however, when their free speech rights clash with their obligations as employees of companies concerned that such words and actions will be bad for business.)

In fact, I’ve also urged National Basketball Association officials, players, owners, and other employees to think much more seriously about their partnership with China (and, by extension, other repressive countries), and even consider a boycott.

But just as I’ve urged athletes to keep their political views (e.g, taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem before pro football games) off the court and playing field (because their fame gives them so many other high-profile opportunities to speak out – and to big audiences), I’d urge fans to keep home their own beliefs, however heartfelt and morally compelling. The same, by the way, should apply to entertainers turning awards shows into political fora.

For even though spectators lack the renown and followings of athletes and entertainers, they’re hardly devoid of influence. They can choose to stay away from arenas, cinemas, theaters, and other venues showcasing performers, franchises, or entertainment businesses whose actions or statements they dislike. They can also organize boycotts of these individuals and organizations if they wish – and social media gives them a more powerful megaphone than ever. (For the record, I’m anything but enthusiastic about such politicization, especially regarding prominent individuals and organizations who fail to take desired stances.)

And I can’t imagine how any court could legitimately decide that such protesters aren’t allowed to make their views known verbally and/or visually on public transportation corridors and systems leading to and servicing sports or entertainment venues (subject of course to any level of government’s right to regulate protest activity in such a way as to permit travel and other everyday activity from proceeding).

But even if businesses and organizations that stage sports or entertainment events lacked the legal authority to ban activity at events that has nothing intrinsically to do with the sporting or entertainment angle of these events (the current legal consensus is pretty unclear, at least judging from this article), would anyone this side of rational and sane really want to go to, say, a Los Angeles Lakers pro basketball game and be forced to listen to some attendees heckle star LeBron James all contest long for his failure to condemn China’s human rights practices? Or to need to see “Free Hong Kong” banners throughout the Staples Center or any other NBA court?

The law plainly prevents such heckling or chants or other disruptive behavior at entertainment events where it’s crucial to listen to the performers. But even when speaking and listening aren’t important, who would really want to visit an art museum whose every gallery contains a protester or two or ten holding up Pro-Life or Pro-Choice signs? Who would really want to walk around a Central Park blanketed with Dump Trump or MAGA posters?

The sports, entertainment, and cultural worlds shouldn’t be shielded from politics and policy, and indeed can’t be – unless we want to make them completely irrelevant to our lives and to our posterity. But given all the opportunities available to all Americans nowadays to express political and policy views, it seems not only entirely reasonable to treat actual performances as refuges – including as escapist opportunities, from these other spheres, but essential to the health and vibrancy of both individuals and the nation as a whole. And these are boundaries that a genuinely wise society should be respected regardless of whether, and to what extent, they’re legally enforceable or not.

The Snide World of Sports: Judging Aaron Judge

Tags

Aaron Judge, All-Star Game, analytics, baseball, Giancarlo Stanton, Home Run Derby, home runs, New York Yankees, sports, strikeouts, The Snide World of Sports, walks

When I started RealityChek more than three years ago, I expected to post periodically on sports, but so far I’ve held off because – well, there’s been so much (important) nonsense out there and so little time! But even though the nonsense seems to be gushing forth at unprecedented rates lately, what the heck. It’s a holiday weekend. And an interesting analytical puzzle has been surrounding my beloved New York Yankees lately – what’s wrong these days with the team’s promising young slugger, Aaron Judge?

No one would argue that Judge has had an outstanding first full season with the Yankees, and has exceeded all expectations. The trouble is, his performance has tailed off notably in recent weeks, and he looked so befuddled at bat that the team benched him briefly last week. In particular, Judge was striking out at a record rate by one key gauge.

There’s no shortage of theories about the root(s) of the problem. They range from claims that Judge’s experience at home plate has simply reverted to various means that he’s been exceeding; to contentions that, in the unending cat and mouse game between pitchers and hitters, the pitchers have learned some of his weaknesses and he now needs to adjust in turn; to arguments that the umpires have recently changed the strike zone they’ve been using when Judge hits.

And the debate is greatly complicated by the fact that the cat and mouse game has probably been more extreme with Judge than the norm, since he emerged as a star so suddenly – meaning that pitchers were probably taking him comparatively lightly early in the season. And of course, relatively inexperienced players like Judge tend to have more difficulty adjusting to pitchers’ counter-moves than do more experienced players.

Baseball’s long been ahead of other sports in developing advanced data tools that enable analysts to examine situations like this in unprecedented detail – including the pitch-by-pitch level. I’ve got my own theory, though, which doesn’t rule out any of the above explanations (or others), but which can be supported with some data of its own, and meets my own eyeball and common sense tests. I agree with those who believe that Judge has thrown off his game by his invitation to, and victory in, the Home Run Derby now held by Major League Baseball in conjunction with its annual mid-season All-Star Game.

Specifically, I see lots of evidence that Judge’s priorities at bat were warped by this – incredibly popular – spectacle. For as indicated by its name, the Derby puts a premium on hitting home runs, and therefore on taking big swings in order to drive the ball over the fences. And as a result, there’s no reward for exercising the kind of control that can produce lots of valuable but less aesthetically pleasing base hits, or the kind of careful strike zone monitoring that results in bases on balls. Here’s my case:

First, let’s compare Judge’s record before the Derby and after, focusing on how often he’s struck out, and how often he’s walked. Both statistics are good proxies for how well Judge is evaluating the strike zone and whether pitches are falling within it, and whether he’s fixated on swinging for the fences no matter what, or on reaching base in easier but less eye-catching ways.

before All-Star Game/Home Run Derby                  after

total at bats              301                                            159

total walks                 61 (20.27 percent)                    38 (23.90 percent)

total strikeouts        109 (36.21 percent)                     73 (45.91 percent)

These numbers show that Judge has been walking somewhat more often per at bat since the Home Run Derby and striking out quite a bit more. The former result suggests to me that he’s still got a pretty good awareness of the strike zone, and even that he still realizes the value to his team of reaching base via walking. The latter result, though, indicates that he’s still over-swinging – because he’s got a lingering case of Home Run Derby-itis.

I became even more confident about these conclusions when I looked at Judge’s at bats before June 20, when he was invited to participate in the Derby, and between June 20 and the actual contest on July 11.

            Before June 20     June 20-Home Run Derby            after Derby

total at bats   249                                61                                  159

total walks      44  (17.67 percent)       8  (13.11 percent)          38  (23.90 percent)

total strikeouts 83  (33.33 percent)    25  (40.98 percent)          73  (45.91 percent)

The tale told here, as I see it, is that once Judge says he accepted the invite, he began practicing his home run hitting in earnest – and therefore swinging harder and with less control. For during the three weeks between his acceptance and Derby day, his walk per at bat went down significantly (by 25.81 percent) and his strikeouts went up nearly as significantly (by 22.95 percent).

Interestingly, since the Derby, Judge’s walk ratio is not only up considerably – it’s been higher than in the pre-Derby acceptance period. That sure looks like a sign that he continues to understand where his strike zone is located – despite the evidence that it’s changed. In other words, Judge seems to be meeting an even greater challenge in this respect successfully.

But Judge’s strikeout percentage has kept climbing, too. That tells me that when he sees a pitch he can hit, he remains determined to mash it, and often misses because he’s over-anxious.

But how do I deal with one of the more obvious rejoinders to my Home Run Derby theory? As I’ve been reminded today, the Miami Marlins’ Giancarlo Stanton participated in the contest, too, this year – and he’s proceeded to go on an amazing hitting tear, including home runs. My response? Stanton, in his eighth year in the Major Leagues, is a much more experienced player than Judge. So he’s less likely to be starstruck by the Derby and all the fan excitement it generates.

In fact, for all the study devoted to this subject, I haven’t seen one that tries to account for what seems to me is this crucial experience factor. But if I’ve overlooked any, please let me know. More important, whenever you’re dealing with complex situations, single explanations are hardly ever the whole story. So I have no doubt that the real explanation for the Judge conundrum is some blend of “all of the above.”  

In the meantime, it should be clear to all that these kinds of sports debates are going to continue both because however much progress they’ve made, I’m sure that the analytics are in their infancy, and more important, because, unless you make a living in the sports business (and maybe even if you do?), these arguments are so much fun. So tomorrow, RealityChek will return to the real world. For the rest of today? Game on!