A few brief thoughts on stupid questions

 Lots of chortling this morning at the expense of ESPN's top NBA reporter, Ramona Shelburne, because she asked a question last night some regarded as stupid -- including, clearly, Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra, who cut her off by saying "that's the untrained eye that says something like that."

The question?

To paraphrase, that Nikola Jokic sometimes forces opponents to turn him into either a passer or a scorer. In other words, you have to pick your poison.

Couple of things about that.

One, it's amusing sometimes to see members of the media rip the media, particularly when the members in question fancy themselves outsiders who aren't really members of the media, because they're not "the MAINSTREAM media." And who themselves are guilty of many of the same sins for which they fault the latter.

It's a little like punching yourself in the face and then claiming you weren't aiming at YOUR face.

And two?

Two, the question didn't deserve the withering contempt with which Spoelstra treated it.

That's because what Shelburne was getting at was legitimate, which is that Jokic's physical gifts, basketball IQ and ability to read and react are so otherworldly you do have to pick your poison sometimes. And to her credit, she prefaced her question by conceding it might be simplifying things.

Maybe I'm simplifying things, but it sounded to me like she didn't simplify it enough for Spoelstra 

After the "untrained eye" comment, see, he veered off on a tangent about how special a player Jokic is, two-time MVP and all that, and how much respect the Heat have for him. Which did not at all address the question Shelburne asked, but was more a defense of Jokic that presumed (or seemed to) Shelburne's question was some sort of putdown.

It wasn't. And it's almost impossible to see how anyone could have read it that way.

In any case, here's the exchange. I've watched it several times. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seems clear to me Spoelstra misunderstood what Shelburne was saying. In which case, it's incumbent on the reporter to be more clear, and it's not unfair to say Shelburne could have been.

But a stupid question?

Nah. Not really.