Erik Spoelstra's nihilist defense of Bam's 83

The Heat coach calls his view of the NBA regular season "Darwinist." It feels more nihilistic. Perhaps the right defense of stat-padding that allows for critiques of other controversial tactics is more existentialist in nature.

Good morning. I withdrew from my only college philosophy course, so grab the salt and down a few grains. Let's basketball.

A lot of the criticism of the way in which Bam Adebayo broke Kobe Bryant's modern single-game scoring record and became No. 2 all-time in points scored in an NBA game has been dumb. Every game with this level of individual dominance will drip into gimmick at some point.

The primary gimmick for Adebayo was that he realized the Wizards could not even dream of guarding him without fouling for three quarters, and so he attacked relentlessly and got a ton of free throws as a result. With key Miami scorers out, this was important to the Heat's chances of winning. The gimmick cranked up once Adebayo and the Heat (and the Wizards, let's be clear) saw history in sight and went for it. As Bam stayed in the game to rack up more points, the Wizards – hoping to avoid being the team that gave up more than 81 – cranked up the gimmick on their side. The Heat escalated from there. Erik Spoelstra, probably the most respected current head coach in the league, participated thoroughly in the gimmickry.

There was way more criticism of Adebayo's performance than there has been of any recent huge scoring session, which isn't to say other explosions have drawn criticism. Joel Embiid's 70-point game drew commentary on his foul-hunting. Devin Booker took heat for shot-hunting when the game was decided. (There were intentional fouls in that one, too. The biggest difference is that the Suns lost.) But the reason Bam has drawn so much more heat? Because he beat Kobe's modern record. Kobe fanatics are littered through the league and the media. (Bam himself is a huge Kobe fan.) You cannot disconnect Bam's achievement from the fact that it knocked Kobe down a peg on one of the all-time lists where Kobe is near the top.

This is why it's interesting that Spoelstra is creating a philosophical argument in defense of Adebayo's striving achievement. Anthony Chiang of the Miami Herald shared Spo's comments before Miami's Thursday game.

“I apologize to absolutely no one. Period.”

“I’ve seen people say, you’ve got to be a purist,” Spoelstra continued. “I’m a Darwinist in this league. Really, you can do anything you want in this game. You can approach it however you want. If we get criticized for what we do, there was probably irony in these two organizations. There’s nothing wrong with what [the Wizards are] doing. If you can tank and get a great draft pick, I don’t care. Like, you can do anything you want in this league. You can approach it however you want.

“We don’t do that and we have a 14th pick do something that you’re trying to get out of the No. 1 pick. I’ve seen teams hack a Shaq. Debate it or not debate it, who cares? You can do whatever you want. You foul three-point shooters, not foul three-point shooters. You can take the last shot in the game that’s already over or don’t take it. Who gives a damn? Like, you’re allowed to do what? I don’t even believe in that.”

This is a fascinating defense, tying the gimmicks to get Bam more points – which Spoelstra later correctly points out took up about two minutes of game time after Adebayo had already established himself in record books – to other more widespread gimmicks like tanking, intentional fouling and the unwritten rules of the game. Essentially, Spoelstra is saying that there's little material difference between aggressive stat-padding and fouling up three. In either case, you're manipulating the rules and the situation to get what you want.

Spoelstra calls it Darwinism. I'm not sure I follow that. It feels more like an NBA nihilism, at least for the regular season. "You can do anything you want in this league. You can approach it however you want." This is a critique of the existing values that some critics are leveraging to admonish Adebayo and Spoelstra for chasing 81 down the stretch. He's using this line of argument – that there is no intrinsic "right way" to live in the NBA's regular season, that there is free choice among the participants – to defend not just his own actions on Tuesday, but to defend something the Heat never do, which is tanking. (Of course, being a Pat Riley disciple, he does get a body blow in on the Wizards by pointing out that the Heat usually pick no better than No. 14 and get players as good or better than the teams picking higher.)

What's interesting to me is that this nihilism angle has not really been used to defend tanking! Why?