I'd rather hear people criticizing small-market teams' decisions (as they do others' decisions) than what's much more common, which is acting as though small markets should be grateful for any talent that deigns to play there or any level of success at all https://twitter.com/HPbasketball/status/1302299363176099841

For example, every single time the Pacers fire a coach, it's treated by 'national media' as an outrage. Happened both with Vogel and McMillan. As if just because the team is over .500 they can't want better than that. Whereas NYC, L.A., etc., are expected never to be satisfied.

And you see it when a small-market team is expected to make a trade. The universal take is that the team should jump on crummy offers from big-market teams. How many times was it said the Pacers were dumb not to take Randle, Clarkson, and two low picks from L.A. for Paul George?

This thread may seem self-contradictory, since the first tweet asked for small-market teams' decisions to be criticized, and then the next two tweets were all about *how* the teams *are* criticized! Okay, okay. But it's a bizarre 'criticism' to say the teams drive a hard bargain.

It would be clearer for me to say: What's needed, or would be appreciated, at least occasionally, is some criticism of small-market teams' decisionmaking from a perspective that is not 99% focused on the needs of big-market teams.