It’s not about the vaccine. Sure, the vaccine seemed like the reason Kyrie Irving was the NBA’s most polarizing player this season. He refused to get the shot(s) that the science community recommended and New York City required of employees, which kept him from playing most of the Nets’ home games this year, and he became part of our national screaming match: He should get the vaccine, everybody should get the vaccine, he doesn’t have to get the vaccine if he doesn’t want it, some of these vaccine rules don’t make sense, whatever happened to freedom, etc., etc. But plenty of athletes have declined the vaccine. Irving drives people wild because of what he did to his team.
In the summer of 2019, Irving signed a four-year, $136 million contract with the Nets. In the three seasons since, he has played in just 103 of his team’s 226 games—partly because of injury, but mostly because of his own choices. Before the vaccine issue, he took a leave of absence with no explanation. Nets coach Steve Nash said he didn’t know where Irving was and general manager Sean Marks said he was “disappointed” Irving was “not in the trenches with us.” Irving later said it was a family matter. He also violated the league’s health and safety protocols. He seems to take great pride in having different priorities than the public expects from professional athletes, to the point where you wonder whether his priorities aren’t as important to him as being different.
Now here he is, heading into the postseason play-in tournament as one of the NBA’s most exciting players. The Nets have not really looked like a team all year, though. James Harden came and went. Ben Simmons came and hasn’t played. Still, the Nets are a dangerous 7-seed in the tournament, and this raises an uncomfortable question: If Kyrie Irving and the Nets somehow turn it on this spring and win a championship, what does that say about the league?
